RE: Ford Mustang Ecoboost: Driven

[996TT02]

CaptainSensib1e said:

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.

Compared to total number of unbadged vehicles, which is what matters, very few. But in absolute numbers, yes they are out there.

However - it would seem that the sort of person to do this would be the person who would not have afforded the misbadged vehicle new anyway, and very likely bought it when it was starting to get leggy.

So such a person would not buy a new 4 pot Mustang anyway. If you want 4 pot there are plenty of vehicles that are far more sensible, sporty, and won't make you look like one tenth of a wannabe/"poor"/clueless/"dad bought me this"/hairdresser type person you would were you to buy a 4 pot 'Stang.

[Prawnboy]

996TT02 said:

If you want 4 pot there are plenty of vehicles that are far more sensible, sporty, and won't make you look like one tenth of a wannabe/"poor"/clueless/"dad bought me this"/hairdresser type person you would were you to buy a 4 pot 'Stang.

then sign me up for a hairdressing course, because i can't think of one 4pot coupe i would like more.

[skyrover]

Devil2575 said:

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.

Well lets wait and see... I stand by my prediction that the MPG from both will be similar enough to justify the V8 and it's associated benefits.

[J4CKO]

996TT02 said:

CaptainSensib1e said:

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.

Compared to total number of unbadged vehicles, which is what matters, very few. But in absolute numbers, yes they are out there.

However - it would seem that the sort of person to do this would be the person who would not have afforded the misbadged vehicle new anyway, and very likely bought it when it was starting to get leggy.

So such a person would not buy a new 4 pot Mustang anyway. If you want 4 pot there are plenty of vehicles that are far more sensible, sporty, and won't make you look like one tenth of a wannabe/"poor"/clueless/"dad bought me this"/hairdresser type person you would were you to buy a 4 pot 'Stang.

What a load of nonsense.

Wannabe - Because they bough a 4 cyl ? 90 percent of the cars on the road are 4 cylinder, wannabes buy S line Audis and RR Sports and put hideously messed with registrations on them.

Poor - Er, its a 30 grand purchase

Clueless - I don't think the clueless go for cars like that, maybe not all that bothered about V8 noise and a couple of seconds to 100

Dad etc - I think that type may be more Minis, Fiat 500's and stuff

Hairdresser - tired old cliché, not sure why hairdressers get singled out or is it a euphemism for gay/effeminate ? there are plenty of Gay petrolheads, plenty of straight petrolheads who make a good living doing ladies hair.

[Devil2575]

J4CKO said:

996TT02 said:

CaptainSensib1e said:

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.

Compared to total number of unbadged vehicles, which is what matters, very few. But in absolute numbers, yes they are out there.

However - it would seem that the sort of person to do this would be the person who would not have afforded the misbadged vehicle new anyway, and very likely bought it when it was starting to get leggy.

So such a person would not buy a new 4 pot Mustang anyway. If you want 4 pot there are plenty of vehicles that are far more sensible, sporty, and won't make you look like one tenth of a wannabe/"poor"/clueless/"dad bought me this"/hairdresser type person you would were you to buy a 4 pot 'Stang.

What a load of nonsense.

Wannabe - Because they bough a 4 cyl ? 90 percent of the cars on the road are 4 cylinder, wannabes buy S line Audis and RR Sports and put hideously messed with registrations on them.

Poor - Er, its a 30 grand purchase

Clueless - I don't think the clueless go for cars like that, maybe not all that bothered about V8 noise and a couple of seconds to 100

Dad etc - I think that type may be more Minis, Fiat 500's and stuff

Hairdresser - tired old cliché, not sure why hairdressers get singled out or is it a euphemism for gay/effeminate ? there are plenty of Gay petrolheads, plenty of straight petrolheads who make a good living doing ladies hair.

Indeed. A large proportion of 3 series and A4s are 2.0 Diesel MSports or S lines.

I'm fairly certain the biggest selling variant of the TT is the diesel version.

There are plenty of people who want the image/looks and who are far less bothered about power.

[Roo]

skyrover said:

Well lets wait and see... I stand by my prediction that the MPG from both will be similar enough to justify the V8 and it's associated benefits.

So you think the 4 pot is only going to do, pretty much, the same MPG as the V8?

That's despite the official figures showing it does roughly 25% more.

Not forgetting the V8 will also be in the higher RFL band at almost double the cost.

[skyrover]

Roo said:

skyrover said:

Well lets wait and see... I stand by my prediction that the MPG from both will be similar enough to justify the V8 and it's associated benefits.

So you think the 4 pot is only going to do, pretty much, the same MPG as the V8?

That's despite the official figures showing it does roughly 25% more.

Not forgetting the V8 will also be in the higher RFL band at almost double the cost.

