By on June 12, 2015

2015 ford mustang ecoboost front side

I’m giddy like a school girl when the Mustang shows up. This is my ride to southern New Jersey for the 24 Hours of Lemons race, and it’s a perfect tool for the job.

I think the new Mustang looks much better in person than pictures. This color combination is love at first sight. Upon closer inspection, it has the coveted Performance Package, and a peek inside reveals its optional Recaro seats and, most importantly, a proper six-speed manual transmission! Yes, the car Gods have smiled upon me.

Yet, the biggest surprise is when I start the engine…

2015 ford mustang ecoboost engine

…which sounds like the Ford Escape.

Yup – it’s the new four-cylinder Mustang EcoBoost. That deep V8 tone, pronounced by a sweet rumble at start-up that makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, is gone. Instead, I get the sound and fury of a CUV.

I keep an open mind because surely no one at Ford would put this four-banger into a Mustang if it’s anything but great. To be honest, to me, this is the most interesting engine of the three available, if for no other reason than I simply don’t not know what to expect.

Right away, this engine feels different than most sporty turbocharged fours. For one, it feels heavy. It does not rev very freely, as if there is a heavy flywheel attached. Interestingly, I said the exact same thing of the 1.0-liter three-cylinder in the Fiesta. Secondly, the torque curve is very flat and without much lag, both good. Ford says the engine’s peak 320 lb.-ft. is available between 2500 and 4500 rpm. There are 310 horsepower at 5500 rpm and it seems to drop off when approaching the redline.

2015 ford mustang ecoboost rear side

Accompanying that power from 2500 rpm up is the sweet sound of turbo whistle – quite addictive. During street acceleration or highway passing, this engine whistles blissfully while pulling hard, and it almost makes up for the lack of the V8 sound. Almost. But I question the noise: is it organic or is Ford fooling me?

So it’s got torque, but is it fast? That’s depends on your definition of fast. Buff books say the EcoBoost ‘Stang will achieve 0-60 mph in 5.5 seconds and complete the quarter in 13.9 seconds. That was fast some years ago, but today that’s hardly quick; a V6 Accord is just two tenths slower through the traps. The EcoBoost Mustang requires persuasion to really move fast, whereas a V8 engine would seemingly have all the power, all the time.

Even when driven in anger, I wouldn’t go racing any V8 Mustangs and, trust me, every Mustang driver on the road will want to race you. Just look away. If you’re into modifying, you’ll be happy to know there are EcoBoost Mustangs running around with 400 horsepower at the rear wheels.

2015 ford mustang ecoboost dash

Despite being the smallest of the three American muscle cars, the Mustang isn’t a small sports car, being six inches longer and two and a half inches wider than the BMW 428i coupe. It weighs 3,532 pounds, which is about 100 pounds more than the Bimmer and 170 less than an equivalent Mustang GT.

While it feels heavy, Ford has somehow managed to make this weight work, and it’s damn fun to drive on any road. Despite being at a race track, I did not have permission to do any laps in the ‘Stang, but I am certain it would do quite well with the Pirelli P-Zeros as part of the Performance Package.

What I’m disappointed with is the fact Ford went through all this effort to make the F-150 body out of aluminum but only the hood and fenders on the ‘Stang. Less weight, which one would expect in the change to a four-cylinder engine, would drive the fun factor way up. It would improve the fuel economy, too, which the EPA rates at 22 mpg in the city, 31 mpg on the highway and 26 mpg combined. On my somewhat casual New Jersey Turnpike drive I got about 27 mpg. With the overall trip average, which included the fun Merritt Parkway and crowded Bergen County, I averaged 23 mpg. For comparison, the manual V6 gets 17 mpg city and 28 highway, while the V8 manual is rated for 15 mpg city and 25 highway. Not that fuel economy is a selling point of the Mustang.

2015 ford mustang ecoboost interior details 2

The rest of the car, to be brief, is great. The Recaro seats, despite lacking side bolster adjustments or bottom cushion extension, are very comfortable for the six-foot-two me and drew cheers from the dozen guys who asked me if they could check out the car. While supportive, the seats are not difficult to get in and out of and not at all tiring over my six hour drive. Unlike the conventional seats, the Recaros are not heated or ventilated, and they don’t return to their original position after accessing the rear seat. If I had one wish, it would be for slightly more headroom for the times one is wearing a helmet. The rear seats are best suited for shorter folks.

The shifter is damn near perfect for enthusiastic driving – not too short, with only the sixth gear not always where expected; little to the right. It was as if the car wanted to shift naturally from fifth to fourth, but going into sixth requires more decisiveness, which makes sense. The clutch pedal feels a bit stiff, reminding you this is no econobox, but it is not difficult when stuck in gridlocked traffic on the George Washington Bridge approach.

2015 ford mustang ecoboost exterior details

Once seated, forward visibility is very good and much improved over the previous generation, but the side mirrors are a bit small. The dash is nicely laid out, with all controls within easy access. Some things, such as the toggle switches chrome-like trim or the “ground speed” speedometer, may not be to everyone’s taste, but everything worked very well. It has taken me many years, but I have finally warmed up to the love-it-or-hate-it, soon to be replaced MyFord Touch system, which in this car was complimented by the Shaker audio system. The HID headlights are excellent, too.

What irks me are the selectable drive and steering modes. There are four driving modes (normal, snow-wet, sport, and track) and three steering modes (comfort, normal and sport). With each restart they default to normal. I understand all automakers do this now for various reasons, but I shouldn’t need to tell my Mustang to be sporty each time I get into it. It should have two modes: Go! and LMHBSMA!, let-me-hoon-but-save-my-ass track mode.

2015 ford mustang ecoboost other details

The 2015 Mustang EcoBoost starts at $25,300. This Premium model punches it up to $29,300. The Shaker audio system is $1,795, adaptive cruise control is $1,195, Performance Package (19” wheels with Pirellis, 3.55 LSD, thicker rear sway bar, bracing, larger rotors and 4-piston front calipers, larger radiator, gauge pack) is well worth $1,995, $1,595 for Recaro seats, few other minor options and destination charge bring the price of the reviewed vehicle to $38,585. For comparison, an equally equipped GT model would cost over $5,000 more.

Minor annoyances aside, I really like this ‘Stang. I love how it looks (especially in this color combination, which seemed especially tricky to photograph). I like all the features, the fun-to-drive factor, comfort, refinement, and its surprisingly large trunk – but it does leave me somewhat puzzled. It’s not significantly lighter, cheaper, or economical than a Mustang with the proper V8 engine. It’s also not much faster than the V6. It exists so Ford can sell the Mustang around the world, but anyone who buys one anywhere will be reminded they should have gotten the V8 every time they start the engine.

2015 ford mustang ecoboost

Kamil Kaluski is the East Coast Editor for Hooniverse.com. His ramblings on Eastern European cars, $500 racers, and other miscellaneous automotive stuff can be found there. He and his team were doing really great in the race right until they blew the engine

Ford Motor Company provided the vehicle for the purpose of this review. 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

127 Comments on “2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost Review...”


  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    I saw an EcoBoost Mustang at a dealer optioned up to over $32k. Awful lot for a 4 cylinder anything…

    For that money, I’d rather have a GT that’s a few years old.

