By on May 13, 2021

2020 Ford Mustang Ecoboost Premium

2020 Ford Mustang EcoBoost Premium Fast Facts

2.3-liter turbocharged four-cylinder (310 horsepower @ 5,500 rpm; 350 lb-ft @ 3,000 rpm)

Six-speed manual; rear-wheel drive

21 city / 30 highway / 24 combined (EPA Rating, MPG)

11.2 city, 7.9 highway, 9.4 combined. (NRCan Rating, L/100km)

Base Price: $31,685 (U.S) / $31,365 (Canada)

As Tested: $35,850 (U.S.) / $36,465 (Canada)

Prices include $1,095 destination charge in the United States and $2,000 for freight, PDI, and A/C tax in Canada and, because of cross-border equipment differences, can’t be directly compared.

Let’s say you’re in the market for a Ford Mustang. Let’s say you like to drive fast and like cars that handle well, so the venerable pony car is on your radar. Let’s also say that when you sit down at your laptop and start playing with the consumer website’s build and price feature and you see that a well-equipped GT quickly busts your budget, you trudge off to the fridge to drown your sorrows in adult beverages while you question every life decision you’ve ever made that left you in such a financial state that a V8 pony car is unattainable.

Well, you can cheer up, at least a little. The V8 experience is available to you for less money IF you can sacrifice the soundtrack and live with half the cylinders.

That’s right – the Mustang EcoBoost gets you all of the Mustang experience, good and bad, for fewer dollars and with only a mild performance penalty.

You even get, if you so choose, the option to row your own.

That “good and bad” from above shouldn’t be overlooked. Just like its V8 brethren, the EcoBoost Mustang provides grins but with more than a few tradeoffs.

2020 Ford Mustang Ecoboost Premium

Let’s start with the good. The 2.3-liter, twin-scroll turbocharged four-cylinder puts out 310 horsepower and 350 lb-ft of torque (an optional Performance Package, which my test car did not have, bumps the horsepower number to 330), and that’s plenty to get this car motivated quite nicely, though without that soul-satisfying V8 rumble. There’s also not quite as much grunt as would be offered by twice the cylinder count, though the max torque that is on hand is accessible at just 3,000 rpm.

Meanwhile, the six-speed Getrag gearbox is fun to row, and the clutch offers nice engagement and smooth take-up. You also get respectable EPA fuel-economy numbers.

Even without the available Handling Package (requires the Performance Package), the EcoBoost ‘Stang is a hoot in the corners, though you don’t forget it’s a rear-drive car with torque on tap and a long hood/short deck layout.

2020 Ford Mustang Ecoboost Premium

Then there’s the bad. While no one expects a Mustang to have a roomy rear seat, the backseat in this car barely functions as more than a fancy parcel shelf. Similarly, no one expects a Mustang to ride silky smooth, but even now that the Mustang has an independent rear suspension, it still shakes and shimmies over expansion joints as if it were a club kid who just sampled some candy of the nose.

And when it’s not boogying, it’s riding stiffly. A magnetic-ride system is available, but say it with me now: It requires the Performance Package.

Not to mention that while the EPA fuel-economy numbers are solid, the real-world numbers are not quite as good, especially if you decide to have a bit of fun.

2020 Ford Mustang Ecoboost Premium

Other aspects of our base-model-bargain pony car are mixed. For example, the interior. The good news is that the controls are easy to use – whether that’s all because of the logical layout and/or because of familiarity is harder to answer. The bad news is that the cabin is starting to look a bit too familiar.

2020 Ford Mustang. Image: Ford

Notable standard features included capless fuel-filler, dual exhaust, LED fog lamps, LED headlights and taillights, digital gauge cluster, interior ambient lighting, dual-zone climate control, USB, leather-trimmed seats, keyless entry and starting, wi-fi, limited-slip rear axle, satellite radio, track apps, and Sync infotainment.

2020 Ford Mustang Ecoboost Premium

My test car was optioned with navigation, blind-spot information, 18-inch wheels, spoiler, and racing stripe. Out the door for under $36K.

That may not sound like a bargain on the face of it, but it’s below both the starting price of a base GT and the average new-car transaction price.

You don’t get a V8’s rumble and low-end grunt, but you still get a sports car that’s reasonably fun to drive. Yeah, we still prefer the GT, but this bargain is hard to argue with.

What’s New for 2020

New for 2020 is the available High Performance Package.

Who Should Buy This Car

The Mustang buyer who can’t afford a V8.

