RE: Mustang Performance Pack launched with 330hp

[300bhp/ton]

Wills2 said:

aeropilot said:

Wills2 said:

There is just something wrong about a 2.3l Mustang needs the V8

Thats what they said back in 1974 when Ford launched this, err, thing.....the Mustang II........ and with a 2.3L four cyclinder engine.

Wrong then as well.

[Alex_225]

mac96 said:

Alex_225 said:

I'm assuming that if it can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds with 330bhp and a manual box it's a pretty light car?

Personally it doesn't appeal to me very much, in my mind a muscle is just that with a V8. Whether historically one had a 2.3 in or not, it's what most of us have come to accept for a Mustang.

I'm intrigued it's as quick as claimed considering there are 500bhp albeit it older V8 cars that do 0-60 in similar times.

Must be the automatic? It is quicker than a 2017 V8 Manual which has at least (depending on who you believe) 80bhp more, which would be remarkable even allowing for torque curve differences.

I may have misread as I thought it said manual. I'm guessing that figure would be auto considering they are generally quicker.

Still seems like a quick dash to 60 considering the power though. Unless it's a similar weight to the RS Focus?

I'm just comparing to my CLS63 which is obviously a V8 with 510bhp and an auto. Although I'm aware it's no lightweight at 1,800kg.

[alabbasi]

It's because there's now a Camaro with a 2L turbo that they need to beat out.

V8 mustangs make sense here in the states. I'm not sure how much sense they make in the US given that you pay ~$9/gallon for fuel. If you have the money to feed it petrol, you can probably afford a much nicer car.

10 years ago, a V8 mustang GT made less HP than this 4 cylinder which makes it mighty impressive in my eyes.

[Stang5oh]

alabbasi said:

It's because there's now a Camaro with a 2L turbo that they need to beat out.

V8 mustangs make sense here in the states. I'm not sure how much sense they make in the US given that you pay ~$9/gallon for fuel. If you have the money to feed it petrol, you can probably afford a much nicer car.

10 years ago, a V8 mustang GT made less HP than this 4 cylinder which makes it mighty impressive in my eyes.

The Mustang is a rare beast in the UK and has been a car that we covet since it was first introduced and people like me, in their early 30's have seen this car in movies since before we were born.. It's not so much about feeding it the fuel or being able to afford a more expensive car, I chose the stang over a Jag F type, it's the american feels.

[Demonix]

Agree the 4 pot isn't as an attractive buy as the V8 but when a £500-600 Mountune kit would take it up to 360-370bhp, more with a lairy exhaust then it's a better proposition. 5.0 with a super charger is still route I would go though!

[J4CKO]

irocfan said:

J4CKO said:

MX6 said:

I really like the look of these Mustang's. Obviously a V8 would be preferable, but this 4 pot seems decent with that kind of power, and with presumably lower purchase price and running costs makes sence as a base engine spec. I wouldn't want the 2.3 badges on it though...

Yeah, its a give that we would all more than like go for the V8, but cant understand how much people turn their nose up at a pretty smart looking 330 bhp coupe that does sixty in 4.5 seconds.

It all gets a bit "Rain Man " in here "Mustangs Must have a V8".

Best go and buy some old woofer with a 140 bhp Rover V8 on instead.

I understand your perspective but for me a pony/muscle car has to have the V8. I really wouldn't care if a 4-pot was the fastest car in the range I'd still want the 8 since, IMO, half the experience is the noise - not just the performance

Pony car definition was more about style and marketing than performance, can certainly see the appeal of the GT and thats the only one I would buy but think there is a market for a lower powered/cheaper version like a lot of Mustangs were from its inception

Irony is, this now outguns the V8 of not very long ago, until they got the 5.0 Coyote engine.

My missus is always on about getting a Mustang if she wins the lottery, and that would only be a V8, she could get one if she wanted one now, but think it would drive her mad parking it, not that she cant park, she does it better than me, just such a big thing.

[mac96]

Alex_225 said:

mac96 said:

Alex_225 said:

I'm assuming that if it can get to 60 in 4.5 seconds with 330bhp and a manual box it's a pretty light car?

Personally it doesn't appeal to me very much, in my mind a muscle is just that with a V8. Whether historically one had a 2.3 in or not, it's what most of us have come to accept for a Mustang.

I'm intrigued it's as quick as claimed considering there are 500bhp albeit it older V8 cars that do 0-60 in similar times.

Must be the automatic? It is quicker than a 2017 V8 Manual which has at least (depending on who you believe) 80bhp more, which would be remarkable even allowing for torque curve differences.

I may have misread as I thought it said manual. I'm guessing that figure would be auto considering they are generally quicker.

Still seems like a quick dash to 60 considering the power though. Unless it's a similar weight to the RS Focus?

I'm just comparing to my CLS63 which is obviously a V8 with 510bhp and an auto. Although I'm aware it's no lightweight at 1,800kg.

It's so hard to know what to believe- for example this:

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27131311/2020-f...

suggests the performance pack increases top speed by 34mph over the standard EcoBoost. That is either nonsense, or the result of different speed limiters, not the additional power. This sort of information then gets less accurate each time it is repeated.

I guess the truth is- it's fast enough to be fun, I'll stick to a V8 though.

[macdeb]

A Ford Mustang with a four cylinder engine? It's just wrong.

[300bhp/ton]

macdeb said:

A Ford Mustang with a four cylinder engine? It's just wrong.

Why?

[300bhp/ton]

Stang5oh said:

I picked up my mustang just over a month ago. The wife and I were looking for nearly 6 months and did our usual thing of visiting different dealers and seeing what they would throw at us to sweeten the deal.

We were talking about a 2.3 so the wife could use it as a daily but when it came to it, even she fell in love with the V8 noise and power. The one I bought has active exhaust as well so the noise can be tuned to what the situation requires.

I tried justifying the Ecoboost to myself, "European engine for a European mustang" "still 300Bhp" but it still never shook the whole feeling that the mustang would not be proper without the V8. 70% of UK Mustang buyers agree. And still being able to get 32mpg out of the V8 on a long run blows the whole fuel costs argument out of the water.

If I was offered the 2.3 performance or V8, it would still be V8 for me.

That 70% is not entirely unbiased though. As the 2.3 Mustang is stupid money in the UK, so it is not only expensive, but also pitched far too close to the V8 model.

In the USA the 2.3 Mustang is priced the same as the GT86. Over here is 1/3rd more expensive than a GT86 and pitched at a totally different sector and buyer. Thus Ford UK probably sell in the region of bugger all 2.3's.

[off_again]

I had the opportunity to drive an Ecoboost Mustang last year and was pleasantly surprised! It had a light tune on it and the performance exhaust, so it was a little too loud and boomy for me. However, it was very civilized at lower speeds and when you got it up and going it was very sprightly. In fact, I havent driven the current V8 model, but the previous gen one felt a lot heavier and I imagine that its a pretty good proposition for a daily driver.

I am in the US, so fuel prices dont matter as much, but for some who have longer commutes and live in more expensive fuel areas (California just hit $4.00 a gallon average the other week), it becomes viable. However, and I could be wrong on this, I understand that the Ecoboost engines arent as fuel efficient as the manufacturer figures suggest. I hear anecdotal comments that the 2.3 is only a couple of MPG better than the V8, which when you take into account resale value (Ecoboosts drop their value quickly here at least), then I am not sure the calculations quite work out.

[alabbasi]

off_again said:

I understand that the Ecoboost engines arent as fuel efficient as the manufacturer figures suggest. I hear anecdotal comments that the 2.3 is only a couple of MPG better than the V8, which when you take into account resale value (Ecoboosts drop their value quickly here at least), then I am not sure the calculations quite work out.

As with most turbo cars, they're fuel efficient provided that you don't have your foot in it all the time. 6th gear (or maybe 10th gear if it has the new automatic transmission) on the highway doing 70mph, I suspect it would be pretty frugal.

It's $2.60/gallon here in Texas and I'm already annoyed

[300bhp/ton]

donkmeister said:

It is part of the recipe for a Pony though....

But it isn't.

"Pony car is an American car classification for affordable, compact, highly styled coupés or convertibles with a sporty or performance-oriented image."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pony_car


The Mustang for instance was launched with a 2.8 litre Straight 6.

[borat52]

So pretty much 20 years after the Japanese reliably cracked 300bhp+ out of a mass produced 2 litre turbo Ford america have caught up.

[Stang5oh]

300bhp/ton said:

That 70% is not entirely unbiased though. As the 2.3 Mustang is stupid money in the UK, so it is not only expensive, but also pitched far too close to the V8 model.

In the USA the 2.3 Mustang is priced the same as the GT86. Over here is 1/3rd more expensive than a GT86 and pitched at a totally different sector and buyer. Thus Ford UK probably sell in the region of bugger all 2.3's.

That's interesting, I never really thought about it like that. The GT86 was a contender whilst I was looking at the mustang.

I never got to test drive the 2.3 ecoboost. The only time I was offered to drive it, the salesman was insistent that I was seriously considering buying it if I did drive it because he wanted to keep the miles off it. This put me off driving it as I wasn't sure. Probably backfired on him a little because if I drove it and felt comfortable in it then he probably would have had a sale that day as I had almost resigned myself to a 2.3, for the wife.

Lucky for me I have a good wife and she agreed to the V8, a bit later on, because it was race red and cheaper than the 2.3 as it was an ex demo.

[irocfan]

J4CKO said:

...just such a big thing...

I hear you there - mrs Iroc has just got herself a GLC which I thought was quite a large car. I then found out that my Camaro is 7" longer and 1" wider

[Kenny Powers]

Personally I would always choose the V8 but it’s good that there’s choice.

These are such nice looking cars. Not much in pictures, but serious gravitas in the metal.

[GTEYE]

There have always been Mustangs with smaller engines - it’s part of what keeps it affordable- so I hope it continues

[schmalex]

The Mustang simply isn’t a good enough overall package to warrant buying the 4 pot over either its rivals or the v8.

My money wouldn’t be going on it.

[alabbasi]

GTEYE said:

There have always been Mustangs with smaller engines - it’s part of what keeps it affordable- so I hope it continues

Yep, they should have named it the Ford Capri for the UK market and had a 1.3L version in it. Perfect for potting around in London where the avg speed is 5mph.