t-fatty

I thought blue or white was your only choice with the 50th Anniversary package?


On another forum I'm on a guy took a pic of his son next to a grey 50th car and they show a red in stock as well.


Mistake cars? Or are all colors available? Could be worth some money some day.

IndustryLeech

There are true Limited Edition 50th anniversary Mustangs that limited to 1964 units. Those are ONLY available in Kona Blue and Wimbledon White.

You can add the 50th Anniversary appearance package to any 2015 Mustang. That adds the grille corral, taillight trim and some interior flair.

AWmustang

The limited edition car, which will only have 1964 produced are only fully loaded GT's and only white or blue. However you can get a 50th package on any color Ecoboost or GT. (Not sure about the V6).

t-fatty

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

IndustryLeech

Also the 50th Anniversary white, Wimbledon White, is different than the Oxford White available on non 50th Anniversary cars. Wimbledon White is a creamy white and Oxford White is a cooler, clean white.

wannabe

Only thing available 'extra' on the V6 is wheels, fogs, spoiler and power drivers seat. I still think that's a marketing blunder.

LQQK

houtex

No, it's a driving force to choose anything else besides the V6. Ford doesn't want the v6 to sell, they want the Ecoboost to sell and take over. So, base only V6. You want fancier? Move 'up' the scale in engines.

IndustryLeech

I think if Wimbledon White were available on all S550s, it would be on my short list of color choices.

guitar

I believe Wimbeldon White is only available on the 50th Anniversary Model itself.

IndustryLeech

Yes, that's correct. That's why I stated that I wish it were an option.

LQQK

Couple of Pics I took at the MCA National in Nebraska, to make you-->

wannabe

I know what their 'logic' is... but if they didn't want to sell the V6, they shoulda just ****canned it altogether.

mustangfan410

I agree, they should have canned it for the 2015, instead they'll probably get rid of it 2 years from now.

TripleBlack14

We're on the same page. I wish Ford didn't stop offering it years ago. It's the iconic Mustang color, and of course the only flavor available on a 65 GT350. I would have loved it on my '14 GT 'vert.

IndustryLeech

Wow...thank you!! I covet that color along with the chrome window trim.

houtex

Ok, so delving into it for this reason alone... I went and compared the v6 base to the eco base and with a very few couple of options on each, I can get the 'same' car, just the engine, axle, and whether it has noise cancel, looks like given the compare sheet.

So, $25,420 is the MSRP of a Competition Orange Base V6 manual 6sp with the 051A package added to bring it up to a similarly equipped Ecoboost base. This adds the fog lamps, 6 way seat, spoiler. The 18" wheels are mandatory for that package, so we'll add the same ones to the Ecoboost.

$26,150 is the price for the *same car* (ostensibly) with the engine, axle, and noise cancel added (as well as the optional 18" wheels to get them 'same'). Otherwise, seats, radio, etc, ad nauseum are *supposedly* the same (I'm sure there's tweaks of differences, but whatever, I can't see them all on the website.)

That's a difference of a whopping $730. I'm sure the active noise cancellation might bump the price up, but it's the engine, I'd say, that's the bulk of it. Doesn't seem enough to even bother, does it?

Then the horsepower/torque situation.

V6: 300HP, 280Tq

Eco: 310HP, 320Tq

So the Eco should maybe be a little quicker. Hm.

Then we get to MPG...

V6: 17 to 28MPG, with average about 21.5

Eco: 21 to 32 MPG, with average about 25.5

Advantage Eco. That savings per year is about $400ish in current fuel cost, if that matters.

---

Conclusion... I'm with ya. Ford's decision is making no sense. The v6 is a dumb engine comparitively, especially if the fight is about the MPG for CAFE.

I'd wager a guess at two things: First, there's likely a bit of a purist thing (SRA vs IRS anyone?) that might be at play with the v6? Already plenty of go faster parts that might apply to the v6...

Nah...

Surely, then, it's a resource/engine build thing. As in, they can't make enough of the Eco 2.3Ls for all the makes they're putting them in (they're going in Lincolns too, y'see) so they have to have that filler to ensure they can sell enough of the cars that aren't the V8s.

Still, a guess. Seems they'd just stop the v6 production, ya ask me.

Anyway, totally agree, they should drop the v6 with that info on it.

IndustryLeech

I suspect Ford is vastly underreporting the V6 MPG numbers to prop up the EcoBoost. I have a 2012 V6 convertible, I mention that because the convertible option adds 100+ lbs so it is a bit more than the S550 base V6. I get 36 MPG at 70 MPH on a flat freeway with 93 octane. I should also mention that I have a 93 octane tune and a CAI, but that wouldn't account for the drastically better MPG than Ford has on record.

wannabe

I think Ford is OVER reporting the EcoBoost fuel economy to prop up the Eco. Just based on my personal experience with the 1.6 Eco in the Escape that never got anything even near what was advertised. And I mean 5 or 6 mpg less. And that was with me driving it like a grandpa. My wife has a lead foot... so hers was even worse.

Boss 0960

First off, the V6 has lost horsepower, torque and mpg rating compared to previous versions of the same engine, as well as option choices if you choose a V6 powered Mustang, entirely to prop up EcoBoost sales. The V6 is a great little engine that could have been upgraded for more power and greater MPG but Ford chose instead to emasculate it to make the EcoBoost look better on paper. If the EcoBoost is so great, it should be able to stand on it's own attributes in the marketplace, without all the games that Ford has been playing to make it seem like the more attractive option. Plus, you are unlikely to see any real world fuel mileage advantage to the Ecoboost. Advantage: None.

I agree that Ford's decision is making no sense if the fight is about MPG for CAFE. As it stands, they have nearly duplicated the performance of an existing engine for a pittance increase in MPG on paper where real CAFE gains could have been made. If the real issue were CAFE, they should have added a N/A 4 cylinder or smaller ecoboost with about 215hp that gets 40+MPG. For those who care about mileage in a Mustang over performance, that would be enough power and could provide a more affordable entry level Mustang, a secretary's car if you will, increasing sales of higher mileage Mustangs which further increases it's effect on overall CAFE.