RE: Ford Mustang Ecoboost: Driven
Discussion
Well I am surprised by the links above. It does seem the mpg is dire, so yes pointless if that is true.
My last turbo was the mk1 S3. That could manage 40mpg on a long motorway cruise. Massively less on a hoon of course. But to me that is the point of a turbo - semi economical when you want it to be, yet fast when you want it (at less mpg). My V8 is thirsty all the time, slow or fast. The trade off is a great soundtrack of course. Whether that is still worth it in the future depends on fuel prices.
My last turbo was the mk1 S3. That could manage 40mpg on a long motorway cruise. Massively less on a hoon of course. But to me that is the point of a turbo - semi economical when you want it to be, yet fast when you want it (at less mpg). My V8 is thirsty all the time, slow or fast. The trade off is a great soundtrack of course. Whether that is still worth it in the future depends on fuel prices.
Mastodon2 said:
The idea of a 4 cylinder Mustang appeals about as much as a bad case of the sh*ts, I'd rather have the "rental spec" V6, or wait for the V8. That said, if I had to go 4 cylinder, I'd much rather have one of these over the over-priced chintz that Germany are making these days, but for me, Mustangs are about V engines, preferably 8 cylinders.
When are you buying one?For almost all people in the uk, a big V8 drinking petrol on the busy urban road and dual carriageway commute to work, a drive to see the parents or for a shopping trip is similarly undesirable.
Most cars are not driven hard and those that are spend most of their time not being driven hard. A powerful ecoboost (or diesel...) surely makes far more sense than a big V8 for far more customers in Europe?
Ps. You can even have artificial V8 noises in your cockpit these days!
Edited by MC Bodge on Friday 19th September 10:14
k-ink said:
Well I am surprised by the links above. It does seem the mpg is dire, so yes pointless if that is true.
My last turbo was the mk1 S3. That could manage 40mpg on a long motorway cruise. Massively less on a hoon of course. But to me that is the point of a turbo - semi economical when you want it to be, yet fast when you want it (at less mpg). My V8 is thirsty all the time, slow or fast. The trade off is a great soundtrack of course. Whether that is still worth it in the future depends on fuel prices.
thats 19mpg US so 23mpg UK, and they do say it would be mid 20's US (so over 30 UK), driven hard on the road. They were probably raging the sMy last turbo was the mk1 S3. That could manage 40mpg on a long motorway cruise. Massively less on a hoon of course. But to me that is the point of a turbo - semi economical when you want it to be, yet fast when you want it (at less mpg). My V8 is thirsty all the time, slow or fast. The trade off is a great soundtrack of course. Whether that is still worth it in the future depends on fuel prices.
t out of it. I would imagine you would see at least mid 30's UK on the motorway.They might have been running on 87 octane too, (the article mentions it runs on 'regular gas')
Prawnboy said:
Qwert1e said:
People didn't buy the Monaro/Vauxhall VXR and aren't buying the Camaro. I doubt they will buy the Mustang either.
In USA these cars are cheap compared with the Germans. In UK they're the same price as the Germans.
And the cars are BIG for the amount of space in them. I don't think it will get much market share.
the VXR8 was only available as a V8 limiting the market somewhat. It was also an ugly saloon, (the monaro was good looking though), and didn't come with a name & history like the mustang.In USA these cars are cheap compared with the Germans. In UK they're the same price as the Germans.
And the cars are BIG for the amount of space in them. I don't think it will get much market share.
the Camero is only V8 and LHD.
also, could you let me know the german RWD coupe with 310BHP i can buy for under £30k please.
In the UK american cars have always been "exotic" for want of a better word, due to minimal dealers and the lack of RHD generally.
There are very few american vehicles that would work over here with RHD, the Mustang, The Ford Fusion Hybrid ( basically a Mondeo ) Ford Flex, and some of the Cadillac models would also do well here.
£30k for a quick, good looking, well build, uncommon, eye catching, decent sized Coupe with a historic name. Or you can have a VW Golf Gti, with some nice paint.
People don't buy Mustang's because there's anything with "Eco" in the model designation. Don't Ford get this? It's like expecting people to watch WWE with geography teachers and male ballet dancers in the ring.
And any Mustang with a 4 cylinder engine is always going to label it's owner as a wannabe, can't quite afford the real thing, style before substance. Convertible perhaps, since it fits with the "style" thing, but coupe, never!
