Sponsored

Just how ECO is the Ecoboost?

DeepImpact15

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Threads
10
Messages
76
Reaction score
24
Location
Mesa AZ
First Name
Brett
Vehicle(s)
2015 Deep Impact Blue Ecoboost
We all faced (or will be facing) the huge decision between the big nasty 5.0 or the technically astonishing 2.3 Ecoboost. For the majority it came down to performance versus fuel costs. But, just how economical is the 2.3 and is it really worth it to sacrifice over 100hp? I decided to experiment and find out just how "eco" the Ecoboost really is.

This test really came about because, after buying my new Mustang, money became a bit tight and I needed to stretch a tank of gas as far as possible. At first this was a reason for deepest sorrow because it meant short shifts and keeping well out of the fun side of the boost gauge. But after a few days it quickly became a cool little game with the consumption meter keeping score.

My route through Mesa and Phoenix mixed a bit of city work with long stretches at 65 MPH on the freeways. To maximize efficiency the windows stayed up and the AC (regrettably) stayed off. The car in question is a 15 Ecoboost manual :headbang: with a 3.15 rear end and optional 19 inch wheels with all season P Zeros. My general technique for hyper-miling the Mustang involved light throttle application and shifting around 2000 RPM. Like I mentioned earlier this is by far the least fun way to drive a Mustang. The engine really does turn into a typical four cylinder when the turbo is not force feeding it. But, like a typical four cylinder it returned some astonishing numbers. In city driving I was able to keep the car at about 25 MPG which is pretty darn respectable. Once I got on the freeway though the car essentially began pipetting fuel into the cylinders. I have been routinely seeing the car getting 38-40 MPG. I have gone nearly 400 miles on my last tank and still have about 60 miles of range left. My round trip to work is 34 miles and the car indicates that it only use 20-22 miles of range round trip.

So, in this humble old boys opinion yes go ahead and get over the V-8. The Ecoboost puts out 8/10ths of the performance with dramatically better economy. That GT power is only a tune and some bolt ons away...
Sponsored

 

Teezlr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Threads
31
Messages
548
Reaction score
334
Location
Nashville, TN
Website
www.JakeTiesler.com
First Name
Jake
Vehicle(s)
2021 Mach 1 HP - 2000 Land Cruiser - 2001 Sequoia
We all faced (or will be facing) the huge decision between the big nasty 5.0 or the technically astonishing 2.3 Ecoboost. For the majority it came down to performance versus fuel costs. But, just how economical is the 2.3 and is it really worth it to sacrifice over 100hp? I decided to experiment and find out just how "eco" the Ecoboost really is.

This test really came about because, after buying my new Mustang, money became a bit tight and I needed to stretch a tank of gas as far as possible. At first this was a reason for deepest sorrow because it meant short shifts and keeping well out of the fun side of the boost gauge. But after a few days it quickly became a cool little game with the consumption meter keeping score.

My route through Mesa and Phoenix mixed a bit of city work with long stretches at 65 MPH on the freeways. To maximize efficiency the windows stayed up and the AC (regrettably) stayed off. The car in question is a 15 Ecoboost manual :headbang: with a 3.15 rear end and optional 19 inch wheels with all season P Zeros. My general technique for hyper-miling the Mustang involved light throttle application and shifting around 2000 RPM. Like I mentioned earlier this is by far the least fun way to drive a Mustang. The engine really does turn into a typical four cylinder when the turbo is not force feeding it. But, like a typical four cylinder it returned some astonishing numbers. In city driving I was able to keep the car at about 25 MPG which is pretty darn respectable. Once I got on the freeway though the car essentially began pipetting fuel into the cylinders. I have been routinely seeing the car getting 38-40 MPG. I have gone nearly 400 miles on my last tank and still have about 60 miles of range left. My round trip to work is 34 miles and the car indicates that it only use 20-22 miles of range round trip.

So, in this humble old boys opinion yes go ahead and get over the V-8. The Ecoboost puts out 8/10ths of the performance with dramatically better economy. That GT power is only a tune and some bolt ons away...
Thank you for that! :thumbsup:
 

DanFish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Threads
16
Messages
678
Reaction score
71
Location
Arizona
First Name
Dante
Vehicle(s)
2015 Ruby Red GT, 2015 Black Eco
That's nice to hear deep. Do you plan on getting a tune for your eco?
 

JJ@WMS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Threads
38
Messages
287
Reaction score
87
Location
Woodbine MD
Vehicle(s)
2015 EB Mustang
Even with our basic "torque tune" we get 29mpg on the highway at 75mph and thats with the 3:55 rear gear. Ours is a stick car.

Our 2011 GT usually got around 19mpg

JJ
 
OP
OP

DeepImpact15

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Threads
10
Messages
76
Reaction score
24
Location
Mesa AZ
First Name
Brett
Vehicle(s)
2015 Deep Impact Blue Ecoboost
That's nice to hear deep. Do you plan on getting a tune for your eco?
Yep I did an OTS SCT Tune on my Focus ST and that actually picked up a few MPGs (and a good amount of power.) The Mustang will be getting a custom tune once I have the capital to invest and make up my mind on who to go with.
 

Sponsored

Billy1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Threads
25
Messages
658
Reaction score
268
Location
South
Vehicle(s)
Mustang
We all faced (or will be facing) the huge decision between the big nasty 5.0 or the technically astonishing 2.3 Ecoboost. For the majority it came down to performance versus fuel costs. But, just how economical is the 2.3 and is it really worth it to sacrifice over 100hp? I decided to experiment and find out just how "eco" the Ecoboost really is.