[Images © 2021 Tim Healey/TTAC, Ford]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

108 Comments on “2020 Ford Mustang EcoBoost Premium Review – A Potent Pony at A Bargain...”


  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Just get the base GT, you’ll thank me in another life.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      Pretty much. The EB is fine but the 5.0L is on another level.

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      The ecoboost is impressive for what it is and a great bargain, but I agree. If you’re going to buy a Mustang to have any amount of fun it, pony up for the GT.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      This. The move used to be CPO the GT for high 20s and get under the MSRP of the V6 (or I suppose this trim now). Although I’m not sure that strategy still applies to the planet we are on now, probably still a wise move to buy the GT if you can spare the coin. Keep it cherry and I don’t see depreciation being an issue as we move forward into the suck.

    • 0 avatar
      el scotto

      @Denver Mike Never,ever don’t flirt with the hot chick, buy the biggest engine, or turn down a free shot.

  • avatar
    cimarron typeR

    Agree. But if thats not an option . Buy a used v6. Sounds better, makes power to redline unlike to turbos,and probably is the same weight as an EB.

  • avatar
    here4aSammich

    Burned up some free rental days from National on a convertible in Key West. Was happy when they told me it was a Mustang. Happy walking up to it in the parking lot. It looks the part. Turned the key, and was disappointed to hear that 4 banger. A Mustang shouldn’t sound like this. Period.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    Have they fixed that “six-speed Getrag gearbox”?

    And yea, if you get playful with the turbo engine it will burn fuel.

    “Who Should Buy This Car

    The Mustang buyer who can’t afford a V8.”

    — I would definitely go for the base GT. Cheaper, better.

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    Rather than drown his sorrows and make do with a cheaper alternative, the aspiring, but financially strapped, Mustang buyer should save his money until he can afford a thoughtfully optioned GT. Then, he should commit to keeping the car well past the end of the warranty, to take advantage of the shallow part of the depreciation curve, and maintaining it well so that it remains a pleasure to own and drive.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Your soul will pay a far greater price. Just skip Starbucks twice a month. Spread out over the 30+ years you’ll own it, you’ll be glad you got the GT.

    Look at it as an investment, long money, one you won’t be bored with in 2 or 3 years. That’s a real waste.

  • avatar
    Tele Vision

    There are used Mustangs out there, I’m sure. My brother has our Dad’s 2006 GT ragtop. 4.6L with 300HP/320TQ and a stick – examples of which ask CDN$17,000/USD$13,970. Great car.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    I was just looking at the specs on a 1968 GT Mustang with the 390. 325 hp at 4,800 rpm and 427 lb.ft. at 3200 rpm. You also have to recall that the was HP was assessed changed in the ’70’s so the 1968 car’s numbers would be lower.

    But here we are, people don’t think 310 hp and 350 lb. ft torque is not enough.

    BTW, I’d go with the 5.0 cuz itz gotta have a V8…

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “But here we are, people don’t think 310 hp and 350 lb. ft torque is not enough.”

      I don’t anyone is saying the EB’s output is *inadequate*.
      But the Coyote will show you God at 7500RPM.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        “But the Coyote will show you God at 7500RPM.”

        Especially after a cars’n’coffee.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          @MCS:

          Tornadoes automatically look for trailer parks to take out, and Mustangs automatically look for something to auger into after a C&C. Destiny!

          • 0 avatar
            Old_WRX

            FreedMike, mcs,

            Post C&C ‘Stangs do seem to have a natural affinity for trees, curbs, other cars and sometimes they even attract handcuffs. I suppose part of this is because any “real man” turns off ESC. (Me, I’d leave it on — I’ve done enough stupid stuff on the street to know that it is only dumb luck that has kept me from ever wrecking.)

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @ajla – I’ve owned 2 open class MX bikes(Yamaha YZ490, Kawasaki KX500), a large bore 4 stroke(KTM 620), a sport bike released in 1996 that had the best power to weight ratio of any bike (Yamaha YZF100), I’ve been there multiple times. I am now relatively unimpressed by the acceleration of anything on 4 wheels. LOL

    • 0 avatar
      ToolGuy

      Summary of net vs. gross:
      https://www.hagerty.com/media/archived/horsepower/

      Math and calculators referenced in the Hagerty article:
      http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-hp-et-mph.htm

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Era V8s were de-tuned for the showroom and you could expect 500+ HP and 600 lbs/ft from a typical big-block after a cam, carb, intake, headers, etc.

