2015 Mustang Fuel Economy Leaks - Should the V6 Just Die?
8/25/14, 09:56 PM
#21
I do not want an Ecoboost Mustang. If I were to get another Mustang to go along with my Boss, it would be the V6 convertible. A big part of that "if" is whether my wife would be happy without the Premium Package since it will be primarily her summer driver. I have a very positive impression of the 3.7L V6 in my F150 and that would be my engine of choice in a secondary Mustang. I don't understand the corporate decision not to allow the Premium Package with the V6 other than to drive customers into the Ecoboost.
8/25/14, 10:25 PM
#22
Legacy TMS Member
What is the obsession with people saying the V6 is needed for the Rental fleets. I see no reason why the Ecoboost wouldn't work for the rental fleets. They already have tons of ecoboost Fusions and Escapes in the rental fleets. These ecoboost engines are the fragile turbos of yesterday. They don't need any special cool down prior to shutting the engine down. They are engineered so that the coolant continues to flowing using a natural siphoning action.
8/26/14, 06:16 AM
#23
Cobra Member
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
4 Posts
I'm not saying all Fusions and Escapes are Ecoboosts, but trust me there are a large number of them out there. If you are a member of the loyalty clubs and rent a lot they put you in the nicer cars. Escape Titaniums and Fusion Titaniums come standard with the Ecoboost.
8/27/14, 03:12 PM
#24
Go to YOUTUBE and type in Ecoboost Issues and after you see all of the problems these engines have including replacing the cylinder head to fix the carbon build up problem, you will run so fast to the V-6 and V-8, that you will thank the internet for ever!
8/27/14, 09:57 PM
#26
Shelby GT350 Member
Join Date: September 11, 2006
Location: Cumming, GA
Posts: 2,349
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Doesn't the EcoBoost Mustang require 91 Octane? Nobody that rents the car is gonna be willing to fill it before returning it with anything except 87 octane.
8/28/14, 12:42 AM
#28
Spam Connoisseur
I got هَبوبed
I got هَبوبed
Join Date: September 8, 2009
Location: Sun City AZ
Posts: 9,703
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
I truly feel indifferent.........I sold my PP2012 yellow blaze recently in prep for the 2015ECO to find out that this year they under rated the MPGs and HP of the 2011-2014 generation only to release the same MPG for a TT4 banger............. NOT TO MENTION THIS CAR NEEDS PREMIUM GAS!!!!!!!!this car will almost feel the same based off of these specs and for a price that is not worth it.................. WOW...........at least I know im not getting a 2015 NOW! Maybe they will do like they did with the 2010-2011 and make a change that pisses off early adopters that will work in my favor
8/28/14, 11:50 AM
#29
Cobra Member
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
4 Posts
I believe it is like the rest of the Ecoboost line. It will run just fine on 87, but if you want all of the HPs you need to run premium. In fact I saw that the Mustang Ecoboost was rated with 93 octane which a chunk of the country doesn't even have readily access. The ST is rated using 91.
8/30/14, 10:12 AM
#32
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 30, 2004
Location: Romeoville, Illinois
Posts: 282
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point: The EcoBoost trumps the V6 and offers 22-city and 31-highway with the manual trans, but there's no data on the auto version. And here comes my same gripe that I ranted a bit with the horsepower. Why has Ford kept the V6? The EcoBoost has better horsepower, better torque, better fuel economy, is lighter, and will probably be a better car in general. There is no point for Ford to keep building a less-than-optimal car. It might cost a bit less, but really, is that the only reason?
Manuel Carrillo III's (@ManuelCarrillo3) counterpoint: Ford has kept the V6 because in the previous decade the automaker invested a lot of money into the Duratec powertrain. The 3.7, or "Duratec 37", and its closely related 3.5L Cyclone brother, the "Duratec 35", are still used in other Ford products. Continuing to use the V6 in the Mustang amortizes Duratec development costs more broadly. While the EcoBoost I4 is superior, the V6 engine was funded for a particular life cycle -- probably six years -- so there are two model years left in it. Additionally, as you point out, there are still plenty of people who will equip their Mustangs with this mill, so as to avoid the EcoBoost's extra up-front cost. To have the six-banger in the S550 engine lineup for two more years, or until the end of the 2016 model year, makes decent business sense.
What do you all think?
Read the rest on the Mustang Source homepage.
That said, I think (and would hope) that Ford is going to going to listen to customers on this one. If enough people buy the V6, it will likely stick around, and it might get a Premium trim level, same as the EcoBoost. On the other hand, if the EcoBoost sells like gangbusters (and doesn't have major issues, like the 1.6L did), the V6 might only stick around for 1 or 2 years.
