Just got a 2016 Ecoboost 'stang!

[HHOTDI]

i live about 45mins from Dave Smiths and have several good friends that work there. Dave Smith Motors are great folks and well worth the drive! :{)

[redpoint5]

Dang you guys talking about affordable muscle...

I can resist. If it's speed I want, the power to weight ratio of my bike can't be beat. It only set me back $5k when it was 2 years old.

[gregsfc]

A little off topic but in regards to direct-injection, turbo-charging in the spark-ignition arena, I've never been an all-out fan, but I ended up with one. This is how it's happened...owning a 2006 VW TDI car (last model year of the dirty diesels) for ten years, I became addicted to low-end torque, combined with exemplary fuel economy and can't stand any vehicle I drive to rev for power and torque or get poor fuel economy. Can't stand to be on the highway in cruise control and experience downshifts; especially that second downshift. Diesels don't do it, and so I must have this characteristic in anything I drive. I also like the refined driving experience of a low-revving engine for highway cruising.

But something has happened since January 2007, and that is diesels have become terribly expensive; choices are limited; the exhaust treatments systems are very complicated; they've lost a tad bit of their advantage fuel economy wise due to less compression and in some cases, rich run cycles. I needed a pickup truck. Felt like diesels would come to the half-ton and compact segments, so I held out for a few years and waited for the one I'd want in the configuration that I'd settle for (a compact extra cab or a full-size regular cab). Anything else would be too big. Also, I want only power glass and doors and cruise control and could care less about any other features.

Like I stated, I've never been a fan or a believer of the promise from the auto industry, which began in the European auto media, promoting this technology as the come back of the gas engine versus the diesel. But over there, while the technology has become somewhat more mainstream this mellenia, it has been rejected as an alternative to diesels for great fuel economy, because they just don't get great fuel economy.

But in U.S./Canada things are a little different. Diesels have huge potential for market penetration, however, we have the most stringent NOx limits, so that requires all this extra cost and complicated equipment, and so while waiting for years and years for a good choice in a diesel pickup, and watching the cheapest diesel in a Ram 1500 come in at $38,500 versus a truck line that starts at $27K; and then watching a great little four cylinder come to market that would be great in an extra cab, 2wd, base compact truck get planted only in the most elaborate crew cabs for dedicated towing, starting at or about $34k in a truck line that starts at or about $21K; I gave up. I had to choose something else.

I did a lot of thinking about Ford's new Ecoboost in the F150. Could I get acceptable mpg out of this truck? I saw the torque / horsepower numbers; felt like it's somewhat overkill on the horsepower for what I need, but the torque is flat; 350 ft-lbs from 1900-4500. The new aluminum panels make the curb weight about 350 pounds lighter at or about 4170 with the new 2.7L engine.

I read all the reviews; mostly positive regarding performance; mostly negative regarding fuel efficiency. I turned to Fuelly and saw the same thing. The "mode" is around 17...but still, I felt, if this power train is driven the right way, with a light foot, and one lets the torque drive the truck, it has to be decent doesn't it?

I pulled the trigger. Hoped for at least 20 mpg for my 58 mile, round trip commute along state highways at speeds from 45-65. I have not been disappointed! I'm averaging 24 and it drives just like I wanted and expected. Goes right up 5% grades in sixth gear and when it does downshift to 5th on stepper grades or on grades with headwinds, it still remains under 2000 RPM.

Of course I still prefer diesels, because one doesn't have to worry so much about how one drives to get great mpg and I don't have to worry so much about using too much of the available horsepower, because a right-sized diesel doesn't have too much horsepower; but the diesel concept is a non-starter for most of us; and I can say that at least the 2.7L, in the regular cab, 2wd, short bed, with 3.31 rear axle can get the estimated mpg when driven right and configured right. I'm no hypermiler and so this is real stuff.

The Stang with the 2.3L also seems like it's right-sized for that vehicle. The 2.7L would also probably work pretty well, but then it would be too close performance wise to the GT and Ford couldn't let that happen for fear of disenchanting the V8 dieharders, so I think, although I've not driven one, that if one is easy on the gas and uses the technology for that extremely refined ride that the low-end, mild-level boost provides, one could get very good mpg for a spark-ignition powered car.

[hayden55]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Dang you guys talking about affordable muscle...

I can resist. If it's speed I want, the power to weight ratio of my bike can't be beat. It only set me back $5k when it was 2 years old.

The only problem is turns. Lol
Motorcycles really don't keep up with a well set up car.

[crashnzuk]

We bought a 15 ecoboost mustang, 6 speed manual, performance pack, for the wife. We've had it a year this month. I must say, I'm not that impressed. From a performance/ driving standpoint, it's about on par with our 01 Bullitt GT that we sold after getting the new car. The one thing it doesn't do is make fun sounds. From the inside it sounds like a Subaru, that's hard to get past being in a mustang. From an economy standpoint, neither of us can get better than about 23.5 hand calc'd in mixed driving. She drives moderately slow and tends to short-shift, and I've tried several different techniques, the most successful being very light throttle input but higher RPM shift points. Running it at or about 3k seems to be what it loves, and it will approach 24 mpg mixed driving it this way. I will not lug it around because this is not a very smooth engine, and I don't know if the trans will take the vibes and low end turbo grunt in higher gears over the long run. FYI, the lie-o-meter reads 2 mpg high, has since new. Even had the dealer do a reflash on it to try to cure it with no luck. Our car has 11k miles on it now which is very low for us. I hate driving it because the drivers seat is the prettiest, heated, cooled, perforated leather torture device I have ever seen. I bought this car hoping to have a fun car that got good mpgs and we could use for road trips, but that is not what we have. Sorry for the rant, but our car doesn't live up to the hype. We are seriously thinking about replacing it.
Travis..