    • 0 avatar
      nitroxide

      BMW makes 5-series sedans with a turbo four that they sell for about $55,000+. It’s bit that much of a stretch to think that in the modern era we can have a smaller, boosted engine that gets sold gas mileage and still fulfills our needs/desires.

      • 0 avatar

        That’s because BMW isn’t selling “an engine”.

        It’s selling a name: B M W.

        You’re paying MORE FOR LESS just so you can say ” I drive a Bee Em DOUBBA U”.

        Then debage the car, add some racing stickers and HOPE everyone thinks you have something fast.

        If anyone mentions “SRT”… Just say: “yeah but they can’t corner”.

      • 0 avatar
        Jacob

        Ford also sells a turbo-4 Fusion, Focus and Fiesta ST for the price of a Honda Civic SI (add or subtract a little)

  • avatar
    Chopsui

    “…being six inches longer and seven inches wider than the BMW 428i coupe. ”

    SEVEN inches wider? Are you kidding me? The Challenger isn’t even that wide.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      The info is false. Without mirrors, the Mustang is 75″ wide. The 4-series coupe is 72″ wide without mirrors.

      The Challenger, Camaro, and Mustang are all basically 75″ wide, or 3″ wider than the 3/4.

      • 0 avatar

        Sorry, I made a mistake (despite checking it twice) the info is wrong but you’re not right either.
        Mustang width with mirrors – 81.9
        http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/specifications/exterior/
        428i width with mirrors – 79.4
        http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2015/4/428iCoupe/Features_and_Specs/428iCoupeSpecifications.aspx

        A difference of 2.5 inches.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        My data is from Ford and BMW sites too. It’s just body width though. Not taking in account mirrors at all (folded or not).

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        @bball40dtw you have proven yourself to me to be the epitome of accuracy. When I see numbers being bandied about, I am always relieved to hear you weigh in, because I know that then the BS stops (like when the hammer drops).

        Don’t know how or why you do it, but it is a breath of fresh air.

        Have you ever thought about writing an article for the site?

        I for one would like to see what else you have up your sleeve in the way of car knowledge.

  • avatar
    DevilsRotary86

    The Recaros would be a no-go for me. My wife absolutely insists on adjustable head rests in her seats.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      You can opt to not get the Recaros and do the rest aftermarket.

      I personally think it’s a good option, unless you’re going to seriously track it; the standard seats are good enough.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    I’m not opposed to the idea of turbo’d 4 cylinder pony cars, but to make me want one there’d have to be tangible benefits. For example, my ’15 Challenger 5.7L 8AT track pack returns around the same fuel mileage that Kamil noted in this car, but is bigger, much faster and has a great sound track. There’s never a day I second guess my decision on this car.

    • 0 avatar
      VW16v

      Didn’t know the 5.7 L could get 23 mpg in traffic. Good to know.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        As long as you keep rolling. Stoplight to stoplight is definitely worse. I’m sure the city mileage is worse in the Challenger, but i have no problem getting high 20s on the highway and over 30 on 50mph back roads.

        In my mixed driving (50/50 city hwy), I’m averaging 22.4 mpg as of this morning over the last 500 miles.

        • 0 avatar
          TrailerTrash

          well…stop light to stop light is the definition of city driving, is it not?
          Keepin it rolling is an easy way for any car to get good MPG. This the hyper driving.

          I am averaging 24.3 right now today on my MKS ecoboost. This is pretty split urban/country.
          So I don’t now why the difficulty in reaching the EPA on this car.

          On another note…recently started putting Gulf 91 oct marine fuel in. Suddenly, after the computer figured it out, my 2.0 ecoboost Escape has gone from 24.6/25 to 26.6 ave.

          I hate corn in my fuel!

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      My friend recently bought a Mustang 2.3T convertible. He has about 7000 miles on it and he is averaging 28 MPG. Typically he sees over 30 on the freeway and low 20s in the city. I wouldn’t buy the 2.3T Mustang over a Chally, but he likes it better than the 2011 5.0L that was replaced.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        That would be more like what I’d expect to see.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          It’s better than the real world FE I got in either the Focus ST or VW GTI.

          I’m waiting for a bump in power to the Coyote or I’m just going to bite the bullet and get a GT350.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            I can’t see how you’d ever regret the latter choice if you can secure an order.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            That’s part of the issue. I’m in waiting mode for the order slots right now. I’m not in a hurry though. I’d wait for a 2017.

            I think I’d keep my C-Max if I get a GT350, because I can’t imagine driving that thing in the snow.

          • 0 avatar
            johnny_5.0

            My wife loves the new Mustangs and she seems okay with a GT350 purchase, but I’m sad inside knowing ADM is going to kill this dream of mine. Ahh fark me, the order banks are already open!

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            Snow tires, my friend. Be a badass and winter drive it.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            The order banks are open, but I haven’t been able to place one yet.

            You are right Danio. I need to be a man and drive a GT350 in the winter with two car seats in it. Because damnit, both life and my commute are short. Never was there a disappointed kid being picked up by their father in a Shelby Mustang. Never.

          • 0 avatar
            VolandoBajo

            While safety is important, and never more so than when it regards one’s loved ones, but when the difference is measured at the fourth or fifth decimal point, the joy in the mind and heart of a kid may be worth the risk.

            I’m sure my childhood risk level would have been lower if my father had not let me ride in the front seat of large fire trucks he sold, on their way past our house to the Great Lake where they were tested, but I will cherish that memory forever.

            And my parents had second thoughts about letting my first flight be in a converted dual seat Mustang (the P-51 Packard Merlin engine type), with a dual ace for a pilot, who I made them swear not to tell it was my first ride.

            Screaming power dives, Immelmann turns, barrel rolls, name it. Enough to make almost anyone barf…but I was too proud to fail. And I will always cherish that memory as well, though I suspect my parents must have had second thoughts when, a couple of years later, a different test pilot and mechanic went down in one, with severe injuries to the pilot, and the mechanic in a box.

            Even if I had known that in advance, I would have wanted the experience, one that set me apart, made me the envy of my friends (and enemies), and made me want to do what it took to live life at the leading edge of the curve.

            Strap the best carseats you can find into the back, and enjoy the joyful laughter of your children. As I did enjoy my son laughing, standing next a group of Chinese New Year’s lion dancers, with firecrackers going off by the thousands, in a big city Chinatown.

            I showed him there was nothing to fear, and he revelled in being in the middle of it. A bit of earplug for the hearing protection, but basically a front row seat.

            Ditto the cigarrette boat ride we took him on for his second Fourth of July. Shreiked with joy at the power and the noise of the engine, then slept through the fireworks. To him, they were probably nothing compared to the Chinatown lion dancers.

            Precious childhood memories…mine and my now grown child’s.

            You will not regret giving them the experience. And you will drive safely enough that nothing will come close to harming you. Just save the hooning for a large open snow-covered parking lot, and see how kids can enjoy hooning before they are old enough to know what it is.

            Mine even liked to hoon in a Trooper when it snowed, though I had to be careful with the high CofG.

            Give your children the gifts of excitement and boldness. You, and they, will never miss those last 0.000003 % edge in the safety department, and I don’t care what the PC say about that kind of parenting.

