Just got a 2016 Ecoboost 'stang!

[Hersbird]

The other advantage of a turbo is for those of us at altitude, you don't see a hit in performance. This is especially good in something like the ecodiesel Ram or an ecoboost f150 as when you really need the power NOT to drop off is pulling a 9000 foot pass with a trailer.

What Ford really needs is the 3.5 ecoboost in the Mustang. I'm positive that would be quicker then the 5.0 GT. Too much butt hurt in the 5.0 faithful for that to happen.

[silver bullett]

Despite the other naysayers in this thread, I think you have made a very intelligent decision going with the turbo Mustang. I may be a bit biased, having done the same thing myself. When I signed up for this website, I was driving a silver 2002 Honda Insight (2 seater-manual). The stick was fun, but in traffic driving it was a compromise, and I was not allowed to pickup my daughter in it. Three years ago I leased an electric 2013 Chevy Spark, which at the time I felt offered the best of all worlds. 400ft pounds of torque, roomy, over 100MPG (comparable), plugged in at night to charge, ugly as hell. I have to admit when I was buying it in the showroom, the Camaro was calling my name. Two things wrong with the prev gen Camaro, top of the windshield too low, microscopic trunk opening. An all electric car proved not to be realistic as an only car for me. Driving at traffic speeds on my 66 mile round trip commute, the car would run out of juice unless I charged it at work. Problem: Plug in hybrid people took all the electric car parking (even though they usually didn't bother to charge). Other problems included: SUV drivers bullied me in my little spark on a daily basis, Carpool lane totally abused by solo BMW drivers and anyone else with tinted windows, running out of electricity and waiting 2 hours in the rain for AAA, All electric chargers at the mall, my backup charging area, destroyed by vandals and removed by Blink. So I bought the Mustang, a car I fell in love with at first sight, then again when I drove it. Yes it doesn't sound like the GT and I miss that. MPG varies but I average 27 MPG driving in traffic and 78MPH when I can. More power than a GT had four years ago. Highway mileage about 30% better. Car looks awesome. Very fun to drive. Reasonable trunk space and opening. Reasonable view from cockpit. Cool retro interior. Back seat not rated for adults. Yeah the new Camaro that I sat in on the showroom floor had a nicer interior. It was 45k. I paid 25k for my mustang. I loved the electric boost I got driving the Honda Insight. I have the same thing from the turbo in the Mustang. Yes I got dusted by a new Cadillac with 600HP. My car is still fun and didn't cost 70k. That's my story, a bit similar to yours? Guard green Stang gets compliments wherever I go. I do admire you guys for eaking out top MPG from your cars, and my slow down a bit in my stang to see what kind of MPG I can really get. Have noticed a 2-4 MPG improvement running premium, and 20 more HP. Thanks for reading!

[gregsfc]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

What Ford really needs is the 3.5 ecoboost in the Mustang. I'm positive that would be quicker then the 5.0 GT. Too much butt hurt in the 5.0 faithful for that to happen.

The current 3.5L EB may be a toss up with the 5.0 with both tuned for a sporty car versus the EBs current uses in F150 and Transit van. The EB gives up a little hp in the truck versus the V8, but bests the Coyote in peak torque, and of course destroys the NA V8 in torque flatness.

But for 2017, Ford has announced an all-new 3.5L EB that will leave horsepower the same @ 365, except for the Raptor monster truck thingie version that will presumably have more turbo psi and other tweaks that will have huge numbers, but with respect to standard version of this all-new design, the new 3.5 EB torque will be up'd from 420 to 450 peak lb-foot. The new one will combine direct injection with port fuel injection to help eliminate carbon buildup, which was a problem with the first edition for those who make a lot of short trips with DI only.

BTW, Ford will be also bringing a 10-speed transmission to the lineup. Don't know if it will be mated with all four engines or whether they'll be selective like GM and Ram have with their 8 speeds.

Oddly, GM came out with an 8-speed for 2016 model year, but had already jointly worked with Ford to develop the technology for a 10-speed. I guess maybe that's why the Chevy and GMC trucks won't yet have a ten speed, because GM has already developed an 8-speed and has decided to let Ford go first on the ten speed.

Personally, I've got the 6-speed with the 2.7 EB in a light, small version of the F150, and I can't imagine how more gears could do me much better. It's already to the point where I can accelerate from a stop, going up hill, and the tach will never show beyond 1900 RPM if I pay attention to accelerating modestly. Additionally on the highway, I can climb a 7% grade for 3/4-mile, with an empty bed at 59 mph along a state highway and only 50% of the time will it downshift to 5th (depending on how windy it is outside). But those times when it does downshift to 5th, I'm still under 2000 RPM. So how does 4 more gears help me stay in a more efficient band of engine speed, when my truck stays down low all the time for just regular driving. And if I'm working it hard towing or hauling, it's going to have to kick down for some RPM for power whether it's got four gears or ten, so it's hard for me to see how mpg goes up; at least with the Ecoboost engines with this new ten speed. But it may help in the EPA test cycle for mpg, and maybe that's what it's all about anyway.

[Hersbird]

My Brother just bought a 3.5 ecoboost f150 and it flat out is faster then the 5.0 version. His is a loaded up, biggest cab, biggest bed, 4x4 and it runs 14.67 seconds @ 96.8 mph according to Truck Trend. The best times I have seen for a similar 5.0 are 15.3 @ 93.8mph. Not a huge difference but faster is faster. I'd say driving around town the ecoboost's immediate torque feels like an even bigger advantage stoplight to stoplight. Now add in we are 3500 feet elevation and I bet the 5.0 times drop another .3-.4 sec while the turbo doesn't change. Now consider a simple tune really pushed the 3.5 faster while a 5.0 tune isn't that helpful without adding bolt on parts to give the tune something to work with. There is a stupid fast 3.5 ecoboost Flex or SHOs out there running 12.7@107 1/4 miles on just the tunes. An 3.5 ecoboost mustang would be faster out of the box then the 5.0 and also respond better to mods. The upcoming 3.5 Raptor 450 hp version I bet even leaves some on the table.

[gregsfc]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

My Brother just bought a 3.5 ecoboost f150 and it flat out is faster then the 5.0 version. His is a loaded up, biggest cab, biggest bed, 4x4 and it runs 14.67 seconds @ 96.8 mph according to Truck Trend. The best times I have seen for a similar 5.0 are 15.3 @ 93.8mph. Not a huge difference but faster is faster. I'd say driving around town the ecoboost's immediate torque feels like an even bigger advantage stoplight to stoplight. Now add in we are 3500 feet elevation and I bet the 5.0 times drop another .3-.4 sec while the turbo doesn't change. Now consider a simple tune really pushed the 3.5 faster while a 5.0 tune isn't that helpful without adding bolt on parts to give the tune something to work with. There is a stupid fast 3.5 ecoboost Flex or SHOs out there running 12.7@107 1/4 miles on just the tunes. An 3.5 ecoboost mustang would be faster out of the box then the 5.0 and also respond better to mods. The upcoming 3.5 Raptor 450 hp version I bet even leaves some on the table.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I much prefer the flat torque provided by a well-designed DI, turbo charged engine; albeit I prefer a diesel, because the added air provided by the turbo(s) don't always necessarily require more fuel for extra boost in a diesel, whereas with spark-ignition, adding boost always requires more fuel.

My point is that the newly-designed 3.5L EB will make it where it's not even close and not worth arguing, whereas over on the discussion boards and comment sections from professional reviewer articles right now regarding the F150, they're arguing all the time about which is the better performer and the more practical choice. Looking at the raw numbers, comparing the current 3.5 EB, the Coyote in comes in at 385/387; and the 3.5 EB is published at 365/420, but of course that 420 comes in a lot lower, at 2500 I think, and probably 90% of that will be from 1800 to near redline. I think once the new EB comes out, and especially as the Raptor's performance with a modified version of this engine beats the previous 6.2L V8 performance numbers, many of those die hard V8 folks will get more silent on the issue.

As for performance mods, I'm sure you're right. That's not something I'd ever consider. I always trust the factory to tune it for the best reliability and durability, so I always leave my late model vehicles alone in that regard.

What we can't know is what the new or old 3.5L EB would be like in the Stang, because you can't just transfer the numbers over from the F150. Almost always the peak numbers are higher in the sporty platforms, but of course, since the EB gets marketed as the top performer for the F150, I'm sure it'd be the same, and that in and of itself lies the problem. This is why I feel that even while the Ford Edge and even the Ford Fusion (yes Fusion) will get the 2.7 EB V6, the Mustang gets only a four cylinder. I feel like Ford doesn't want to ****off the muscle heads by planting a V6 engine with a far better torque curve that comes anywhere close to the peak of the 5.0.

I can eek out 24 mpg, overall, year-around average mpg in my new truck with the 2.7L, and it reportedly has 350 ft-lbs from 1900-5000 RPM and peaks at 375. While the horsepower number is not all that close, the torque number comes in real close, and the little EB beats it 0-60 in most reviews, so that could be a problem for Ford, and is why they'll put this engine in a mid-size family sedan (think Camry) but not in a Mustang.

[darcane]

Originally Posted by JQmile

Got 31.3mpg hand calculated on a 400 mile trip to San Francisco and back! Lie-o-meter said 32.6mpg. Brief stints of 58mph in a 55 zone, but most of the time it was 72mph on cruise control. I think 40mpg+ will be no problem with some tinkering at 55......

Oh, and did I mention 310hp and 13 second timeslips stock??

Anyways,

So...

Do you ever have more than two people in the car?

If we go anywhere as a family, we'll take the Tahoe. But I regularly need to haul my son (7yr old, by law should sit in back for 6 more years) and occasionally both kids (daughter is 14). I went and checked out a Camaro today and I am more than a little concerned about having enough seating space. I haven't sat in a new Mustang yet, but I suspect it is just as bad...

I'm seriously contemplating both of these cars as a possible replacement of my aging Civic (Two other options as well). I'm not sure if the seating space is a dealbreaker though. It seems tighter than my Civic coupe which is already a bit cramped.

[V6MustangFTW]

Working at a carwash I've been in Mustangs and Camaros and neither have much space in the back. Admittedly I'm a tall person but both Mustangs and Camaros have tried to eat me on several occasions...

[crashnzuk]

Carrying people in the back seat is ok for them if they are under say 5'9" and have an average length torso. The rub is the front seat passengers need to scoot forward a bit which makes it less comfortable to drive. At my driving position, there is about 6" of room between the front and rear seat. This is ok for a child, but an adult would require me to move forward. I have ridden in the back seat for nearly 200 miles myself. While it is surprisingly comfortable, I wouldn't recommend it. It would be ok for kids, but I think they'd outgrow it pretty fast.

If you want a 2 door with a size able rear seat that may be capable of decent mileage, look at a V6 Challenger. I sat in the center of the rear seat at the dealer just to see what it was like and it was roomy. Around town I'd think 3 wide in the back would be pretty decent for average sized people.
Travis..