Mustang GT vs Mustang Ecoboost

[Swoope]

Regarding turbo fuel economy, I get a pretty consistent 31-33 in my GTI. I mostly drive on two lane mountain Highway, with some city mixed in. I typically shift when the car wants me to, which is almost always below 2500 RPM. However, I do go WOT for a couple parts of my commute. I do tend to be frugal on gas, minimize acceleration most of the time, keep my speed up in the corners, try to time the lights and avoid braking as much as possible. No A/C, and roll down the windows instead. I usually get a bit above the HWY rating in most of my cars. In my Z I'll get 25 or so. Anyhow, if you drive a turbo down low in the RPM range and deal with the lag, you can get pretty good economy, even if you push the car a bit.

-T

interesting,

i get about ~27 mpg.. fla usa. windows up.. but mostly hiway to and from work.. 20 miles each way. a bit more on long trips, but have rarely seen over 30 mpg.. and i am light on the gas.


but it was better than the ms3. lucky to get 24 mpg on a good day... but still a good car..

gti really a great car.. i hope the stang can make my rx8 and gti can become one car..

hoping..

beers

Sponsored

 

[Colleton]

I just took my wife's Focus ST for a drive. I hadn't driven it in over a year and had forgotten just how much fun that car is to drive. The 2.0T engine revs to 7K, has torque for days and the car is an absolute blast to drive. If only it were RWD...

I know they are different cars, but I have to think that the 2.3T engine in the new Mustang is going to deliver comparable (i.e. FUN) performance. With 50+ additional HP over the 2.0T engine and more torque as well, I think it's going to make a lot of people happy.

If I were buying one for a DD I think I'd get the 2.3T w/PP. For a weekend fun car I'd get the GT w/PP or wait for the SVT car.

 

[JoelinNOVA]

I think for the most part this poll speaks to what most like the Mustang for. V8 power and the rumble of the exhaust. I understand many will choose the EB since it is less money then a GT. Not sure if they choose for the fuel economy. My guess is if you have a heavy right foot the EB will not get much better fuel economy than the 5.0 will. Since w the V8 you don't have to be on the gas hard and it still is fast.
Either way it's all good.....

View Poll Results: Which 2015 Mustang have you ordered?
3.7L V6 Fastback 1 0.61%
3.7L V6 Convertible 0 0%
2.3L I4 Ecoboost Fastback 2 1.23%
2.3L I4 Ecoboost Fastback Premium 25 15.34%
2.3L I4 Ecoboost Convertible 1 0.61%
2.3L I4 Ecoboost Convertible Premium 2 1.23%
5.0L V8 GT Fastback 10 6.13%
5.0L V8 GT Fastback Premium 96 58.90%
5.0L V8 GT Convertible 0 0%
5.0L V8 GT Convertible Premium 3 1.84%
5.0L V8 GT 50 Years Limited Edition Fastback 23 14.11%
Voters: 163. You have already voted on this poll

 

[JoeDogInKC]

I think this poll is heavily biased by a complete Mustang community here. I would think that most of us, being enthusiasts, would want the v8. The normal public want a fun, decent handling sporty car that's usable with kids, etc. I'm pretty sure that these numbers would be completely different to an open public poll outside of a Mustang community.

 

[juzef]

i'm a bit concerned about the reliability of the ecoboost. pushing that much power and torque out four cylinders has got to get hotter and involve far greater stress than compared with the V8 GT.

 

[Chris]

+1. But, the EB4 gets my vote as the engine of choice.

 

[Gman11Gt]

Seems that the weight of the car didn't come down enough on the EB and has me reconsidering. I don't think the MPG is going to be much better then the V6 since its going to be in boost more often then not carting around a 3500lb+ car. Seems a lot of weight for a 2.3l. I was hoping we would see a 3300lb EB or less.

It just seems to be a lot of stress and heat will be added into the 4 pot.

Either case, probably would consider a lease, not long term purchase of the EB.

After 3 years I then would buy a GT.