            My son is better equipped for life because of those things, not more of a risk-taker. Just more of an adventurer.

      • 0 avatar
        VW16v

        I can see people choosing the 15′ over the 11. My neighbor has a new 2.3 convertible and it is simply beautiful. Dark grayish green, tan leather. He traded in his 2010 335 convertible. Said he enjoys it.much more over the BMW . Really a beautiful car, especially the rear end of the Mustang .

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      I really love the Challenger. Love the larger rear seat room.
      But it does not have a convertible! It is easier to design these if the rag top does not have to be factored in.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    “It’s not significantly lighter, cheaper, or economical than a Mustang with the proper V8 engine”

    This really sums up the whole I4 Mustang, at least in the US.

    I can’t believe any of the engines are going to have a substantial difference in real world fuel economy. Besides, buying a Mustang on the premise of fuel economy is not a good way of thinking. It’s like Consumer Reports testing a Jeep Wrangler for its on-road ride.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve Biro

      I like the idea of an I4 turbo Mustang because I personally believe there’s been too much emphasis on the muscle car chapter of the Pony car story over the past decade or so. Mustangs, Camaros, Challengers, Javelins et al were supposed to be light and tossable cars for their day – perhaps the Honda Civic Si’s of their time (Er, maybe not so much with the original Challenger which was a big car even then.) The really big-engined pony car period only last three or four years.

      So I’d like a turbo four Mustang. But I’d like it to be smaller and lighter than it is now. Maybe 3200 pounds, tops. I’m not asking for the impossible here. Perhaps, at age 58, I’m not Mustang material anymore. Not becuase I’m slow but because my criteria has changed over the years – even if Ford thinks that, as a Baby Boomer, the current Mustang is what I want. If I’m going to go big and heavy, the Challenger makes more sense.

      • 0 avatar
        Superdessucke

        Amen. Today, you’d think every 1970 Mustang was a Mach 1, Boss 302 or a Boss 429! Great cars like the Mustang Grande, Camaro Berlinetta, and Firebird Esprit (cooly pronounced “Ess-pree”), have long since been forgotten. I’d love to see this engine combined with a new take on the Mustang Grande or Ghia.

        • 0 avatar
          bumpy ii

          The only ’60s Mustangs I pay attention to at car shows are the 6-cylinders, since almost all of them have some boring chrome V8 whether it was stock or not.

          • 0 avatar
            Superdessucke

            A mint 1975 250 cid 6-cylinder Camaro Type LT would give me a giant woody! And I don’t just mean the vinyl applaque on the dash either ;-)

        • 0 avatar
          ttacgreg

          If memory serves me correctly, this 4-cyl will keep up with or beat these vintage models you mention in a drag race.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          My dream Mustang: Mustang II Ghia, wire wheel hubcaps, vinyl top and all, with a 300 I6 shoehorned in. And just to troll all the Baby Boomers at car shows, I’d let anyone over the age of 10 sit in the front seat for a minute or two.

          • 0 avatar
            Superdessucke

            I like your style! This one’s so hot (factory 302 V-8, Décor Group and the trunk luggage rack) that I find the girl to be a distraction.

            http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_9122-Ford-Mustang-II-1976.html

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    I’m disappointed with the new Mustang, which is still an unnecessarily chunky monkey, and now has a thankfully refined rear independent suspension (welcome to the new century, Ford), after seeing it, reviewing the motor lineup, and seeing how Ford has bundles option packages on it.

    I’m sure it will get tons of unmitigated love from the Baruth Bros, though, as they irrationally fapp to most things FoMoCo (love you guys, mean it, but it’s true!).

  • avatar
    Quentin

    $29k for a 4cyl turbo w/ track pack and recaros seems like a reasonable deal. $38k with the premium package, audio, radar cruise… Yikes. I’d be cutting back on options and ticking the V8 option.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      Yes, when I was reading the price description and saw $29K I thought it seemed reasonable too. But the paragraph wasn’t over until the $38.5K figure showed up, and at that point years of internet reading prompted a chant of “crack pipe! crack pipe!” to surface in the back of my head.

      I think the Performance Pack and Recaros are in addition to the 29K price, bringing it to ~33K in this config.

      • 0 avatar
        Quentin

        That would be a Premium trim w/ performance pack and recaros. According to cars.com, you can get a base I4-T w/ the performance pack and recaros. That one is $29k. I have no idea what you give up from the premium package when you go with the base model.

        • 0 avatar
          TMA1

          I posted this somewhere else with respect to the GT, but I think the interior’s basically the same in the Ecoboost:

          This is what the $4,000 premium for the Premium gets you:

          1) selectable drive mode
          2) leather seats
          3) heated/cooled seats
          4) dual-zone auto temp control
          5) 9 speakers instead of 6
          6) MyFord Touch
          7) satellite radio
          8) HD radio
          9) bright interior accents
          10) aluminum pedals (optional on GT)
          11) ambient lighting (optional on GT)
          12) premium door trim
          13) illuminated sill plates
          14) universal garage door opener
          15) heated external mirrors
          16) turn signal mirrors
          17) pony projection mirrors
          18) rear diffuser

          Options only available on the Premium:

          1) adaptave CC/fwd collision warning/rain-sensing wipers
          2) blindspot monitor/memory driver seats/Shaker stereo
          3) voice navigation
          4) color accent group
          5) 50 year package

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Agree, $38 is a bit shocking with a 4-cyl.

      And I keep thinking how easily they could turn this into an MK IX now with this hatch shape.

      http://cdn.speednik.com/files/2014/09/lincoln-1.jpg

      Boom!

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        Why you gotta do that to me on a Friday bro?

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Pitch it at the next FoMoCo board meeting.

          • 0 avatar
            VolandoBajo

            @28-Cars-Later You really weren’t kidding, were you?

            I’m duly impressed, and not just by the position.

            Makes me wish the intersection of my career in IT management had coincided with that place, instead of a stint, however lucrative, with “the three best friends your car ever had.”

            There were some good people in HQ there, but I would have loved to be right near the center of where a lot of automotive “good stuff” is going on.

            I just hope that Ford plays a leading role in making a system that smoothly transition from autonomy to being commanded by the driver and back. Sort of an ultra-cruise control.

            Perhaps the problems of MyTouch will enable the organization to marshal sufficient resources to be able to offer a standard of AV/driver interaction that others will aspire to.

            Computer Science was just so damned easy for me. But now I regret not taking the plunge to work harder, in order to become an automotive engineer.

            Doubtless in early incarnation AV tech will leave enthusiasts screaming the words of Red Barchetta, but done right, this could be just one more point, though admittedly a far one, on the curve of launch control, paddle shifting, adjustable suspension, variable power curves, etc., and I would not be surprised to see Ford at the leading edge of those developments.

            The next ten years may very well be the most interesting decade in automotive engineering since the beginning of precision powerplant and frame manufacturing. Not a hard thing to predict, it is right in front of us. But a very interesting time.

            Imagine for example, if the liability issues could be managed, a car that scans and learns corners and surfaces, and that can be set up to put you through such turns at maximum speed. Perhaps less than one percent of the world’s drivers could outdo it, perhaps not even that.

