Which has more lower TQ?

[slag1911]

Car and Driver instrument tested 50 to 70 ecoboost quicker then gt by a sec and 3 sec vs the gt350 and Camaro SS. Not results I would expect either. Granted these are quite low rpm pulls.

so the mighty ecoboost bests the gt350 too? The "part throttle" king of the streets! :lol:

Sponsored

 

[tw557]

Nothing part throttle about it. It is a low RPM torque test that they claim to do to test the torque curve. Sure this test is not as sexy as the 1/4 mile run but but its not completely irrelevant as everyone makes it out to be. Considering all the comments that this can't be true because look at the dyno curves.

 

[TomcatDriver]

Car and Driver instrument tested 50 to 70 ecoboost quicker then gt by a sec and 3 sec vs the gt350 and Camaro SS. Not results I would expect either. Granted these are quite low rpm pulls.

Are you talking about something like this?

http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...st-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-4

This is against a V6 Camaro, and I am sure you are talking about the "top gear pull" line on the comparo.

Top gear pull is almost meaningless because it is so dependent on....TOP GEAR. Top gear is an overdrive. So yes, if you are in you MT6 and just stubbornly refuse to downshift, you can beat a V6 Camaro in a top gear pull.

 

[foghat]

Nothing part throttle about it. It is a low RPM torque test that they claim to do to test the torque curve. Sure this test is not as sexy as the 1/4 mile run but but its not completely irrelevant as everyone makes it out to be. Considering all the comments that this can't be true because look at the dyno curves.

Explain how according to car and driver the gt goes 30-50 in 9.6 seconds vs. the ecoboosts abysmal 15.2 seconds.

Would seem to me that 30-50 is more relevant than 50-70 in this around town, daily driving thing that is so important to you. No?


btw, the numbers I am looking at show the GT 0.6 (not 1.0) seconds slower in the 50-70.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files...review-car-and-driver2015-ford-mustang-gt.pdf

http://media.caranddriver.com/files...t-manual2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-manual.pdf

 

[tw557]

This is the one compared to the GT:

http://blog.caranddriver.com/five-o...mustang-ecoboost-manual-performance-compared/

I do understand it is a bit extreme but not completely meaningless. Some of us like the bottom pull that surprising some very large V8's can't do. If I was still racing around the track it would certainly be meaningless. On the street it is much more meaningful for my daily driving. Thats why its great we all have choices for all different wants. I was just bummed that the mightly V8 didn't do it all for me especially in the automatic without using the paddle shifters all the time.

 

[foghat]

This is the one compared to the GT:

http://blog.caranddriver.com/five-o...mustang-ecoboost-manual-performance-compared/

I do understand it is a bit extreme but not completely meaningless. Some of us like the bottom pull that surprising some very large V8's can't do. If I was still racing around the track it would certainly be meaningless. On the street it is much more meaningful for my daily driving. Thats why its great we all have choices for all different wants. I was just bummed that the mightly V8 didn't do it all for me especially in the automatic without using the paddle shifters all the time.

But again, the GT kills the EB in 30-50 (9.6 sec vs 15.2) - surely that is more important than 50-70 in around town daily driving?

 

[tw557]

Yes, the difference is quite small. Well the 50-70 is a bit extreme and the 30-50 is just crazy for any car and probably didn't let any boost in the motor. So no I don't drive that low. But the testing comparisons I did were more in the 2000 to 3000 range. This is where the difference was substantial to me. With our very short power band and measly top end pull, this was about half way into our power range. I wasn't sure if the sound difference was making the GT sound slower or what. That is why I did 3 more test drives and started comparing from landmark to land mark to figure out what I was missing. Heck even took a 2012 for a test drive. I assume my issue I have driven too many turbo cars in the past even like a typical 335i and my audi TTS. The low end pull is just remarkable to me even though the 1/4 time is not that great. Well the Audi with a full tune was incredible all around with a 12.4 1/4 time I got. And the future repair bills were also going to be incredible.

 

[Freedom]

this is such a stupid thread. GT owners are going to defend themselves because the GT is the higher end model with a bigger engine and ecoboost owners are going to defend their cheaper purchase.

 

[thehunterooo]

I drove an Aveo for years and never had issues with power around town. I think people need to learn how to drive? If you can't DD a GT because it is not nippy enough then you have other issues.

Stop racking up miles on the test drives trying to justify your purchase.

 

[Spykexx]

Explain how according to car and driver the gt goes 30-50 in 9.6 seconds vs. the ecoboosts abysmal 15.2 seconds.

Would seem to me that 30-50 is more relevant than 50-70 in this around town, daily driving thing that is so important to you. No?


btw, the numbers I am looking at show the GT 0.6 (not 1.0) seconds slower in the 50-70.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files...review-car-and-driver2015-ford-mustang-gt.pdf

http://media.caranddriver.com/files...t-manual2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-manual.pdf

Firstly 30-50 top gear? Who the f**k does that lol. And to me that sounds like perfect conditions to have infinite time numbers due to a rod dragging on the ground for the ecoboost lol.

 

[tw557]

The thread is pretty stupid, all I did was try and give the ecoboost a little credit for the one area of its performance that is pretty good. I also mentioned the areas it is quite weak.

I don't need to learn how to drive. But I did take multiple test drives to drive the GT differently then I drive turbo cars. I tried driving by just consciously pushing the pedal farther then I normally would. And believe me I didn't take 2 hrs off work, drive 1:45 hr with $8000 cash pulled from the bank to go for a test drive to justify the ecoboost. Actually I was at the point I just didn't give it respect. I never really did but figured its an ok car for 22000. Kept saving and sold some motorcycles to get the GT. Took first test drive in a base GT Auto and was like WTF. Where is this bottom end grunt. Dyno charts say its there. I had visions of having effortless short shifting fun and let it scream from time to time. So, as I've said MANY times, for me the GT is not much fun for my driving area. So No, its not nippy enough for me.

And yes I have no idea why Car and Driver would consider a 30-50 test. 50 to 70 is bad enough.

 

[slag1911]

Pro tip: slap a fart can on that 4 cyl. to really unleash that nippy "part throttle" power and boost that pedal feel.

 

[wireeater]

Just a lot of purchase justification in this thread both ways. Personally I couldn't careless about low RPM torque as my car already struggles for traction.

 

[Norm Peterson]

And yes I have no idea why Car and Driver would consider a 30-50 test. 50 to 70 is bad enough.

To give the reader some feel for how much response and flexibility the tested car has in non-enthusiastic daily driving (which probably corresponds to the hardest driving those who don't have an enthusiastic-driving bone in their body will ever attempt).


Norm

 

[Ebm]

.

Pro tip: slap a fart can on that 4 cyl. to really unleash that nippy "part throttle" power and boost that pedal feel.

Another NC Stang. Cool.

Sponsored