        Modifying was the norm or rule and Speed/Marine shops were everywhere, in every small town too, until the early ’90s. Many were de-rated, also for insurance reasons. 300 HP Buick GNX? Yeah right!

        True 350 HP/Tq (forced) today is a plenty good, but we’re also dealing with 4K lbs autos.

        • 0 avatar
          MrIcky

          This is all the ‘big muscle car lie’. Everyone would like to believe all these 1960s muscle cars were hotter than hell and they were hopped up. This is absolutely not true. Take the 1968 390- 10494 mustangs had 390s. Most of these were actually the 265hp model. There were about 5x as many 120hp I6s as there were 390s. The most popular were the 289/302 models with higher economy. And hot rod shops werent the norm, that was maybe more prevalent than today but it was not the norm. The really fast cars were a small enough group that everyone in that group basically knew who had what. I’m not picking on Mustangs- the best selling engine in the big mopars was the 318. The real beasts were very rare. By sales numbers, you’re a hell of a lot more likely to run into a hellcat now than a true beast mustang back in the day. (That was all objective- now the subjective part)- the 4cylinder turbo engine generally may be the easiest engine to hot rod there is and has ever been.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            ” the best selling engine in the big mopars was the 318.”

            You have any stats to back that up?
            I’m pretty sure the volume engine in the Mopar muscle cars was the 383. The Road Runner and GTX didn’t even offer the 318 in the 1960s and from what I can find online the 383 was always the top selling offering in the Charger.

          • 0 avatar
            MrIcky

            It’s harder with Mopar because you have to go through each,

            http://www.plymouthbarracuda.net/information/1969-barracuda-production.shtml

            Plymouth shipped 20337 v8s in 1969. 15637 were 318s.

            For 1968 Chargers there were 33514 318s, 21455 2bbl 383s, and 19013 4bbl 383s. So there were more 383s in the Chargers (but they were mainly the economy version). 17000 were 440s.

            I can’t find the Challenger- and I don’t have time to go through all of them, but the net effect when you take all the ebodies- the best selling engine order code was the 318/auto package. I guess maybe if you take all the 383 order codes together it may add up to more across all ebodies.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @MrIcky – True. Most Mustangs were lower performance units. I was looking at the shop manual for my 68 Galaxie 500 and they list multiple engine configurations: 4 – 240’s, 3 – 390’s, 3 – 428’s, and 1 – 427. The 240’s were either 150 – 155 hp. 210 hp for the 302 and the 390’s were 270 hp, 280 hp and 315 hp. The 428’s were 345 hp or 360 hp.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “the best selling engine in the *big mopars* was the 318”

            Since when would the E-Body be the “big” Mopars? Those were the pony cars.

            And moreover, you again completely ignored the Road Runner’s production.

            musclecarsillustrated.com/1969-plymouth-road-runner/

            That’s 77,000 4BBL 383s in 1969 from that model.

            If you want to state “the best selling Barracuda engine was the 318” then say that, but your initial comment was incorrect.

          • 0 avatar
            MrIcky

            ajla, sorry if I was being imprecise here. and yes I was thinking of the challenger/charger/barracuda, mustangs, etc. But my point is: people have this rose colored glasses look at what those days were like. The really hot versions of cars were not that common. Even in the cooler cars of the day, ‘economy’ engines were the norm.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            People commonly had these crazy things called “wrenches”. Most guys knew how to use them too. But no one said “muscle cars” were all the Hot or hottest versions available. Who remembers it that way?

            I meant over-the-counter “shops”, but you could always find tuners if you knew where to look. It wasn’t a big deal to swap a big block V8 into a straight-6 car, let alone swapping a cam or other bolt-ons.

            Automakers were just there to supply the base products.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @DenverMike – turning wrenches for HP is different than factory muscle.

            An ECU tune on a new muscle car can yield more HP than almost any 60’s era “bolt on” mod.

            The new cars can run reliably day in and day out, you can’t say that for any 60’s muscle car.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @DenverMike – turning wrenches for HP is different than factory muscle.

            An ECU tune on a new muscle car can yield more HP than almost any 60’s era “bolt on” mod.

            The new cars can run reliably day in and day out, you can’t say that for any 60’s muscle car.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @ToolGuy – excellent links!

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          How are ’60s muscle cars unreliable? Maybe if you weren’t familiar with points and stuff but any gas station mechanic could get you on your way in minutes. Or a friend’s mom.

          Although I wouldn’t recommend turning up the power much on anything new/modern. Every part is engineered too close to spec.