When pushing on, yes the 4 pot will be similar to the V8

In general use I would expect around 5mpg difference on average. i.e 26mpg to the V8's 21mpg

[Devil2575]

skyrover said:

Devil2575 said:

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.

Well lets wait and see... I stand by my prediction that the MPG from both will be similar enough to justify the V8 and it's associated benefits.

Indeed. Time will tell.

WRT benefits, you have to remember that 5 mpg increase in economy from an 18 mpg starting point does work out to be quite a lot of money a year if you do average miles.

[Devil2575]

skyrover said:

When pushing on, yes the 4 pot will be similar to the V8

In general use I would expect around 5mpg difference on average. i.e 26mpg to the V8's 21mpg

If the numbers do work out to be those that's still a £500 saving on fuel based on 10k a year, then throw in RFL and insurance as well as lower purchase price...

[skyrover]

Devil2575 said:

skyrover said:

When pushing on, yes the 4 pot will be similar to the V8

In general use I would expect around 5mpg difference on average. i.e 26mpg to the V8's 21mpg

If the numbers do work out to be those that's still a £500 saving on fuel, then throw in RFL and insurance as well as lower purchase price...

hmm... I estimate @ 129.9p a litre over 5000 miles your going to be paying £1406.04 at 21mpg (uk)

at 26mpg (uk) it will cost you £1135.65, so a saving of £270.39 over 5000 miles.

I think 5000 miles is quite generous for a weekend car

[Devil2575]

skyrover said:

Devil2575 said:

skyrover said:

When pushing on, yes the 4 pot will be similar to the V8

In general use I would expect around 5mpg difference on average. i.e 26mpg to the V8's 21mpg

If the numbers do work out to be those that's still a £500 saving on fuel, then throw in RFL and insurance as well as lower purchase price...

hmm... I estimate @ 129.9p a litre over 5000 miles your going to be paying £1406.04 at 21mpg (uk)

at 26mpg (uk) it will cost you £1135.65, so a saving of £270.39 over 5000 miles.

I think 5000 miles is quite generous for a weekend car

Perhaps the kind of person buying the 2.3 won't be using it as a "Weekend car"

[skyrover]

A quick google suggest 7,900 miles per annum for average UK driver.

£2221.55 @ 21mpg (uk)
£1794.32 @ 26mpg (uk)

So an extra £427.18 per year on fuel for the V8 by my estimated calculations based on annual mileage of 7,900 miles.

[kambites]

The mileage for an average UK car would probably be a more meaningful statistic for most people, which is about 11k miles, IIRC?

[Devil2575]

skyrover said:

A quick google suggest 7,900 miles per annum for average UK driver.

£2221.55 @ 21mpg (uk)
£1794.32 @ 26mpg (uk)

So an extra £427.18 per year on fuel for the V8 by my estimated calculations based on annual mileage of 7,900 miles.

Assuming the 21 and 26 mpg numbers are correct and that the buyers of both versions do similar miles and no account for RFL and purchase price differences.

If I was going to guess, I'd say that people who have plenty of cash and want a weekend toy will buy the V8 and those with less but want an interesting daily driver will buy the 2.3T.

[skyrover]

kambites said:

The mileage for an average UK car would probably be a more meaningful statistic for most people, which is about 11k miles, IIRC?

Currently 7,900 miles

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28546589

[McFarnsworth]

Annual car tax for a Mustang in Belgium:

2.3 turbo: ~€500
5.0 V8: ~€2500

I don't think I'm going to see many V8's here.

And it's a similar situation in many other countries, so Ford basically needed to fit a smaller engine if it wanted any hope of success outside of the US.

[Lil'RedGTO]

I don't really get why some people seem to be ANGRY that Ford are selling a 2.3T, or that some people (probably the vast majority in fact) will choose it over the V8. I'm just pleased that Ford are giving us the choice. They could easily have decided just to give us the 2.3T. Fortunately, they seem to have taken the view that (as this thread appears to confirm) there are two distinct markets for a contemporary Mustang in the UK - those who think a Mustang should have a V8, and those who just want a relatively economical but stylish coupe. I have no problem with them catering to both.

[kambites]

skyrover said:

kambites said:

The mileage for an average UK car would probably be a more meaningful statistic for most people, which is about 11k miles, IIRC?

Currently 7,900 miles

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28546589

Interesting. The average mileage for motorists must presumably be even lower then.

[skyrover]

Lil'RedGTO said:

those who think a Mustang should have a V8, and those who just want a relatively economical but stylish coupe. I have no problem with them catering to both.

I think the point is that neither will be particularly economical by Uk standards

[MC Bodge]

skyrover said:

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.

That's right, people who would be choosing a car in this price range will soon begin queuing up to buy the most thirsty, high VED and company car tax variation of these cars for better throttle response, if somebody tells them what it is