I'm really excited about this car
Thread Starter
V6 Member
Joined: July 13, 2010
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
From: Akron, Ohio
I'm really excited about this car
I owned a 2010 GT Premium manual for a short time, and really liked it. Unfortunately my needs changed and I sold it. Well they have changed again and I'm impatiently waiting for order info on the 2015. I'm excited about the Ecoboost 2.3 with 6 spd auto. I replaced the GT with a Audi A4 wagon. That sold me on the Turbo 4 cyl engine. The Mustang will have considerably more HP and TQ. and should really perform well.
Member
Joined: April 24, 2011
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
From: Yorba Linda, CA
Super Boss Lawman Member
Joined: January 17, 2006
Posts: 4,148
Likes: 3
From: Temecula,CA
Yeah most will say don't buy a mustang for mpg but when gas prices are at $5.00 per gallon that is definitively a consideration for the V8! Ouch
Last edited by SONICBOOST; Apr 24, 2014 at 08:12 AM.
V6 Member
Joined: April 2, 2013
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
From: FRA, Germany
Mach 1 Member
Joined: March 1, 2007
Posts: 669
Likes: 5
From: Kansas City
Trouble is, its very easy to make a four banger sound loud, as legions of fart-canned Civics will attest, it's very difficult to make them actually sound good, i.e., quantity vs. quality.
This ignores the trashy, buzzy, harsh NVH aspect of four bangers too. While I'm sure the Egoboost 4 will produce impressive numbers, both in terms of performance, efficiency and cleanliness, it's always been the qualitative experience that's left me a bit less than enthusiastic for them in general.
Also, in terms of putative efficiency, turbo fours, when driven in anger, can be quite fuel thirsty themselves, even if they can be tuned to post big numbers in EPA testing. Kind of like "teaching to the test" in education, these turbo motors are specifically "tuned to the EPA test" regardless of how that translates into real world numbers. Sometimes turbos can be a bit worse than n.a. cars of the same power because they: have more restricted exhaust systems with all that turbine and plumbing in the way; often need somewhat richer mixtures to keep combustion temps and knocking down. Inevitably, it takes approximately the same amount of fuel/air to produce X amount of power, however that is done (big motor, fast spinning motor, force fed motor), so if you tend to drive with your gas pedal matted, don't expect any better mileage than a similarly powerful n.a. > four-cylinder motor. In the end, some people can be left a bit disappointed with their own real world MPGs vs. what they expected from the EPA numbers. Keep out of the boost and then you are essentially driving a small, n.a. four banger without a lot of power.
I'd actually be more interested should Ford decide to plop in some version of the Egoboost 3.5 V6 at some point (optional GT motor? SE?).
Anyways, regardless of the above, we'll have to wait for actual testing and seat time behind the Egoboost 2.3 to make any final judgements one way or the other.
This ignores the trashy, buzzy, harsh NVH aspect of four bangers too. While I'm sure the Egoboost 4 will produce impressive numbers, both in terms of performance, efficiency and cleanliness, it's always been the qualitative experience that's left me a bit less than enthusiastic for them in general.
Also, in terms of putative efficiency, turbo fours, when driven in anger, can be quite fuel thirsty themselves, even if they can be tuned to post big numbers in EPA testing. Kind of like "teaching to the test" in education, these turbo motors are specifically "tuned to the EPA test" regardless of how that translates into real world numbers. Sometimes turbos can be a bit worse than n.a. cars of the same power because they: have more restricted exhaust systems with all that turbine and plumbing in the way; often need somewhat richer mixtures to keep combustion temps and knocking down. Inevitably, it takes approximately the same amount of fuel/air to produce X amount of power, however that is done (big motor, fast spinning motor, force fed motor), so if you tend to drive with your gas pedal matted, don't expect any better mileage than a similarly powerful n.a. > four-cylinder motor. In the end, some people can be left a bit disappointed with their own real world MPGs vs. what they expected from the EPA numbers. Keep out of the boost and then you are essentially driving a small, n.a. four banger without a lot of power.
I'd actually be more interested should Ford decide to plop in some version of the Egoboost 3.5 V6 at some point (optional GT motor? SE?).
Anyways, regardless of the above, we'll have to wait for actual testing and seat time behind the Egoboost 2.3 to make any final judgements one way or the other.
Last edited by rhumb; Apr 25, 2014 at 08:40 AM.
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 18
From: Bristol, TN
Y'know it would be interesting to see the bsfc numbers as the ecoboost engines go into boost. I know they are DI but most any engine with some form of forced induction starts running fat A/F ratios to keep things from melting down and that hurts bsfc.
Needs to be more Astony
Joined: October 4, 2004
Posts: 8,610
Likes: 5
From: Volo, IL
People fail to realize that for a car to make a given hp it requires a given amount of fuel.
300hp from a 2L 4cyl turbo or 300hp from a 5L V8 is going to use the same gas. A car typically burns 1 part fuel for every 11 parts air.
People wonder why 80's cars are the king of fuel economy. Its not hard to work out. low weight. Very few cars in the 80's broke 3000lbs. Very low maximum hp. most had 90-120hp. New cars are trying to make that up by aerodynamics that the 80's cars didn't have and increasing volumetric efficiency slightly. But people fail to see that they are accelerating much faster than they were back then. Instead of taking 12-14 seconds to 60 most cars are doing 8-10 seconds.
Bottom line, key to good mileage is keep your car as light as possible and barley touch the gas and stop trying to keep up with the traffic around you. Let the car accelerate to 60 in 14 sec instead of 8-10 seconds.
Its so hard to do in a turbo car because you want to feel that rush of torque you get from the boost.
300hp from a 2L 4cyl turbo or 300hp from a 5L V8 is going to use the same gas. A car typically burns 1 part fuel for every 11 parts air.
People wonder why 80's cars are the king of fuel economy. Its not hard to work out. low weight. Very few cars in the 80's broke 3000lbs. Very low maximum hp. most had 90-120hp. New cars are trying to make that up by aerodynamics that the 80's cars didn't have and increasing volumetric efficiency slightly. But people fail to see that they are accelerating much faster than they were back then. Instead of taking 12-14 seconds to 60 most cars are doing 8-10 seconds.
Bottom line, key to good mileage is keep your car as light as possible and barley touch the gas and stop trying to keep up with the traffic around you. Let the car accelerate to 60 in 14 sec instead of 8-10 seconds.
Its so hard to do in a turbo car because you want to feel that rush of torque you get from the boost.
Post *****
Joined: December 14, 2007
Posts: 19,953
Likes: 4
From: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Member
Joined: April 24, 2011
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
From: Yorba Linda, CA