          Muscle cars were basically 1-ton trucks on a passenger car chassis.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            Even if you do have a problem, they’re easy to work on and you have plenty of space. There’s no plastic cladding to take off to get to the engine. No sensors to deal with. The toughest thing is dealing with any brittle plastic parts, especially on the interiors.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Sure, they were easy to work on, they always needed work.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            @Lou_BC: True, they needed more work, but that’s my rationale for EVs as the main rides and ICE (and/or EV) as toys.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @mcs – Jay Leno had said a similar thing. EV’s for the masses who aren’t into cars is great which will allow ICE vehicles to continue to be used by enthusiasts.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            Leno’s East Coast house is about 3 minutes away from me. I think owning ICEs will be like horse ownership or even steam cars. Nothing ever really totally goes away. Even in the age of digital photography we still have artists that can do wonderful renderings with paper and a pencil. I’m a fan of hand-blown Simon-Pearce glassware. Most people aren’t going to spend the money for it and get mass-produced glassware. Nothing wrong with that.

            I think history will look back on the lithium-ion battery and the major impact its having. Everything is running off of these things. Toothbrushes, phones, lawn tools and on and on. We used to be an oil-based economy, but we’re rapidly becoming a litium-ion based society. It just makes sense our cars follow the same path. Even throwing out the environmental issues and economics, it’s a natural path to take. Horses and whale oil in the 1800’s, ICEs and corded electric appliances in the 20th, and now EVs and cordless lithium ion devices in the 21st.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Plenty of power, but the wrong sound.

    EVs are the future of my vehicle fleet, but I want any additional ICE cars to have no fewer than six cylinders, purely for acoustic reasons.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      I’m the same. EVs, but with some ICE toys. However, I do have my eye on Kei Cars so the six-cylinder rule might not apply to me. Could add a couple without taking up much space.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        My four-cylinder weakness is stick-equipped Hondas. If I were to end up with another four-cylinder car, it would probably be either a first-gen TSX or a Civic Si.

  • avatar

    I know that DeadWeight is gone but where is FlexEB?

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    Some years ago, I had rental Mustang convertible with the V6. Reasonably fast; nice sounding. I’ve owned turbos and my experience is that the more power you squeeze out of a turbo’ed engine, the more non-linear power delivery you get. 300 something horsepower from 2.3 liters is a LOT of power from that displacement. Paradoxically, I think a manual transmission emphasizes this non-linearity as compared to a slushbox. I owned a late 80s GT with the “5 Liter” V-8 that was all midrange torque and no top end. That was followed by an SHO of tbe same nominal horsepower but less torque. The SHO engine built power steadily with increasing rpm all the way to the 7000 rpm redline. Much more fun to drive than the 5.0.
    Sadly, the competing desire for horsepower and mandated fuel economy lead increasingly to smaller displacement engines with forced induction. Apart from driving considerations, I have serious doubts as to their long term reliability over 100K miles. I guess if everything you buy is on a 36-month lease, you don’t care about that. But I’ve always owned my cars; and, if I like ’em, I keep ’em for quite a while.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @DC Bruce – the EB3.5 has been around in the F150 for over a decade and I haven’t heard any horror stories. I knew a mechanic for a large mining company and he said that they had more issues with the 5.0 than the EB 3.5.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      It surprises me to say this, but Ford has done a pretty good job with its current generation of turbo engines, counting both the V6es and the fours. Except for the gasket screwup in the Focus RS, there really haven’t been substantial issues with any of them. The 3.5 in the pickups has done just fine in trucks that spend their lives towing, and the 2.0 has also done fine in heavy SUVs.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    This is the secretaries Mustang.

    And nobody but teen girls and rental car agencies want the secretaries Mustang. Don’t want or need a gas guzzling, high strung 4 banger that sounds like a minivan without a muffler. Don’t want the issues with the Egobust engines and I don’t want to overpay for a 4 banger Mustang.

    For the same money you can have a V8 challenger which is faster, more comfortable, better transmission, better infotainment, and more reliable and will get the same fuel economy.

    • 0 avatar
      Oberkanone

      300 plus horsepower, rear wheel drive, coupe, Mustang. Manual transmission, 10 speed automatic, your choice.

      Under $30,000

      Grow up EBFlex, 70’s & 80’s negative stereotypes are best left in the past.

      Mustang Echoboost is a great performance value.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        As tested this secretaries Mustang was almost $36k. A Challenger with a proper V8 starts at under $35k.