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by hayden55

The only problem is turns. Lol
Motorcycles really don't keep up with a well set up car.

And by "well set up", you mean expensive. Of course you can solve problems with $$$. My bike will out corner most any stock car. I've taken a 25 MPH posted on-ramp clover-leaf at 100 MPH.

My point is that speed and fun can be had on the cheap with a motorcycle. Bikes like mine go for $2k, and they can do 0-60 in 3 seconds in first gear.

[Katmandu]

Originally Posted by JQmile

With a tune, I think 12's and 40mpg is possible, that's hard to do in anything other than the Ecoboost 'stang. I looked at other newer muscle cars as well, but the 4-banger Mustang just seemed to make sense, and it'll chirp the tires on the 2-3 shift

I believe that's attainable as well.

I owned a 12 Mustang w/3.7 DOHC V6 for a few years. It had a Tune, high-flow exhaust. I was able to get mid-high 30s MPGs on a regular basis. Hand calculated as well.

I've always felt that with some aerodynamic work the car was very capable of hitting 40 MPG. EASILY.

[Katmandu]

Originally Posted by crashnzuk

our car doesn't live up to the hype. We are seriously thinking about replacing it.
Travis..

Get a 3.7 DOHC V6 Stang. I guarantee you will not be disappointed.

I'd still have mine but my wife was afraid it was too much of chick-magnet for me ! Lol !

BTW, mine was pushing around 325HP and getting mid-30s MPG consistently. I loved the seats in my 2012. Very comfortable and supportive.

[crashnzuk]

I don't think we'll be getting another sporty car if we rid ourselves of this one. I loved the seats in our 01 Bullitt, and have driven my nieces 08 which also seem good, but this drivers seat in the new one is misery.
Travis..

[gregsfc]

Of course most of us can't test out different vehicles with different engine choices, but I just have to believe that there must be a huge character difference between driving the Stang with the NA 3.7V6 that generates torque and hp linearly up the RPM range with decent all-out performance and as good or better mpg as any other Stang choice for most drivers; and the Turbo-DI 2.3 I4 choice where torque will come on quickly and stay flat while hp comes on in the same linear fashion. For some people like me, who thrive on strength down low on the tach, there is no substitute for this character of performance even if mpg and raw performance are somewhere about equal.

This same similar choice came in to play for me when shopping for a full-size truck. The low-end torque king is the Ram Ecodiesel with only 240 hp. With respect to pickup truck duty though, you must have a minimum level of horsepower for the work level that you'll be doing. So for me and what I use a truck for, 240 hp is plenty. But the problem with Ram ED is the limited configurations, the minimum trim levels where the ED can be optioned, and of course all the reliability issues that have come with clean diesels. Ford and only Ford offers this flat, low-end starting torque at or about 350 ft-pounds from 1900-4500 RPM that is offered to the masses for only $799 over the base 3.5-liter NA V6. Even though I feel strongly that the slightly lower-rated mpg of the NA V6 could return me at least equal, real-world mpg as what I'm getting with the Ecoboost, there is no way that I'd choose that whimpy, torqueless NA V6 just to save only $799. It would be a more simple design with no turbo worries. It would have plenty of power/torque for what I need. It would provide right around the same mpg; maybe even better, but it would not be anything like the Ecoboost for driving character.

On the other hand, the Stang is optioned a little differently when comparing the two lower end engine choices. The 3.7L NA V6 is pitted against a 2.3L I4 EB, and the former has two more cylinders, so it's a little different than it is comparing the two cheapest F150 truck engine choices. With respect to the F150, the 2.7L EB is the clear performance choice by any measure with a very minor upcharge. But I can say that if Ford had not come out with the 2.7 and instead, offered the 2.3 EB in the full-size truck for the smaller configurations like I've got (2wd, standard cab, short bed with 3.31 rear axle at or about 4170 pounds), and taking into account that it would have to be de-tuned somewhat for truck durability, and it had, say, 265 hp and 305 peak-ft pounds of torque; and that real-world mpg were still about the same for the 3.5 NA, and the 2.3 EB, I'd still opt for the EB just because it would have higher peak torque, and the torque would be much, much flatter than the base engine even in that scenario.

So, while I agree that the promise of improved mpg via Ford's Ecoboost or any other company's DI-turbo charging technology is a huge failure in so far as fuel savings, I still like the technology, because it puts the performance where I like it; it's much cheaper and somewhat more reliabile than it is for diesels today in America; and it provides similar mpg as equal-performing NA technologies when one lets the torque do the work and is not a sport-inspired driver doing the comparison.