            There was a time when every sensible automotive person thought that automatic transmissions would never out-accelerate a manual trans, but now it is virtually impossible for a driver to outperform an automatic, in cars at the top end.

            Perhaps the Jack Baruths or maybe even only the Ayrton Sennas of the world would be able to outdo such an autonomous racing lines system, or perhaps not even them. It boggles the imagination, to say the least. But do not try to convince me that the day will not come where autonomous vehicles are not only about platooning vehicles to obtain efficient traffic management, but rather that autonomous vehicles become about pushing cars around curves faster than drivers can.

            I’d sure hate to try to outrun a police interceptor equipped with that kind of technology. But it would be amazing to be a part of developing such a P71 for the future.

            And @bball40dtw if it is true, think about that kind of an idea for leading edge auto technology development…forget Google-mobiles and even DARPA off-road vehicles, that kind of car could transform LEO vehicle pursuit into a kind of “must have” feature that could put Ford in the driver seat for fleet sales once again, as it was during the Panther era, though for different reasons.

            Or perhaps for not so different reasons, after all. A bit of “the bestest with the mostest” as some historical character was reputed to have once said, but in the LEO/cab/limo arena.

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          I knew I had to get either an aluminum XJ platform or Mustang-Mark comment in before the week was over!

          We didn’t talk about Jags this week at all, I don’t think.

      • 0 avatar
        MattPete

        Wow, that Lincoln rendition is pretty sharp! Of course, they should have built it yesterday…

        Make a 4-door version, and that is my next car.

    • 0 avatar
      05lgt

      I absolutely agree with this. This particular option package writes a giant check the 4t can’t cover. I don’t know how the options are bundled, but the V8 with the shaker audio and perf pack without some of the other stuff makes more sense to me.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    A muscle car without a V8 is fcking pointless.

    • 0 avatar
      Veee8

      I tend to agree – I drove a friends 5.0 last night, quite impressed by it and I wouldn’t take it any other way…if I had to get a 4 banger it would be a Focus ST hands down.

      • 0 avatar
        nrd515

        Wen my friend was deciding if he was going to buy his ’15 GT or not, he drove the Ecoboost, just to see how bad it was. It was “ok”, I drove it and as long as you were driving it in “pissed” mode, it wasn’t bad. No 5.0 performance, but compared to a lot of the vehicles I’ve owned in the past, pretty decent. But if you can afford the 5.0, why would you buy anything else? The mileage difference isn’t enough to really affect your driving costs in most cases (If you drive a crazy amount of miles a year, it might), and the fun factor, even the “soundtrack” is lame compared to the 5.0. My friend didn’t get the Recaro seats (He hates them, they are not comfortable, in his and my opinion), but his GT is pretty much loaded up. I have a neighbor, who could afford to buy anything under $60K without any problems who bought a loaded up Challenger SXT with the 3.6V6. I had to ask him why, what was the point? About 1-2 MPG in town, and 2 on the highway? He said he was satisfied with it until he drove his friend’s R/T, and now he’s thinking of trading it for an R/T. He never had a V8 car before, understandable since he’s only 32, but he never drove an R/T or R/T Scatpack before buying his car. A V6 Challenger is a rental car, IMHO, not worth buying unless you just totally don’t care about power/fun. Same goes for the EB Mustang.

        • 0 avatar
          VolandoBajo

          The Turbo option in the ’88 Fox body Thunderbird was not quite ready for prime time, even compared to a detuned 5.0L V8, and I suspect the EB V6 may still be in the same position, but the day is coming when turbo lag will be eliminated, perhaps by some sort of direct squirt of fuel, or a way to almost instantaneously open a higher-pressurized chamber to deliver immediate turbo bost without noticeable lag, and when engine design progresses to that phase, the V8 will not be dead, but it will have to make room for other powerful and just as good solutions.

          I am amazed that Ford has come as far as it has in as short a time as it has with the EcoBoost technology.

          And no one loves the sound and feel of a big V8 more than I do, but face the front of the classroom and pay attention: a new kid is in class, he is eating his Wheaties, and is about to undergo a growth spurt. And when that kid, known as EB, does, it will be Katy bar the door.

          Once the EB delivers better mileage, even just an mpg or two, while having no compromises built into its “value proposition”, there will be no reason to insist on a V8.

          And if the EB can be made to deliver better mileage and better performance, and with Panther-era reliability numbers, even diehard V8 fans will line up, whether enthusiastically or reluctantly.

          But with those tradeoffs, or rather lack of tradeoffs, they will line up for their share of EB technology. Or will buy irrationally and solely out of nostalgia, such as I do when I drive my ’97 Grand Marquis, realizing I could get both better performance and mileage (though not a lot of other things), if I switched.

          But I am a dinosaur, and I can still roam the Earth, so I do.

          But you cannot build a mainstream production model out of buyers reasoning as I do…when the EB passes the V8 in all categories, the EB will be the new powerplant of choice, like it or not. It seems from the comments here in general, the day has not quite come yet, but it cannot be that far off.

          Ford is not sleeping in class, and neither should you.

          When and if I get a new vehicle, it will almost certainly be a Ford. Mustangs are a bit too track-oriented for me at my age. Thunderbird is dead. Mercury is dead. And I don’t want to invest four or five figures in the future of the Lincoln Division. That leaves Explorers, Fusions and Tauruses as probably reasonable alternatives. Roominess, some handling, decent performance.

          And in each, I will try both the V8 and an EB powerplant, before deciding. But I will be looking for a powerful highway cruiser, with some cornering ability, regardless of which one, and regardless of whether or not I have to consider adding some aftermarket mods.

          V8 will no longer be the default choice. The EB will get its day in court, and will be able to show me what it’s got.

          And there will certainly come a year where Ford will not have to willfully detune the V8 to make the EB a more lively choice.

          I just don’t know what year that will be. But it will be…inevitably. And it is only a matter of time, I sincerely believe. I wish it wasn’t so. I wish the V8 would be king forever. But as a mainstream powerplant, its days are numbered.

          But if you want one badly enough, Ford, if it remains wise, will sell it to you in a Mustang, and in an Explorer. All others pay cash at the EB window, for your best deal. Not this year, maybe not next, but soon.

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      @Sportyaccordy

      And I find V8s pointless, so we seem to balance each other out.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      So, er, the original Mustang was pointless?

      In that, IIRC, *the majority of them* had the straight-six engine, not the V8 options?

      (Any of which, of course, are less powerful than the base model or the Turbo 4 option today.)

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      Tell that to the Aussie Charger or the Buick GNX.

  • avatar
    JMII

    A guy I work with just got one of these and its a really nice car. 0-60 in 5.5 is plenty fast especially with flat torque of the turbo. Like most turbos I assume its an ECU flash away from another 30 HP. And as mentioned it gets decent mileage especially on the highway. I could see the appeal of owning one.

    Riding along with him I had a few complains: 1) visibility out of the front is terrible, the long hood has two “character lines” or folds that poke up like a wrinkles on a cheap suit. They annoyed me immediately 2) The car wants to be a fastback, they should have attached the rear glass to the trunk lid. 3) The dash has fake metal bits all over it and is generally too big, too bulky and too high up. 4) The GPS sat nav has this blinking circle over the vehicle icon, this make no sense and I could not figure out how to turn it off. Things should only blink in the dash if there is a problem.

    Currently his only complain was the mode selection, he is not a track rat but he didn’t think the settings did much other remapping the shifting (his is an automatic). He really likes the car and for comparison his previous ride was newer model, nicely optioned Taurus and he has an old MG convertible “toy” for weekend.

  • avatar
    calsonicgtr

    “It’s not significantly lighter, cheaper, or economical than a Mustang with the proper V8 engine.”

    I’m sorry, but how is $7,000+ not significant?

    EB 6spd with Performance Pack – $28120
    GT 6spd with Performance Pack – $35620
    Difference – $7500

    Its even more if you look at base models

    EB 6spd Base – $25300
    GT 6spd Base – $33125
    Difference – $7825

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      Exactly what I was going to say. Thats a pretty decent chunk of change IMO. Hell, take the difference and buy a really nice Fox body 5.0 to go crazy in, leave the new 2.3T for daily driving or whatever else you plan to use it for (track, etc). Youll still have money left over to mod one or both cars.

  • avatar
    krhodes1

    I test drove one of these when they first came out. I really, really wanted to like it, but I didn’t. Still too much of a boat of a thing. Kamil hits it on the head, it feels heavy. You can’t see out of it. The amount of space inside is ridiculously small for the amount of space outside. A BMW 2-series is a good bit smaller and actually has a usable back seat.

    One complaint – enough with the “sporty car is not fast because it is barely faster than a V6 Accord” memme. A V6 Accord is a bloody fast car by any remotely rational standard.

    • 0 avatar

      Noted. I’ll use a Camry V6 next time.

      I was expecting poor visibility… but it was less poor than I expected, and significantly less poor than the Camaro, which makes it good in my book, certainly an improvement over the previous gen.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        As is the V6 Camry. In a straight line anyway. Just why would you want to go fast in one?

        Don’t get me wrong – it is a HUGE improvement over the last one in nearly every way, and in no way a bad car. But it is still a boat of a thing. Will be fun to rent one occasionally, but still not something I am willing to pay for. But I LOVE the look of them. And the price gets kind of stupid considering I paid less than $43K for my M235i.

        The only thing with worse visibility than a Camaro is a Sherman tank.

      • 0 avatar
        ponchoman49

        The Ecoboost Stang is quicker than the current V6 Camry which in the real world is a 6-6.2 second 0-60 car due to it’s slight weight increase and more economy oriented gearing. A V6 Accord sedan is roughly the same.

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        @Kamil This is the problem with those of you of the younger generation, whose horizons are defined almost exclusively by only modern, overly constrained designs.

        As in “OK, it was poor, but it was less poor than this other car that is really poor, so in my world, even though it is still poor, it is good in my book, especially since it used to be worse.”

        That used to be called a lefthanded compliment, or “faint praise is damning”, not a pathway to determining that its poorness is not so poor that you can’t call it good.

        If you are married, and said that your wife was good, and then used that logic to describe why you think she is good, I suspect you’d be glad the visibility was poor, to help keep out the light while you were sleeping in the back seat of the car, in your driveway, as your wife continued to lock you out for thinking so little of her.

        But yeah, hey, how about those bitching Camaros…neither fish nor fowl, neither a Mustang nor a Challenger. Just a cheap continuation of a long tradition of quickly depreciating pseudo-muscle cars designed to attract and lock in young male buyers before they develop enough taste and/or lust for raw power to spring for either of those other two choices.

        I have only a son, so I don’t have to worry about a daughter contemplating the visibilty out the rear of a Camaro. And my son, while not enamored of my Panther, has enough taste to aspire to a GT-R rather than to a Camaro.

        I cannot think of a single good thing to say about Camaros, and since Dylan says if you cannot bring good news, then don’t bring any, so on that note, I give you the Camaro.

        Take my Camaro,

        please…

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      Detroit has a knack for making cars that are huge on the outside and tiny on the inside.

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        It is the inverse of the clown car design: its objective is to see how many people will think that they can fit inside, but then discover that they cannot.

        But this is true of many “full size” foreign cars as well.

        And it is not true of ALL Detroit iron. In one word: Panther.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      I was saving this rant for the bottom of the thread, but this is a good place for it.

      “So it’s got torque, but is it fast? That’s depends on your definition of fast. Buff books say the EcoBoost ‘Stang will achieve 0-60 mph in 5.5 seconds and complete the quarter in 13.9 seconds. That was fast some years ago, but today that’s hardly quick; a V6 Accord is just two tenths slower through the traps. ”

      So I guess 5.5 seconds to 60 is mediocre?

      How fast is fast? Need vs want? Ego? Numerical marketing edge? These days ordinary cars absolutely stomp mega-dollar exotics from not so many years ago. My turbo sports coupe is capable of 0-60 in mid 6’s and a 15 second 1/4 mile, and is plenty fast. I have been in a few passing situations where I found myself going serous legal penalty speeds clearing the vehicles I just passed. Mu daily drive econobox gets to 60 in 10.5-11 seconds in tests, and I rarely use its maximum acceleration in any situation. Only once attempting to pass a semi traveling 65mph, I had to back off the passing attempt.

      Where does this trend end? “Our tested 2025 Corolla was only capable of getting to 60 in four seconds compared to the Civic with its standard motor manages which it in 3.5sec . ????

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        The trend ends when self-driving cars become mandatory.

        • 0 avatar
          nrd515

          Sad, but almost certainly true. I’ll be dead or senile by then, I hope.

          • 0 avatar
            Reino

            It will be sooner than you think. We already have a ‘sacrifice freedom for security’ Government in place. All we need is the technology to make it feasible.

        • 0 avatar
          VolandoBajo

          A pox upon the thought.

          Perish the thought.

          I too hope I will be dead by that day. A worse thing than the passing of the open range.

          I am afraid I can see it now: driving preserves, the prerogative of the wealthy, where they can actually drive around and do things.

          Though when “news” articles start appearing in the mainstream media, penned by nanny-state limousine liberals, comparing favorably the relatively few deaths by gun compared to deaths by automobiles, freedom (to drive) will have its neck on the chopping block, and the axe will be getting its final edge.

          And automobile enthusiasts will be vilified like gun enthusiasts are today.

          Let’s get in on the ground floor. Anyone care to begin taking the steps to form the National Car Association?

          And the first thing I want is a bumper sticker or window decal that says “I’m NCA and I vote!”

          Wish I were kidding.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      Ford are currently the masters of inefficient packaging, just as Honda are the masters of efficient packaging (see Fit). The Mustang, Explorer, Taurus, (and probably others I’ve experienced less) all have far less passenger and cargo room than you would expect in a modern car with their exterior dimensions and weight.

  • avatar
    Land Ark

    The more I see the tail lights on these, the less I like them. It looks like they weren’t installed properly and point in the wrong directions.

  • avatar
    ldl20

    “On my somewhat casual New Jersey Turnpike drive I got about 27 mpg. With the overall trip average, which included the fun Merritt Parkway and crowded Bergen County, I averaged 23 mpg.”

    Kamil: I look for every excuse to visit my buddy in Ri just to shoot up the Merritt Parkway from my home in Bergen County. One time, in my 2010 GTI, early Sunday morning, zero traffic, I was in the zone and didn’t realize I was well on my way to Hartford before I had to find an alternate route to I-95. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a trooper in a position to nail you (just traveling in the opposite direction, mostly), so, yes, this is a great road, at least here in the crowded northeast.

    • 0 avatar

      I love it at night. Did you see the link to my old article about the Merritt?

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        Sawmill Parkway. Or as John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers call it “Sawmill Gulch Road”.

        Once came down from VT into NYC on a cold, clear night in a sunroof VW Rabbit with the heater blasting, and the roof wide open. The moon was straight overhead, and it was a perfect road to lead me back to my own bed.

        There are a few lurker copcar spots, called Law Enforcement Features by traffic engineers, but not many, and it is mostly straight and clear, so even without a radar detector, it can be driven briskly, if not hell for leather.

        But it is more about the unity of man, machine, road and nature, than about the ability to cover lots of ground quickly.

        Route 9 in VT at night is also a beautiful road on a seriously sub-zero night in a solid car, and with an assured warm destination waiting. In spots, you can hear the river bubbling alongside the road.

        Take that, Walt Whitman! I’ve got your road less traveled right here! Double digit hp and a pair of antisway bars, plus the sunroof at midnight.

        Heaven on Earth, even if only lived once, or a few times.

        This is why I love life, and cars. And the people who have been there for both, with me.

    • 0 avatar

      Living in CT Ive driven the Merritt many times but most of it involves rolling at 5 mph in traffic. I was driving home from Jersey a few weeks ago and the driving cleared for a while about 7PM and I was following a XTS4 along the bends at 80-85 (hit 90 a few times) and I will agree it really was a lot of fun had never experienced it that way before.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Feeling heavier and lazier than it is was my main complaint about the last Mustang. I think a big part of the reason is the bathtub seating position. It makes for poor visibility and a disconnected feeling, which our minds interpret as heavy and lazy. It sounds like the new one is the same.

    That said, I’d still try one out if I were in position to buy a 2-door car. But mine would have the V8. If I’m willing to settle for four-cylinder sound there are more interesting choices.

  • avatar
    7402

    I’m puzzled. The Mustang already has a great selection of engines suitable to its heritage. The EcoBoost 4 is a great engine too, but this is the wrong car. I wish Ford would develop something the size of the original Toyota Celica (which took design cues from the original Mustang). Keep the wet curb weight under 1,000 kilos, slap a tall overdrive in it for awesome highway mileage to keep the EPA numbers up, and it’s good to go. To be clear, I’m not talking about an under powered Ford version of the BRZ/FRS, this car would have much more power than it needs and a better power/weight ratio than most of the V8 mustangs.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Wet curb weight under 1000 kilos? It would cost more than a Corvette, let alone a Mustang. Super-light materials aren’t cheap.

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        Yeah, even the *Fiesta* starts at 2,500 pounds and change.

        “Ford should make a lightweight supercar!” is a great idea until you realize nobody would buy it at the price it’d end up being.

        Which is why Ford won’t make one.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    It really bothers me to see a car’s base price run up 50% with options to make it decent. And although the 5.0 is more desirable, the price becomes even more ridiculous.

    This car exists for people who don’t carry passengers and don’t mind spending money on bling. A V6 Accord or V6 Camry can be had for a lot less money, less interest from the cops, less insurance premium, a lot more utility, and probably better resale.

    Guess I’m in the wrong demographic.

    Oh, and what is the name of the color combination you liked so much?

    • 0 avatar
      johnny_5.0

      I’d only compare one to a Camry in bizarro world (the Accord at least is available as a coupe). And I’m not sure what your definition of “decent” is. Sticker for a GT Premium with performance package is $39K. That doesn’t sound amazingly cheap, but you can get any non limited run Mustang for dealer invoice all day long most places. ~$34K out the door shouldn’t be hard to achieve. A V6 Accord coupe will set you back ~$29K. The five thousand dollar real world difference seems minuscule to me when you consider the performance delta. And while I like the styling of both Accord body styles, it isn’t nearly the looker in my eyes either.

    • 0 avatar
      nrd515

      What you say about the Accord and Camry is probably correct, they are more “sensible” choices.

      And a whole lot less fun. too. Boring. In so many ways. FWD squished eggs with ugly beaks on the front of them. I’m not crazy about the Mustang or Camaro styling at all, but they do look better than about anything Toyota or Honda makes, and they are a lot of fun to own. If you don’t want attention, don’t buy a pony car, especially a Challenger, it attracts attention, good and bad, like a magnet. Even after 4 years, I’m still asked about it all the time.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

        @Nrd515
        I agree. Comparing a Mustang to a Camry is like comparing a rocket to a dishwasher. Sure, youll get a lot more use out of the dishwasher, but c’mon, which would be more fun?

        It seems clear that he doesnt get the point of a pony car. Its not about practicality or resale (though Mustangs tend to hold their value quite well when kept up, especially non-base models), and its not about low insurance rates, etc., its about fun, pure and simple.

        You want to be put to sleep on your way to work? Buy a Camry. You want to enjoy your commute, so much so that you take the long/scenic route often because driving puts a smile on your face? Mustang, Camaro or Challenger, your choice.

  • avatar
    PeriSoft

    “the EcoBoost ‘Stang will achieve 0-60 mph in 5.5 seconds… …that’s hardly quick”

    Oh, for the love of God. I know it’s not 1990 anymore, but what IS quick? For a $30k car that gets 30mpg highway? How fast would this poor thing have had to be to earn your approval?!

    • 0 avatar

      You’ve removed some very important words from that quote. I intentionally left that open to the reader’s interpretation. It’s quick. It maybe quick enough for you and it maybe not be for others.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        You didn’t leave anything open to the reader’s interpretation. You flat stated “today, that’s hardly quick.”

        I agree with the criticism. The idea that 0-60 in 5.5 isn’t quick, even today, is just dumb. That was supercar territory not so long ago, and it’s still quicker than the vast majority of what’s sold today. For a mass-market family sedan, the Accord V6 you’re measuring against is blisteringly fast. It’s the fastest thing in its segment and literally seconds ahead of most of the competition.

    • 0 avatar
      Chan

      The rapidly decaying middle class (the general wealth gap evolving towards the urban-type wealth distribution) means people can only race cars on their computers, especially the young who do not see the economic opportunities of their parents’ generation.

      So anything slower than a V6 Camry is “slow,” nevermind that nobody races V6 Camrys and the real-world performance is stunted by an unresponsive transmission and commute-tuned suspension.

    • 0 avatar
      DC Bruce

      I’m sure my age is showing. In the real world, for 90% of the drivers of this car, that kind of delta-vee (5.5 sec. to 60) can get them into more trouble than they can handle, faster than they can handle it.

      Subjectively, there is a quality to the acceleration capabilities of a large-displacement engine (i.e. a V-8) that simply can’t be equaled by a smaller displacement, boosted engine. Similarly, there’s a quality to the acceleration of a normally aspirated engine (where rpm, torque and sound all build together) that most find more pleasurable than a boosted engine. It is the predictability and linearity of the throttle response of a normally aspirated engine that I prefer to that of a boosted engine, and I’ve owned and driven both.

      Having been of legal driving age when the Mustang launched, I can safely say that the car was not conceived as a Corvette hunter. It was “sporty” not a sports car. The GT package, which included a 289 cu. in. V* with dual exhausts (creating a rorty sound, not like the sound of the big displacement V-8s), a 4-speed, a 4-barrel carburetor good for, if memory serves, 250 hp gross was quick for its day but certainly not the car to tangle with a contemporary Corvette.

      FWIW, the limiting factor in acceleration times for cars of the muscle car era was certainly not torque nor horsepower, it was tires. Those 6-7 liter engines developed massive torque, even at low rpm.

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        @DC Bruce Is that you, the Bruce I used to work for and used to drub at the traffic light on Lexington Ave on Saturday mornings when you were driving a new Beemer and I was driving a new carburetted Rabbit I had hand-tuned (but with all VW parts)?

        If it is, you shouldn’t have been so standoffish when I tried to renew our friendship a few years ago. I know you believe Bill shafted you and that I was still friends with him but that wasn’t the case. Another friend of mine from back in those days, and I, have developed a close friendship by getting back in touch.

        Or is it that you’re still butthurt that I used to trounce your BMW?

        If it is that, I feel guilty, because I always swore to you that it had only stock VW parts. What I didn’t tell you was that the cat converter was EPA legal deleted, I got a Canadian exhaust downpipe to eliminate backfiring, and I removed the .125 mainjet they put in when the deleted the cat converter, because it made the car skip at about 3500 rpm.

        It began with a .15 mainjet, but that was still too little with the reduced backpressure, so I picked up a VW Dasher .175 mainjet, which livened things up a bit.

        I had to rebuild the carb all the time back in the era of gas from dirty gasless Sundays, so it was easy to just experiment with the mainjet according to standard tuning principles.

        So yes, you got beat by a Rabbit that had only stock VW parts, but they weren’t only the stock parts that came with the car originally, and it was a good bit quicker than a stock Rabbit.

        But I was having too much fun at the time to tell you the rest of the story.

        If you’re still pissed I can’t blame you, but I’m sorry we couldn’t try to renew our friendship, as we were more alike than perhaps you care to admit.

        And if it is you, then at least I have cleared my conscience of the fact that I led you to believe you were getting toasted by a fully stock Rabbit.

        Have a nice life, and don’t be a stranger, unless you are happier being one.

        And to all the rest of you TTAC-ers, sorry for the dirty laundry, but I was a bit of a merciless prick when I used to run his Beemer into the ground with a Rabbit with all stock VW parts, which is NOT the same thing as a stock ’76 carburetted Rabbit, by about a second or two zero to sixty, at least.

        I thought it was a funny trick at the time, but have come to have a bit more conscience with the passing of time. So hence, I had to try to clear the air the only place I might still be able to.

  • avatar
    GeneralMalaise

    Unlike the Camaro, I love the looks of this car. If only I hadn’t had bad experiences with Fords in the late 90s/early 2000s…

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      Things have changes since Nasser was replaced. He cheapened everything out in that era, and quality suffered.
      I mean, its been 15 +/- years since then, things are a lot better, eslecially where quality and reliability is concerned.

      I know plenty of people who drive a late model Ford product, including my parents, all of them couldnt be happier with their experiences.

    • 0 avatar
      VolandoBajo

      Ford late ’90s and early 2000’s: the great Nasser de-contenting era. Build margin by removing upscale features from midscale vehicles, causing them to lose their distinctiveness. Can you say “Panther: Aero => Whale”? And wasn’t that the era of the fakey hp numbers for the Mustang? A bad time in Dearborn, to be sure.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    38 large is just a bit much for a Mustang with the ugly black wheels, tricky non adjusting headrest seats, an engine that sounds like your starting up an Escape and the gimmicky 4 way adjustable steering/suspension that tries to be too many things. Note also that to get those 310 horses and that 26-27 combined mileage rating you must pump premium gas which adds to the annual costs of this machine. If you pump in regular 87 octane 0-60 times drop in the low 6 second range and MPG suffers some. Of course the 3.7 liter V6 doesn’t suffer this same fate and is cheaper to fuel and purchase but Ford in there GM like thinking restrict the V6 to base only models and limit the options you can get thus forcing the customer to get the 4 cylinder or GT of course.

    I would still go for the base V6 model if not for it’s lower cost and simpler layout but it’s lower fuel bills, similar real world fuel economy and better long term reliability.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      Oh, no, Premium gas!

      If you have it for 100,000 miles before selling and drive it hard at 25mpg, that’s 4,000 gallons of fuel.

      Assume a $.20 price differential for Premium.

      $800, *over the ownership lifetime of the vehicle*, for Premium fuel.

      You’ll lose that much in depreciation for driving it off the lot.

      Don’t worry about the dreaded *Premium* monster if you’re not even going to mention resale value, okay?

      • 0 avatar
        Land Ark

        A valid point, but where do you live that premium is still only 20 cents more?

        • 0 avatar
          300zx_guy

          In California, +10c per grade is pretty standard, so +10c over regular for “plus” (89 octane), and another 10c for premium (91). Some stations gauge for the premium, and occasionally you can find bargain premium on 4-5c above mid-grade. We only get 91 in CA, I guess higher octanes can’t meet CA’s environmental requirements.

        • 0 avatar
          nrd515

          It seems to be .20 more everywhere in the midwest, and has been for a very long time.

          • 0 avatar
            Japanese Buick

            Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Around here (NC) premium gas is 40-50 cents a gallon more than regular.

        • 0 avatar
          VolandoBajo

          NJ tends to step up a dime per grade, or twenty cents from regular to premium.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      Seems like you have the perfect reason to buy the V6 Mustang.

      No Performance Package, no black wheels (-$2,000)

      No Recaros, no non-adjustable headrest (-$1,600)

      No EcoBoost, no premium gas (-$1,500)

      No Premium, no adjustable steering/suspension (-$4,000)

    • 0 avatar
      Chan

      Don’t forget, to get your 27 MPG combined you can’t use those 310 horses.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      Like GM? The new Camaro’s turbo 4 is the base model, not the V-6. So, how again is Ford like GM in “forcing” you to buy the turbo 4 to get options?

      And you realize that the car tested here has almost every option possible, right? Its not like every turbo 4 Mustang will command $40K. You can get near that figure with just about any car that has everything this car does.

      And, how can you possibly know that the 2.3L will be less reliable than the V-6? Can I borrow the time machine you used to varify that as the fact that you presented?

      By the way, my dad has 320K+ on his turbocharged F-250, the turbo has never required replacement. Lots of semi trucks break 500K-1m miles without catastophic failures, and they use turbos, too.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    I have a hard time accepting the existence of the ecoboost in the Mustang for western consumption. As pointed out in the story, it doesn’t offer much of an advantage over the V6 and isn’t much lighter than the 5.0.

    If I purchased a Mustang I’d pick the V6 if all I wanted was cool runabout and go straight to the 5.0 if ‘Giddy Up Go’ was what I wanted. Any real track day “haul ass” means a flat plain crank 5.2 GT350.

  • avatar
    cimarron typeR

    It should be called the SVO. As a kid growing the bachelor neighbor had a white one, and a lifted full size Bronco. To me, dude had it all figured out.
    Rather than bash it for being too heavy to compete with 228i, I think its kind of a poor mans A5, that you can do doughnuts in . With a reflash high 12 sec 1/4 miles are obtainable.
    Myself, i’m waiting to see how much the Focus RS will cost.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      It’s a weak SVO successor. It should be much lighter than the Mustang GT, but with similar hp/tq, plus all-forged internals for lots more (safe) owner boost/tuning. Then bigger brakes, bigger roll bars than the GT upgrades, KONIs, forced Recaros, performance pkg and no automatic option. Maybe a TracKey too.

    • 0 avatar
      Fred

      I had a 86 SVO and I compare this car (on paper anyway) poorly with it. I agree with the reviewer it should be lighter and have some handling components not available on the V8 GT and even have a little European styling. Then again, I think Ford learned from the poor sales of the original SVO and just dropped in the EcoBoost because future CAFE standards are going to end reign of the mighty V8. ps Nice review.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        To not embarrass the original SVO, a new one should have everything the Boss 302 had, minus the V8. Except factory set to around 25 boost PSI on premium, and even more boost on racing fuel.

        Mustang buyers just weren’t ready to pay a high premium over the GT for a turbo 4 with slightly less power, even though it could actually *turn*. At the time, the new generation of High Output V8s were the big news.

        The big news for me was a Mustang that Road&Track, MotorTrend, etc actually didn’t mind or even raved about.

        But it could be the right time to give the V8 Mustang a run for it’s money. Prove to enthusiasts that there’s a worthy alternative to V8 Mustangs.

        Although I don’t think CAFE will, nor can kill V8 specialty cars, as long as consumers demand them.

        • 0 avatar
          Fred

          I’ve never seen the numbers but I suspect that the SVO brought in non Ford/Mustang buyers into the fold.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I’m sure it pulled in lots of non Ford/Mustang buyers, but once there, most could probably negotiate a Mustang GT for 1/2 the price of the SVO.

  • avatar
    craiger

    I need a car soon. Not sure if I should get a Mustang or a GTI.

    • 0 avatar
      Chan

      If you’re even considering a GTI, I can guarantee it will be a more fun car than the Stang, long-term reliability notwithstanding.

      The Mustang is huge on the outside and cramped on the inside, with poor sight lines on top of that.

      You have to want a muscle car to buy one, because otherwise they make no sense and are only fun in a straight line. Yes, even the Mustang with its new IRS, because it weighs nearly two American tons. Not bagging on the Stang–it’s a sweet ride and the unlikely American GT car–but you have to understand what it is and what it’s like to live with.

  • avatar
    SC5door

    Of all the little “details” that Ford put in the car…..they missed one item:

    Hood struts.

    • 0 avatar
      Chan

      Sure, but how many buyers will that dealbreak? Most have already made up their minds between the Camaro and the Stang. A hood prop wouldn’t change my decision.

  • avatar
    Mojo_Mike

    On my EcoStang, I reflashed the ECU with the Cobb Accessport. It’s the best $500 I’ve ever spent. This change alone will net you 30hp and 80 ft-lb. I’m now at 5.0 seconds in the 0-60 sprint. Maybe the right way to look at the EcoBoost is like this. Order the base turbo with the performance pack. That MSRP is $28120. In Texas, it’s pretty easy to buy this car for $25k. Add the Cobb tune for $500, and you’ve got a damn competent performer for not a lot of dough.

  • avatar
    DrGastro997

    I was hoping Ford would get rid of the rear signal lights that light up sequentially. It belongs on a bus or truck- not a sports coupe.

  • avatar
    wmba

    A very wealthy pal of mine was agonizing over the winter whether to get an M3. His daily driver is an E39 six cylinder maintained in top shape, and he tends to believe the hype about men in white lab coats assembling BMWs in the Black Forest, not being a car enthusiast, nor having a remote clue about mass production.

    But the M3 costs too damn much, $90K with decent options, so he tried out the 335xi, as the dealer has never had an M235i to drive. Then he tried out the Ecoboost Mustang, and found the engine not very willing to rev. It’s not eager enough. Tried out the Coyote V8 version, and immediately ordered one, waiting about 8 weeks.

    It’s pretty nice, I must say. Nicely assembled. The usual V8 instant revving, enough cornering for the sporting man on the street, and at $43K, about $7K less than the 235i here in Canada with similar options. Forget the unwilling Ecoboost and just get the V8. The grin on your face will be your reward – it’s a pretty darn nice car. For him, it’s his summer playtoy and I can understand. Just wish I could afford two cars, because the GT would be very high on my list. Frankly, that V8 makes the 3 litre BMW turbo feel anodyne. Quite an engine.

  • avatar
    dabossinne

    The biggest disappointment to me is that Ford allowed modest weight gain in the S550 chassis. Shedding a few hundred lbs would really help here. Don’t have a problem with the EB 4 cyl…choice is good, right? It’s not my cup o’ 5w20, but this is all driven by impending CAFE rules and Ford’s decision to offer the ‘stang in Europe. Already tuners are showing there’s big power hidden in an otherwise stock (or mostly so) EB 4 banger…500+ and more. Even stock it’s faster than a ’70 Boss 302. How times have changed. Still rather have a 5.0, though.

    • 0 avatar
      Chan

      Any turbo engine, with due diligence, can be easily chipped to raise the boost to hellish levels. Drivability is another story.

      See GT-R, Supra, Evo……

      Modern larger-displacement NA engines are still more responsive and linear.

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        But only those turbo engines with forged bottom ends and lots of extra reinforcemnt, will enjoy long and healthy lives with boost raised to such hellish levels.

        Turbo engines lacking that are called heavy duty grenades.

  • avatar
    Elusivellama

    Where is the TTAC review of the 2015 Mustang GT? Can’t seem to find it.

  • avatar
    jkemmery

    I don’t regret purchasing an Ecoboost over the GT. First of all, insurance. A GT gets the much higher insurance premium. I traded in a 2012 V6 for a 2016 Ecoboost. The V6 was plenty fast enough for all real world situations. The Ecoboost is faster, and has MUCH more low end torque. I commute in my car, and can only afford one car, so the compromise between cost to own and insure vs usable performance puts the GT at a disadvantage. Moreover, I had the option to purchase a 2013 GT Convertible premium for about the same price, and honestly, the Ecoboost with the Performace package was much more fun to drive. The thing has a shocking amount of low end power and you absolutely have to baby it off the line. The new chassis is so much better than the older Mustangs, I’ve owned 3 now and in terms of handling, there is no comparison. The S550 ‘Stangs hold the road far more competently than the 5th Gen cars. Driving the Ecoboost with performance pack feels almost like driving a big block muscle car. No, it doesn’t sound like one when you start it up, and Ford has cheesed up the experience with piped in cabin faux engine noise (it does sound good, but still … admittedly, it’s cheesey), but if you sat someone in one and didn’t tell them what it was, they would probably think it was a V8. The car pulls much harder off the line than any GT made before 2010 that I’ve ever driven.

    I don’t regret my purchase over a GT. I like the amenities that you get with the Premium edition and the Ecoboost Performance pack is a fairly serious performance car, that you can insure and keep gas it for everyday driving.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Seth Parks, United States
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Kyree Williams, United States