Appeal: Zero.
And any Mustang with a 4 cylinder engine is always going to label it's owner as a wannabe, can't quite afford the real thing, style before substance. Convertible perhaps, since it fits with the "style" thing, but coupe, never!
Appeal: Zero.
currybum said:
Which is 23mpg in real money, not too bad given that was the average for a test car for "Car and Driver".
Driven like Walt's first muscle car in Breaking Bad for the duration of the test.The 1.0 Ecoboosts I've driven have given high 40s mpg average, with low 30s at the times when driven hard. Hardly justifying the criticism...
MC Bodge said:
When are you buying one?
For almost all people in the uk, a big V8 drinking petrol on the busy urban road and dual carriageway commute to work, a drive to see the parents or for a shopping trip is similarly undesirable.
Most cars are not driven hard and those that are spend most of their time not being driven hard. A powerful ecoboost (or diesel...) surely makes far more sense than a big V8 for far more customers in Europe?
Ps. You can even have artificial V8 noises in your cockpit these days!
Oh, for the MPG obsessed of the Europe, the four cylinder is definitely the more "sensible" option, but who buys Mustangs to be sensible? The people I've known that own big American V8s keep them for evening and weekend use. When it's a toy, who cares about MPG?For almost all people in the uk, a big V8 drinking petrol on the busy urban road and dual carriageway commute to work, a drive to see the parents or for a shopping trip is similarly undesirable.
Most cars are not driven hard and those that are spend most of their time not being driven hard. A powerful ecoboost (or diesel...) surely makes far more sense than a big V8 for far more customers in Europe?
Ps. You can even have artificial V8 noises in your cockpit these days!
Edited by MC Bodge on Friday 19th September 10:14
As for the Ecoboost 2.3, it sounds like they've tuned it for a diesel-style delivery, and having had a few rides in friend's cars that have V8s of 4.0L and up, the power delivery of the V8 is much nicer than any turbo 4. The V8s I've been around have bags of torque and smooth, linear power which gives a car an effortless feeling to it's acceleration. A 4 cylinder that has a 2000rpm powerband, an asthmatic top end (and a harsh, groaning noise to boot by the comments in the review) and the lag of turbo power delivery, it's never going to be the definitive Mustang experience.
Maybe the 4 cylinder Mustang will be a sales success, but in my experience people who want a Mustang want a loud, lairy V8, they don't care about MPG and generally don't use them every day. On the other hand, people who want economical cars don't want big American saloons.
Edited by Mastodon2 on Friday 19th September 11:04
Roo said:
Real world EPA figures.
I presume that they are US gallons as I would hope that the modern V8 would be better than my old 4.6L V8 pulling a 2 ton car.Brim to brim my Mercury does 25 on a run and 16 stuck in London traffic which I think is not bad considering
I'm not light on the loud pedal either.ETA of course the modern V8 is almost twice as powerful as mine.
Edited by croyde on Friday 19th September 11:25
Mastodon2 said:
Oh, for the MPG obsessed of the Europe, the four cylinder is definitely the more "sensible" option, but who buys Mustangs to be sensible? The people I've known that own big American V8s keep them for evening and weekend use. When it's a toy, who cares about MPG?
As for the Ecoboost 2.3, it sounds like they've tuned it for a diesel-style delivery, and having had a few rides in friend's cars that have V8s of 4.0L and up, the power delivery of the V8 is much nicer than any turbo 4. The V8s I've been around have bags of torque and smooth, linear power which gives a car an effortless feeling to it's acceleration. A 4 cylinder that has a 2000rpm powerband, an asthmatic top end (and a harsh, groaning noise to boot by the comments in the review) and the lag of turbo power delivery, it's never going to be the definitive Mustang experience.
Maybe the 4 cylinder Mustang will be a sales success, but in my experience people who want a Mustang want a loud, lairy V8, they don't care about MPG and generally don't use them every day. On the other hand, people who want economical cars don't want big American saloons.
So, when are you buying one?As for the Ecoboost 2.3, it sounds like they've tuned it for a diesel-style delivery, and having had a few rides in friend's cars that have V8s of 4.0L and up, the power delivery of the V8 is much nicer than any turbo 4. The V8s I've been around have bags of torque and smooth, linear power which gives a car an effortless feeling to it's acceleration. A 4 cylinder that has a 2000rpm powerband, an asthmatic top end (and a harsh, groaning noise to boot by the comments in the review) and the lag of turbo power delivery, it's never going to be the definitive Mustang experience.