        The Mustang isn’t a good value it’s a joke. The car should max out at under $30k. It’s a throwaway car that nobody wants.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Key words: “as equipped”. You can get one with most of these performance goodies for about $31,000. But even at $36,000, I take the Mustang.

          1) Mustangs look better.
          2) Mustangs handle better.
          3) Challengers are freakin’ HUGE. If I had to have MOAARRRRRR MOPARRRRR, I’d just get a Charger. Might as well have something with two rear doors.

          Now, if cost is no object, I take the Challenger Scat Pack with the 392 9.9 times out of 10, for the engine note alone. Make mine Go Mango, please.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            “If I had to have MOAARRRRRR MOPARRRRR, I’d just get a Charger. Might as well have something with two rear doors.”

            Yep, exactly. And it’s less ugly too. The Challenger is what happens when you draw a car to look like a roid bro shouting angrily at random passersby on the street.

          • 0 avatar
            MrIcky

            1) Strongly disagree- cant get over the ugly nose on the latest generation.
            2) Ya true, but Challengers ride better and they handle better than they are given credit for.
            3) Challengers are big, which is basically my favorite part- rear seats, real trunk, etc.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            “The Challenger is what happens when you draw a car to look like a roid bro shouting angrily at random passersby on the street.”

            Many, perhaps most, performance cars look like that.

            Heck, not just performance ones… Looking maximally “aggressive,” seem to be the overriding goal; for every car aimed at accountants, executives, middle school teachers and gold diggers alike; these days.

            The Challenger would look plain awesome as a ‘vert. Truly sublime! Properly stiffening up something so long, without a roof, may be tough, though. OTOH, nothing calms down airflow experienced by those in the front row, like the large and deep well created by a big rear-seat section.

        • 0 avatar
          Mustangfast

          “It’s a throwaway car nobody wants”

          My 2015 EB’s residual values say differently.

          “This car should Max out under $30k”

          Even an Ecosport doesn’t do that, so what’s your point here?

          “Issues with the egobust Mustang”

          Like what exactly? The only significant issues with S550s were the evap core which didn’t matter which engine it was attached to.

          We would all love V8s, the whole point of the article and the car is that if you don’t want to spend an extra $10k on one this one is perfectly competent and retains nearly all other aspects of the GTs personality. My only complaint is that they mask the actual turbo noise with fake engine sound, I’d rather hear the actual noise but you sound like a bachelor telling his friend who’s engaged that “you can do better”

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “The Dodge Challenger Reliability Rating is 3.5 out of 5.0, which ranks it 19th out of 24 for midsize cars.
      The Ford Mustang Reliability Rating is 3.5 out of 5.0, which ranks it 20th out of 24 for midsize cars.”

      $650 per year in maintenance for the Challenger and $709 for the Mustang.

      I found that on repairpal.com

      It isn’t much of a difference.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        @Lou:

        Consider the “all things Ford are automatically bad and anyone who buys a Ford is a complete idiot” source…

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @FreedMike – Agreed. The Ford Mustang sells more units than that of the Challenger and Camaro combined. That says that Ford is doing something right.

          • 0 avatar
            MrIcky

            In 2020 it was 61090 mustang vs 52955 challenger vs 29775 per motrolix for us sales results. Challenger isn’t as far off as you’d think considering.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @MrIcky – My bad…I just looked at the stats. You are correct.

      • 0 avatar
        MRF 95 T-Bird

        Before I purchased my 2018 Dodge Challenger GT awd as a leftover on the lot I priced out a new Mustang and checked out the dealer inventories but couldn’t find one with the option packages to my liking such as the Premium sport with the gauge package in the upper dashboard. Many were your rental spec or the full on Bullet edition.
        Instead of ordering one that would have run $33-35k and waiting several weeks the Challenger GT awd was $28k plus tax and fees. It also suits me better because of the roomier trunk and more usable rear seat.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Yes, why not accompany rabid Stellantis fanboyism with a hearty dose of misogyny.

      • 0 avatar
        el scotto

        @dal20402 Deep in the heart of the storage room at the Stellantis dealership is a special sign. It buried past the the Plymouth sign,the Ram Trucks #2 and rising sign, past the Renault sign, past the AMC sign. This sign is the DeSoto sign and EBflex has rigged the “e” tio light up when TTAC puts out a Ford article. Oh between asking is it monthly payments or your trade-in he’ll say that Stellantis has the superior product in any category you can think of. He’d want you to believe that being given to the Italians and bought by the French was really a smart move. Anything Belgium approves production dollars on is far superior in his view.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    Ford Mustang GT driver death rate is almost 2X higher than Ford Mustang driver death rate:

    https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-model

    Camaro and Corvette drivers generally die ‘alone’ (single-vehicle crash death rate), while Mustang drivers manage to involve other vehicles (multi-vehicle crash death rate) on their way out.