 

[Magmetallic15]

If you are looking at the fuel economy of the EB, I am betting that Ford will highway rate it at 34mpg (to get this best in class rating they claim). This gives the car w/ a 15.5 gal take a range over 500 miles. This is what they shoot for with tank size and mileage ratings. As an owner of a 14 Focus that was highway rated at 38mpg, that in the real world of interstate speeds the car gets 33-34. The aero package on the current Ford lineup Focus/Fusion/and now 15 Mustang is not as good as they were in the 2010 time frame IMHO. Too much European front bumper cutouts for fog lights and sharp edges.

 

[scottpe]

The aero package on the current Ford lineup Focus/Fusion/and now 15 Mustang is not as good as they were in the 2010 time frame IMHO. Too much European front bumper cutouts for fog lights and sharp edges.

Ford have already stated that they achieved a 3% reduction in aerodynamic drag for the 2015 Mustang...

 

[Clink]

Ford have already stated that they achieved a 3% reduction in aerodynamic drag for the 2015 Mustang...

Yeah right next to the fog lights there are slits that allow air to flow through, I've only seen a few pics I can think of that showed it very well.

Edit - just found this when searching and thought it was pretty cool

 

[scottpe]

Neat pic!

 

[Old 5 Oh]

My best mpg's in the GTI was about 33-34mpg averaging about 50-60mph.That only happened on one tank of gas ever. And while I used to think it was pretty efficient, I don't any more even though on average i get better mpg's now than i used to. I will agree though it will be hard to get anywhere near EPA ratings if you go 70+mph. At those speeds the turbo is just about always spooling a little bit. I still got over 26 mpg going 75-80mpg, maybe sometimes a little faster.

This matches my experience with my 2009 GTI. I averaged about 25 mpg over the 30k miles I had it. Good, but not great.

I replaced it with a 2007 Lincoln MKZ to keep the Mrs. happier on long trips (that has worked out well) and wonder of wonders am averaging 24-25 mpg over the last 70k miles. Keep in mind that's with a 263-hp, 3.5L version of the 3.7L V6 in the Mustang. Just threw down a 29 mpg tank on a freeway segment through Nevada this weekend.

The lesson is that turbos do indeed use fuel in proportion (or more) to the power produced, not to their displacement. I imagine an EB4 will be able to hit high 20s on the freeway at legal speeds, about the same as my big old Lincoln. But pushed on a backroad, or driven enthusiastically in town? Like my GTI, the EB4 will be well under 20 in the real world.

Sure hope no one gets fooled into thinking that 310+ horsepower will come in a 30 mpg box. It's very unlikely that Ford has received an exception to the laws of physics.

 

[Old 5 Oh]

I think this poll is heavily biased by a complete Mustang community here. I would think that most of us, being enthusiasts, would want the v8. The normal public want a fun, decent handling sporty car that's usable with kids, etc. I'm pretty sure that these numbers would be completely different to an open public poll outside of a Mustang community.

Totally agree. No WAY Ford is going to see a GT take rate of 65%. More like 25% with the EB at 50% and the V6 at 25%.

The $6,000 cost difference between an EB and a similarly-optioned GT is pretty imposing for the non-enthusiast public. Heck, it's making me think twice, though I will probably stretch and make the GT work.

 

[Old 5 Oh]

i'm a bit concerned about the reliability of the ecoboost. pushing that much power and torque out four cylinders has got to get hotter and involve far greater stress than compared with the V8 GT.

No doubt that's true when the boost is all the way up. However, during normal driving boost is minimal and stresses are very manageable. Given the high-quality materials Ford has spec'd to handle max boost, I'm thinking the EB will do just fine on reliability. Ford has a LOT riding on this technology and cannot afford a 300-hp hand grenade that detonates at 75k miles.

 

[908ssp]

Let's see Ford's Eco boost four is 2.3 liters makes 305 hp.
Mercedes 2 liter four makes 350 hp.

BMW had a 1.5 liter four that made over 1000 hp twenty years ago...

Sponsored