This test really came about because, after buying my new Mustang, money became a bit tight and I needed to stretch a tank of gas as far as possible. At first this was a reason for deepest sorrow because it meant short shifts and keeping well out of the fun side of the boost gauge. But after a few days it quickly became a cool little game with the consumption meter keeping score.

My route through Mesa and Phoenix mixed a bit of city work with long stretches at 65 MPH on the freeways. To maximize efficiency the windows stayed up and the AC (regrettably) stayed off. The car in question is a 15 Ecoboost manual :headbang: with a 3.15 rear end and optional 19 inch wheels with all season P Zeros. My general technique for hyper-miling the Mustang involved light throttle application and shifting around 2000 RPM. Like I mentioned earlier this is by far the least fun way to drive a Mustang. The engine really does turn into a typical four cylinder when the turbo is not force feeding it. But, like a typical four cylinder it returned some astonishing numbers. In city driving I was able to keep the car at about 25 MPG which is pretty darn respectable. Once I got on the freeway though the car essentially began pipetting fuel into the cylinders. I have been routinely seeing the car getting 38-40 MPG. I have gone nearly 400 miles on my last tank and still have about 60 miles of range left. My round trip to work is 34 miles and the car indicates that it only use 20-22 miles of range round trip.

So, in this humble old boys opinion yes go ahead and get over the V-8. The Ecoboost puts out 8/10ths of the performance with dramatically better economy. That GT power is only a tune and some bolt ons away...
Is this "mpg" from the computer? Or did you do real time calculations
by checking how many gallons you did on your last fill up and then dividing the mileage on the odometer by the gallons?
 

SnowFox226

Active Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2014
Threads
0
Messages
33
Reaction score
2
Yep I did an OTS SCT Tune on my Focus ST and that actually picked up a few MPGs (and a good amount of power.) The Mustang will be getting a custom tune once I have the capital to invest and make up my mind on who to go with.
COBB seems to be the people to go with. I'd ask them youth if their tunes not only optimize stock performance. But also optimize the mpg. Better yet.. I think I'll do that :rolleyes:
 
OP
OP

DeepImpact15

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Threads
10
Messages
76
Reaction score
24
Location
Mesa AZ
First Name
Brett
Vehicle(s)
2015 Deep Impact Blue Ecoboost
COBB knows their way around a turbo motor and usually they include an "eco" tune which limits boost.
 

C.Fair23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Threads
1
Messages
94
Reaction score
1
Location
Chicago
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang GT Premium
I don't think you need to stay off of it as much as you are. I live in Chicago and on my first tank I got 24 MPG , which was almost exclusively city driving, with the exception being about a ten mile trip on the expressway to see how she handled at speed. I wasn't flooring it every where, I basically just went with traffic and usually shifted around 3-4k rpm. I'm all for trying to hypermile it to see what you can squeeze out, but its nice knowing that even during regular driving the eco still gets good gas mileage.

Also, I have a manual with 3.31 final drive. I didn't know 3.15 was possible on manual.
 

stangs-R-me

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Threads
21
Messages
536
Reaction score
131
Location
Northeast Wisconsin
First Name
Doug
Vehicle(s)
1969 GT & 2016 EB Mustangs
Per the Dealer Source Book:

3.31 is std. on all EB & GT w/ M/T
3.15 is std. on all V6, EB & GT w/ A/T (and M/T V6)

Doug
 

Sponsored
OP
OP

DeepImpact15

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Threads
10
Messages
76
Reaction score
24
Location
Mesa AZ
First Name
Brett
Vehicle(s)
2015 Deep Impact Blue Ecoboost
Ah solid info I should probably read more.
 

SnowFox226

Active Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2014
Threads
0
Messages
33
Reaction score
2
I have a question, on wether I should order the Eco PP or not. I am new to world of cars I. Terms of modding. I want to know how much the rear axel drive ratio effects the mpg of the car. So what's the difference between the 3.31 and 3.55? As in, what change can I expect to see in the car in terms of mpg difference, how it drives, and if this mod is Cheaper through the PP or to get it done aftermarket? Thank you!
 

Billy1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Threads
25
Messages
658
Reaction score
268
Location
South
Vehicle(s)
Mustang
With a lower axle ratio(i.e. numerically higher), your revs in any gear will be higher. The higher the constant revs-the lower the mpg(a few % points). However, the lower gears are better for acceleration away from a light.

Go with the 3.31 if mpg is more important. I would get any mods from the factory(where available e.g. PP) as you know you are getting quality instead of risking your new car on some local mechanic who may not know what he's doing.
 

Big_G

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Threads
31
Messages
1,483
Reaction score
394
Location
Sunderland, UK
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT Fastback
It'll be interesting to see what sort of mileage we get in the UK why the car is released next year. Our gallons are slightly larger so there's already an increase, our standard petrol is 95 octane and premium is 98 octane which should help too. I have a feeling Ford might detune the engine because of this though.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Threads
94
Messages
3,883
Reaction score
569
Location
MD
Vehicle(s)
Ford Explorer Sport
It'll be interesting to see what sort of mileage we get in the UK why the car is released next year. Our gallons are slightly larger so there's already an increase, our standard petrol is 95 octane and premium is 98 octane which should help too. I have a feeling Ford might detune the engine because of this though.
Just FYI, you're only getting the PP Eco...so that will be 3.55 gears.
Sponsored

 
 








Top