  • avatar
    mikey

    I traded 08 6cyl convertible in, and some cash for a new 2015 loaded EB Mustang ..The 16’s were out, and I made a pretty good deal..I’m a GM retiree and they agreed to Ford employee price …Maybe it was a crock of??? but I was happy.

    I bought Michelin X ice tires with the correct wheels …Big bucks ! However a huge improvement over the look of steelies . In early 18 I scooped up a super low mileage 2005 GT stick convertible. (right place right time and a whole lot of luck.) At this point I have two Mustangs, and growing grand children .

    Warranty was reduced to power train only in late 2018. .. The EB Mustang was completely trouble free. One day i found myself leaning on the brakes, maybe more than lean ???, perhaps a little driver error ??? End result…I smoked the rear brakes.. The EB sat at the dealer three days waiting on parts !!

    At this time its late October and I’m using my 05 as a daily driver I said to the Ford service people “Seriously guys your big sellers are F150s and Mustangs, and you can’t get parts” this was before Covid . The final bill took my breath away !!

    I did have my eye on a loaded heavily discounted black 2019 Impala. With the Ford dealer receipt still sitting on the consul, I stopped at the Chev dealer. Bye bye Mustang. HelloI Impala. I love the big Chev. and resale value is a joke.

    The EB was a really good car. However it didn’t break my heart to see it parked in the used car lot.

    These days I’m a 67 year old widower. The 05 GT is a bit of a garage queen, but I still drive it . I think the big Chevy might just be my keeper ???

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    I’m the weirdo. If I was going to pay my own money for a Mustang it would be a BASE Ecoboost with the lone option the High Performance Pack. (Of course that would be after this chip shortage mania dies down.)

    Better weight balance, corner carving, stealth speed. Less flashy than a GT.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      You’re not weird at all, Dan (or maybe we both are), but since we’re talking cheapskate speed, I’d skip the performance package. See below.

      At $30,000 or so, this car is an amazing performance value.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      Have you driven the most recent GT though?

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        @ajla – the biggest difference between you and I in engine preferences is that you want it to scream in the upper rev ranges and I like my torque “curve” to look like a line drawing of Ayers Rock.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          I drove a current-gen GT back when it first came out, and yeah, it’s a hoot.

          But I’ll stand by what I said: if your budget is thirty grand, and you want a performance car, this one should be right at the top of the list.

          I’m currently looking for something that’s a kick to drive for thirty grand, and if I didn’t need a backseat and a trunk, and winter driving wasn’t on my menu (I don’t want to be THAT GUY, like the one whose Mustang was absolutely stymied by an inch of snow a few months ago), I’d be on this car with zero regrets.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    When Tim said this car is a bargain, he wasn’t bullsh*tting – the test vehicle was $36,000, but I just configured a totally base one in Race Red ($28,000), with one option – the 101A package, which includes selectable drive modes, a nicer sound system, and a wheel/tire upgrade – for $31,000, before incentives.

    Would I rather have the V-8? Yes. But this is a TON of performance car for the money, folks.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      My only objection to your spec is lack of LSD. But then I’d want to get the right tires and daily drive my Mustang, rain or shine. :-)

      • 0 avatar
        cimarron typeR

        base EB get a trac loc LSD, only ther PP gets a Torsen. Even the v6 got a tracloc too.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          When I play with the configuration tool on Ford’s website the limited slip is always shown as an option unless you add packages like the Track Pac or HPP. But it’s been a model year or so since I did that.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “Would I rather have the V-8? Yes”

      If someone wants the V8 then I would highly recommend getting one with the V8. The EB is perfectly cromulent but the GT is superlative. It isn’t like the GT is $70K or something either, save up for a little longer or stretch the loan 12 more months.

      The only cases where I’d recommend the EB Mustang is to people that honestly want the I4 for whatever reason.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        All good points, but if you can take it easy on the options sheet, the EB is still a ton of performance car for the money.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Exactly. Spend a little more now and get a car you’ll be happy or thrilled to own for 30+ years . Too many are too caught up in the right here, right now and make hasty decisions.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @DenverMike – we all have a budget. If we didn’t, we’d be debating whether a McLaren or Lamborghini was a better buy.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            That’s true but what are we talking, a Dollar/25 cents a day? It’s not like many are paying cash. Spread out over 72 or 84 months, or better yet, decades of ownership? Decades of thanking yourself everyday for stepping it up? Decades of not having to trade-in out of sheer boredom?