Maybe the 4 cylinder Mustang will be a sales success, but in my experience people who want a Mustang want a loud, lairy V8, they don't care about MPG and generally don't use them every day. On the other hand, people who want economical cars don't want big American saloons.
Edited by Mastodon2 on Friday 19th September 11:04
MC Bodge said:
So, when are you buying one?
I'm not, because I strongly doubt I'll ever buy a new car because depreciation is so galling in the UK car market, cars are generally transport for me, bikes for fun. Will you be buying one?Clearly, Ford have done their research and if they didn't think they'd sell they wouldn't have made a 4 cylinder version. But instead of looking at the economy involved, and bearing in mind that Mustangs are pride and joy cars for many owners, not commuting hacks, which would you rather have? If you'd take a dull blown 4 over a V8 you're mad.
Personally can't wait to get them over here and I'm glad the reviews so far have been so positive. Me, I'd love the V8, I don't do huge miles and compared to the running costs of my current car, it wouldn't be that different. That said, in terms of the masses, I think (and hope) the EcoBoost will be a big success.
135 hp/litre isn't that high now-a-days, there are plenty with higher specific outputs in the making from various manufacturers.There will be plenty more they can extract! The current setup with be chocked by the intake and the exhaust not to mention using a turbo that is optimized for fast spool rather then power.
As per with other Ford cars I'm sure they will over a nice power and torque increase over stock.
The Zetec-S Red & Black that are just coming out are 1.0 140PS, more output per litre than a Veyron 
Mound Dawg said:
Groundhog Day.
Those of us with slightly longer memories will remember that Ford did exactly this in the mid 80s and offered a 2.3 turbo four pot 'Stang alongside the 5 litre V8. The 2.3 was faster (in those days both cars ran out at a measly 160-170 bhp) and was sold as the performance option "SVO".
The American public bought the "Five Point Oh" instead and the turbo lasted only two years.
Things have moved on slightly since the 80s, both in terms of technology and the economy. Not really a relevant comparison.Those of us with slightly longer memories will remember that Ford did exactly this in the mid 80s and offered a 2.3 turbo four pot 'Stang alongside the 5 litre V8. The 2.3 was faster (in those days both cars ran out at a measly 160-170 bhp) and was sold as the performance option "SVO".
The American public bought the "Five Point Oh" instead and the turbo lasted only two years.
chuntington101 said:
zeppelin101 said:
Ecosseven said:
The 2.3 Ecoboost has the highest specific output of all the engines so not sure how much more Mountune can extract?
1.0 = 125 bhp / litre (Focus, Fiesta, B-Max, etc)
1.6 = 113 bhp / litre (Fiesta ST - 182bhp)
2.0 = 124 bhp / litre (Focus ST - 248bhp)
2.3 = 135 bhp / litre (Mustang - 310bhp)
Without knowing the engineering spec of either the bottom end or the standard fit turbo, you can't even begin to guess where it could go to.1.0 = 125 bhp / litre (Focus, Fiesta, B-Max, etc)
1.6 = 113 bhp / litre (Fiesta ST - 182bhp)
2.0 = 124 bhp / litre (Focus ST - 248bhp)
2.3 = 135 bhp / litre (Mustang - 310bhp)
135 hp/litre isn't that high now-a-days, there are plenty with higher specific outputs in the making from various manufacturers.
As per with other Ford cars I'm sure they will over a nice power and torque increase over stock.
Fartgalen said:
I really like the look of this new Mustang. But if/when I get one it'll be with the wheel on the left and a throbbing v8 up front.
You know the V8 is coming over here in RHD? Or do you just want a left hooker for some reason?k-ink said:
Mastodon2 said:
The idea of a 4 cylinder Mustang appeals about as much as a bad case of the sh*ts, I'd rather have the "rental spec" V6, or wait for the V8.
Easy to say when you only have to put fuel in your 1.8 Focus. Try running a V8 for real, then see if it changes your perspective 
irocfan said:
k-ink said:
Mastodon2 said:
The idea of a 4 cylinder Mustang appeals about as much as a bad case of the sh*ts, I'd rather have the "rental spec" V6, or wait for the V8.
Easy to say when you only have to put fuel in your 1.8 Focus. Try running a V8 for real, then see if it changes your perspective Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff