RE: Ford Mustang Ecoboost: Driven

[Skater12]

In May next year I'll be hiring a convertible Mustang to drive the pacific highway between LA and San Francisco.
I'm hoping by that time the 2015 convertible will be available, rather than the current model.
I've hired drop-top-stangs a few times in the past and loved the experience, if not the driving dynamics. The Pacific Highway will be a really good test, as unlike most route in the US, it's got a shed-load of turns, hairpins, inclines and even the weather can vary in short distances.
I'll report back if i do get a 2015 model.
For now, see below. That's how i'd want mine in the UK.

[Devil2575]

skyrover said:

k-ink said:

Easy to say when you only have to put fuel in your 1.8 Focus. Try running a V8 for real, then and see if it changes your perspective

A 2.3 turbo won't be far behind the V8 in fuel consumption tbh, especially when driven hard.

I estimate an average low 20's for the turbo and high teens to low twenties for the V8. Probably less than 5mpg in it.

Worth it for the extra 100hp, NA throttle response and soundtrack of the V8 IMO.

Isn't the point that when not driven hard the 2.3 will get much better mpg?

After all, how often do people actually drive their cars hard?

The 2.0T Ecoboost in the Focus ST manages an average of 30 mpg according to Honest John and I can't imagine the 2.3 being massively more thirsty.

[skyrover]

Devil2575 said:

Isn't the point that when not driven hard the 2.3 will get much better mpg?

After all, how often do people actually drive their cars hard?

The 2.0T Ecoboost in the Focus ST manages an average of 30 mpg according to Honest John and I can't imagine the 2.3 being massively more thirsty.

No... when not driven hard it will get slightly better mpg.

When driven hard it will get similar mpg.

[MC Bodge]

skyrover said:

No... when not driven hard it will get slightly better mpg.

When driven hard it will get similar mpg.

And yet, some people who will never buy any variation of the car are declaring that the only one to have is a thirsty V8, the sort of car that sells almost zero in the UK.

Then again some grown men on here argue strongly about supercars they don't own and have never driven....

[Devil2575]

MC Bodge said:

J4CKO said:

As for this being a modern 2.0S, I suppose range wise it is in the middle but not really comparable as it has 3 times the power of a 2.0 Capri and more than twice what a 2.8i had, another 100 on top of a Sierra Cosworth which was the range topper/halo car back then, and this is the eco special ! amazing how far things have come, even accounting for the weight increase its a big power hike and shows how blasé we have got about big power numbers that 310 bhp just gets grudging approval.

...as if many people will ever make much use of all of it...

Some Modern cars have phenomenal performance, but I suspect that fewer and fewer people ever drive on quiet, entertaining roads -in the UK, at least.

Somebody was even complaining that the top speed was low.

I think that power and performance figures these days are more about pub bragging rights than anything else. They've got so high in some cases as to be utterly irrellevant especially if you live in the south east. I mean how often does the owner of a car like a new M5 or and RS6 actually get to use more than a fraction of the power?

[skyrover]

MC Bodge said:

And yet, some people who will never buy any variation of the car are declaring that the only one to have is a thirsty V8, the sort of car that sells almost zero in the UK.

Trends can change if people wake up a little

Both variations are thirsty, one slightly more than the other... so neither is really suitable as a high mileage commuter in the UK.

However one offers more power, better reliability, better throttle response, better soundtrack.

[Devil2575]

skyrover said:

Devil2575 said:

Isn't the point that when not driven hard the 2.3 will get much better mpg?

After all, how often do people actually drive their cars hard?

The 2.0T Ecoboost in the Focus ST manages an average of 30 mpg according to Honest John and I can't imagine the 2.3 being massively more thirsty.

No... when not driven hard it will get slightly better mpg.

When driven hard it will get similar mpg.

Really?

Any you know this how exactly?

[skyrover]

Devil2575 said:

Really?

Any you know this how exactly?

Because they have already tested the car's in the USA

[Devil2575]

skyrover said:

Roo said:

Real world EPA figures.

Those are not real world... those are based on lab results.

Real world will be much closer.

How do you know this?

Or is it just what you would like to be the case because it supports your view?

[Devil2575]

skyrover said:

Devil2575 said:

Really?

Any you know this how exactly?

Because they have already tested the car's in the USA

And what are the results?

[996TT02]

MC Bodge said:

skyrover said:

No... when not driven hard it will get slightly better mpg.

When driven hard it will get similar mpg.

And yet, some people who will never buy any variation of the car are declaring that the only one to have is a thirsty V8, the sort of car that sells almost zero in the UK.

Then again some grown men on here argue strongly about supercars they don't own and have never driven....

There seem to be plenty of V8 engined vehicles in the UK. Heck, even Audis have them nowadays.

Sure the Mustang and similar Yank V8s are not exactly selling 1:1 to Audis, even V8 Audis - that probably tells you more about the vehicle type the engine is in, rather than the engine configuration itself.

Mustangs are meant to be muscle cars, and that's what people in the UK generally buy them for. 2.3 4-bangers aren't "muscle" in any book. The BHP of the 4 pot is irrelevant, a V8 is about the complete package, sound and all.

Mustangs were offered with 2.3L non turbo engines in the late 80s and early 90s and few people even acknowledge their existence nowadays.

[skyrover]

Devil2575 said:

skyrover said:

Devil2575 said:

Really?

Any you know this how exactly?

Because they have already tested the car's in the USA

And what are the results?

19mpg (US) for 2.3 ecoboost

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-must...

Fuelly shows the previous gen 5.0 getting around 16-21mpg (US) on average

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2014

[Fartgalen]

morgs_ said:

You know the V8 is coming over here in RHD? Or do you just want a left hooker for some reason?

Yes I know. But I do 95% of my driving on the continent.

[Devil2575]

skyrover said:

19mpg (US) for 2.3 ecoboost

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-must...

Fuelly shows the previous gen 5.0 getting around 16-21mpg (US) on average

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2014

Those are hardly two sets of comparable figures are they.

Do you really think that Car and Driver set out to see what kind of mpg they could reasonably achieve, or do you think that they simply ragged the tits off it?

[skyrover]

Devil2575 said:

Those are hardly two sets of comparable figures are they.

Do you really think that Car and Driver set out to see what kind of mpg they could reasonably achieve, or do you think that they simply ragged the tits off it?

If they ragged the tits off it, they would be much lower than 19mpg

[CaptainSensib1e]

996TT02 said:

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.

How many poverty spec BMWs do you see with M badges stuck on? Mercs with AMG badges? These are the types of people who will buy a 4 pot Mustang.

[Roo]

skyrover said:

Fuelly shows the previous gen 5.0 getting around 16-21mpg (US) on average

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2014

But what about the new car?

[skyrover]

Roo said:

skyrover said:

Fuelly shows the previous gen 5.0 getting around 16-21mpg (US) on average

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2014

But what about the new car?

Same engine and box, shouldn't be far off.

[Devil2575]

skyrover said:

Devil2575 said:

Those are hardly two sets of comparable figures are they.

Do you really think that Car and Driver set out to see what kind of mpg they could reasonably achieve, or do you think that they simply ragged the tits off it?

If they ragged the tits off it, they would be much lower than 19mpg

But you have no idea how it's been driven do you. It's about as reliable a number as asking someone how many MPG they get out of their car without any knowledge of where and how they drive. You only have to look at the variation in claimed MPG for cars in threads on PH to see this. My guess is that a car magazine is not going to have driven the car in a style likely to give an indication of what kind of mpg the average driver can achieve. Also it's a frickin auto, of course the MPG is st
It's about 23 UK mpg which to be honest is hardly supprising from a 2.3 petrol turbo auto being tested by a magazine.

[J4CKO]

SuperBaaaad said:

I wonder whether the tuners will turn their attention to the 2.3, and we will start seeing forged pistons, big turbos, bigger intercoolers and so on being thrown at them...

I would say that is a given, even if they don't sell that many over here and most are V8's in the states, this is still a global car so there will be a fair few floating round so it will be worth it for the tuners to start work on it, they have with the Focus and I cant imagine this is too challenging for them to develop some mods for.

The Ecoboost Focus goes from 250 to 300 with just a remap, so a 20 percent increase, if they can do the same on the Mustang then that would suggest 370 bhp would be possible but I don't know if its that simple, the Mustang may already be running higher boost pressure. Still I suspect with a few supporting mods 400 bhp will be achievable.

Suspect it already has forged pistons.