          • 0 avatar
            el scotto

            @for Both Mikes, Sirs, you reach an age where you have a mortgage, college funds, and life insurance for just in case. By that age, your insurance agent will say drive what you want, it won’t make that much difference. If you’re 26 YO single male, your insurance agent really wishes you’d take the bus. Insurance might make a difference for some folks. Nevermind my daughter drivers her BMW like she’s late for an appointment with the Pope and my son pokes in his grandad’s hand me down Suburban.

  • avatar
    Matt Foley

    Imagine an alternate universe in which the Mustang and Camaro had never existed, and they were introduced in 2021, completely new to the market, with only the turbo 4 available.

    “Wow – it’s an American BMW 430i for $10,000 less!” the motoring press would say. And we’d be tripping over our own d!cks trying to get to the dealership to test-drive one.

    But because even more potent powertrains are available, we spit tobacco juice and say “300hp!?! That’s for sissies!” That argument made sense in 1983, when the 4cyl Mustang and Camaro made 88hp and 92hp, respectively.

    If I ever buy an EB Mustang, I’m slapping SVO badges on it. 80s forever, beeyotches.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      ” “we spit tobacco juice and say “300hp!?! That’s for sissies!” ”

      This is a bad line because I see zero people complaining about the output of this engine and only the resident Ford-hater called it a “secretary car”.

      However, much like with the 4-Series (and who considers the 430i the pinnacle of BMW in the first place?), and as you noted, upgraded powertrains *do* exists for the Mustang and they happen to be very, very good and are available for not much more money (at least with the income level of most TTAC readers.)

      I don’t hate the Mustang EB, but I do love the Mustang GT.

      “If your preferred version of this car didn’t exist then you’d like this version more” is a weird hypothetical to spin.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “ Ford-hater called it a “secretary car”.”

        Ford hater. Good one.

        Also what’s wrong with what I called it (which, for the record, was “the secretaries Mustang). It also should be noted that I never complained about the power of this car.

        So that’s three strikes kiddo.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “I see zero people complaining about the output of this engine”

          “I never complained about the power of this car.”

          No sh*t. That’s what “zero people” means. Way to read, champ.

  • avatar
    Lightspeed

    The Mustang is the most beautiful ‘cheap’ car on the market today. I give Ford credit for making the Ecoboost and for not making it look like you bought the cheap Mustang. The HP and torque figures for a 2.3L are amazing, but I just don’t see how these pumped up kicks aren’t going to grenade when they get to be 8-10 years old.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      FWIW my 31 year old 1990 Plymouth Laser turbo is still running just fine, it hasn’t grenaded just yet.. Granted it’s only got 190 hp in a 2 L, but I think nearly 100 hp per liter is a fairly hopped up motor, particularly for its time. It suffered a cracked exhaust manifold bolt at about 65,000 miles, and was covered by the 70,000 mile warranty.

      • 0 avatar
        genebouchard

        TTACGREG: Once upon a time I too owned a 1990 Plymouth Laser RS Turbo. My all-time favorite car. I finally gave it up the SECOND time my timing belt broke. Interference engine. Ruh Ro. The first valve job was covered because of a timing belt recall I never received. At about 100,000 miles my oil pump blew up. Shrapnel destroyed my timing belt and engine. Please please please keep up with the timing belt replacements. Man, I loved that car and, to this day, I still miss it.

        • 0 avatar
          ttacgreg

          I’m keeping up on the timing belt. It’s my biggest bitch about the car that what boils down to being routine periodic maintenance costs hundreds of dollars to get done. I mean really Mitsubishi?

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “ but I just don’t see how these pumped up kicks aren’t going to grenade when they get to be 8-10 years old.”

      They will. Egobust engines are not the most reliable and many have issues. Ford engineers are very good at finding the cheapest way possible to meet their profitability margins and it shows.

      • 0 avatar
        el scotto

        @EBFlex Sir, because no and mean no vehicle manufacturer has a way to simulate long-term usage of any of their engines. No manufacturer./Sarcasm. As the resident Ford hater you like to post more negative generalities about Ford products than a Fox News broadcaster has negative generalities about big cities and democrats. You used to be somewhat factual in your scribes but those days are long gone. You lost it, and most of us, when you tried to convince us that the “F Series” wasn’t a ford pick-up. You’re past the point of “he’s irritating but makes some good(and factual) points to just being irritating and spouting off what ever is rattling around in your mind. You’ve done better in the past, build back better. Or make EBFlex great again! P.S. Do both “o’s” in DeSoto light up when you get a reply?