8/30/14, 10:26 AM
#33
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 30, 2004
Location: Romeoville, Illinois
Posts: 282
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That said, it'd be naive to think that Ford won't tune for 87 and 89, plus there are turbo engines out there from other manufacturers (like GM and VW) that call for 87, so those guys clearly think that running regular is okay.
8/30/14, 10:31 AM
#34
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 30, 2004
Location: Romeoville, Illinois
Posts: 282
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ford isn't alone in that regard. EVERYONE, particularly VW, has been having issues with carbon build-up in their DI engines (it'll be interesting to see how the Gen V small blocks and Honda's Earth Dreams engines fare once they start getting miles on them). It a seems to be a nature of the beast thing with DI at this point.
8/31/14, 02:38 AM
#35
GT Member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SORRY it is just 93 for optimum performance. But hey........... a 2014 is looking a lot better in my eyes performance wise..........still cant get over how they changed the body and over looked economy when it is meant to be just that! ECOBOOST does not mean, let's give you fuel economy of the past. I understand it is a 4 banger turbo with great technology involved.......but the reason I was going to switch was because of the advantage of eco boost............ 
but my 2011 that I recently sold would have done me just fine 
but my 2011 that I recently sold would have done me just fine
9/12/14, 05:14 AM
#37
Cobra Member
Join Date: February 12, 2010
Location: MA (north shore)
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like the GT and V6 are out now as well. This is from the EPA.
Official info on the 2015 Ford Mustang has been slowly trickling out since its debut, and now we have EPA fuel economy numbers for the entire Mustang range. The 2015 Ford Mustang GT is rated at 15/25 mpg city/highway with the six-speed manual and 16/25 mpg with the six-speed automatic. That's down from the 2014 GT, which achieves 1 mpg better on the highway when equipped with the manual, and 2 mpg better in the city with the automatic. The GT's 5.0-liter Coyote V-8 gets a few upgrades that raise output to 435 hp and 400 lb-ft of torque for 2015, including bigger intake and exhaust valves, the Boss 302's valve springs, Boss connecting rods, and a higher-lift cam profile. Though combined mpg drops from 20 mpg to 19 mpg for the automatic, the rating stays the same for the manual at 19 mpg combined. Just as predicted, the 2015 Ford Mustang with the turbocharged 2.3-liter EcoBoost engine achieves better fuel economy numbers than the V-6. The EcoBoost Mustang with the six-speed manual is rated 22/31 mpg, while the automatic version is rated 21/32 mpg. The 3.7-liter V-6 model is rated 17/28 mpg with the manual and 19/28 mpg with the automatic, which is down from last year. The 2014 Ford Mustang V-6 was rated 19/29 mpg with the manual and 19/31 mpg with the automatic. In addition, the Mustang V-6 loses 5 hp for 2015.
Read more: http://wot.motortrend.com/1409_offic...#ixzz3D6CFRLPJ
Read more: http://wot.motortrend.com/1409_offic...#ixzz3D6CFRLPJ
Last edited by Ethanjbeau; 9/12/14 at 05:16 AM.
9/12/14, 06:06 AM
#38
Cobra Member
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
4 Posts
But it's not at high RPM that I can tell the difference. It's when I floor it in 6th gear at 2200 - 2600 RPM. With 87 it hardly does anything, but with 93 it jumps like something jabbed it in the rear.
I know I could down shift, but when you just need a quick burst of speed to get in to a gap in traffic its nice to have the power on tap to just punch it without the downshift.
9/12/14, 07:55 AM
#39
Cobra Member
Yes... the EB on paper is "better on gas" and has more power and torque over the V6.... I'm just not sold on owning and wanting to drive a 4 cylinder muscle car. Turbo or not, its a 4 banger.
I wonder what the V8 guys think about this? is this a monstrosity? I already know that a lot of GT owners feel that the V6 model is not a performance oriented car (even though it really does have A LOT of potential and lines up pretty darn well against the older Model GT's)
I wonder what the V8 guys think about this? is this a monstrosity? I already know that a lot of GT owners feel that the V6 model is not a performance oriented car (even though it really does have A LOT of potential and lines up pretty darn well against the older Model GT's)
9/12/14, 08:03 AM
#40
Bullitt Member
Join Date: July 3, 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes... the EB on paper is "better on gas" and has more power and torque over the V6.... I'm just not sold on owning and wanting to drive a 4 cylinder muscle car. Turbo or not, its a 4 banger.
I wonder what the V8 guys think about this? is this a monstrosity? I already know that a lot of GT owners feel that the V6 model is not a performance oriented car (even though it really does have A LOT of potential and lines up pretty darn well against the older Model GT's)
I wonder what the V8 guys think about this? is this a monstrosity? I already know that a lot of GT owners feel that the V6 model is not a performance oriented car (even though it really does have A LOT of potential and lines up pretty darn well against the older Model GT's)
Last edited by IndustryLeech; 9/12/14 at 08:13 AM.