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          “ You lost it, and most of us, when you tried to convince us that the “F Series” wasn’t a ford pick-up.”

          I never once said the F-Series wasn’t a “Ford pickup”. I said it’s not a vehicle.

          Show me a parts list for a 2021 F-Series. Show me how much a brake booster costs for a 2018 F-Series. Show me a feature list for the 2021 F-Series. Show me a web page for a 2021 F-Series. Show me a dealer inventory for their stock of 2021 F-Series. How many, colors, etc.

          You can’t. Because it’s not a vehicle. It’s a series of vehicles. Hence the name…F-Series.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            It’s no less goofy or pointless than sniveling that the Merc S-class isn’t a vehicle. It’s a mystery why anyone would, but the F-series, 3-series,E-class, etc, are just groups of models under the same line.

            No specific models are “named” S-class, F-series, etc, but you could order a specific part, like a 2021 BMW 3-series brake booster a if the part is shared by the entire line.

  • avatar
    dwford

    I wish Ford and Chevy had gone with higher revs instead of boosted low end torque for these 4 cylinder versions. The fun of sports cars is winding them out, not being happy toodling around with full torque at 1500rpms headed to the mall.

  • avatar
    petey

    The eco boost isn’t that bad. Its got the power, and its quiet which is nice “most” of the time.
    Its about on par with the V6 thats has always been a option for the mustang. The last year the V6 was available it put out 310Hp with a better power band, and was available with the Sport package.
    It is what it is. I would def get the Gt, if it was my money.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    Used to be hard drives had a sat called MTBF. Mean Time Between Failure. There days I don’t think that matters, you’ll get a new computer 1st. Do vehicle manufacturers have stats on how long their engines will last, on average? Or what’s the MTBF for someone’s turbo-charged engine?

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Should I review the MY14 Cadillac SRX I drove a drunk girl home in last night? :D

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I’d say “both,” but these aren’t the days when we had one Baruth brother writing about his conquests and another writing about his fantasy conquests. I miss their stuff in general but I could always do without the Penthouse Forum-lite stuff.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    Will be in the market for a convertible Stang or Camaro in the near future.
    Having driven my Mustang loving buddies 2 2015 Stang convertibles, one with the 3.7 V6 and the current 2.3 EB I would prefer the former. The 2.3 Eb is a fussy noisy unpleasant sounding lump that really doesn’t provide little if any advantage in power over the smoother more livable V6. It also requires premium fuel to get that 310 HP rating which the V6 doesn’t. My friend uses 87 octane gas due to the fact premium is almost 4 bucks per gallon so the turbo 4 seems about even powerwise if the two cars were drag raced. The 2.3 has also suffered some oil burning issues with under 100K on the clock, needed the upper portion of the engine re-sealed and has always suffered a cold idle shake that can be felt through the steering wheel.

    I haven’t driven a newer 2018-current 2.3 EB with the 10 speed but have read that it takes some getting used to odd shifting behavior. This is one area where I like the Camaro better. I can get GM’s excellent 335 HP 3.6 tied to the equally excellent 10 speed auto and have a near perfect powertrain. The slightly tighter feel and bunker windows are a turn off but the convertible fixes that during the Summer months. Decisions decisions.

  • avatar
    lostboy

    No skin in the game whatsoever as i think the mustang and camaro are both on borrowed time but…. what’s the weight diff between the turbo i4 or v6 vs the v8 and what’s the fuel economy numbers anyways? and 2) damn… you mustang fanbois are really into the GT!

    please don’t bother to flame about this as like i said, i don’t really care either way as this car is impractical for me and always will be but after reading waaaay too many comments about this i didn’t see anything about weight.. and weight is only counteracted by more power, which begets more brakes, suspension, wheels, cooling, fuel consumption etc. so i’d go for lighter anytime.

    maybe i’m just getting old?

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • dantes_inferno: Ban cows
  • dal20402: KBB had it in the high 18s at the beginning of the year and now in the 22s. I’m sure part of that is...
  • probert: The government should protect them – regulating predatory practices is something government should do....
  • 28-Cars-Later: Then get one more year out of it before something expensive breaks.
  • 28-Cars-Later: Your Bolt? Carvana has them listed out your way for 21,9-22,9, were they retailing for much less?

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber