new mustang ecoboost
 

ford refreshed the mustang ecoboost for 2018 it claims 21 city / 32 highway from the EPA. Thats 1 /2 mpg more than its predecessor. Im thinking bout getting one torn between that and the civic si drove both loved the mustang trying to justify mpg difference. I gotta say for being RWD and 500 pounds more (because of that) its actually not a big hit over a SI for MPG. The old model owners claimed they could get 40 mpg if they were being good. Any Thoughts?? Has anyone ecomoded one of these here?

If mpg really is more important, then you should get the Honda. Getting 20% above epa mpg estimates for a Mustang sounds pretty unrealistic. In reality your highway mpg would be about the same as the epa estimate within a few mpgs depending on the speed you are driving at.

Lord I know!but the test drive killed me the turbo lag of the 1.5 in the si and touch screen display lag made me kind of hate it . That extra 120 hp and almost litre motor make a large difference

I disagree with you can't beat the EPA by a lot in the mustang. Get a manual even if the auto has a better EPA. Two things the EPA punishes with how they do the test, horsepower and manuals. They make the manuals shift at the wrong points for economy and they make the higher HP cars actually use their horsepower in the testing. If you drove with the same acceleration rate as say a Mirage automatic is allowed in the test and shift early and often, you will beat the EPA easy.

Most new manuals have very significantly shorter top gearing than automatics. I'd still take a manual 9 times out of 10, but the gearing difference is really significant.

I believe Balto had an auto Civic with turbo 1.5 for a while and was seeing 50-60mpg with it.

That's actually good info I guess i could get on the clutch more. Loll

Do a little searching on ecoboost running higher ethanol blends E30 mainly, they respond well. Read one today on a fiesta 1.0 picking up 1 second on 30-90mph 5th gear WOT run over E0. F150 3.5 ecoboost picked up 50 hp or ft'lbs on E30 vs regular in another test. Less timing retard = more power with minimal loss in MPG.

I don't believe anybody can get 40 mpg out of a v6 mustang unless they are going 55 mph. The 11-14 v6 mustangs got more like 16 around town and 28 on the highway for the auto.

OP is referring to the 1-4 Ecoboost powered model

Get the mustang in manual.

Make it your goal to beat EPA and enjoy the driving dynamics of RWD.

If you get the Civic turbo you will be thinking the whole time what life would've been like with the mustang. If you get the mustang you won't give it a second thought.

Ugh your telling me brother I decided to give them both a longer test drive. But I feel that way and yes always in manual

Interesting idea for the mustang would be to rent one for a week and maybe you could even find one in a stick!
And I meant to say "the new 4 cylinder" and basically the old v6 got less than EPA and they ended up dropping the number down on the newer more aerodynamic 2015 v6 mustang.

Honda actually called me today and gave me the car to drive for a day

Mustang re did the aero for the 2018+ Stang for that actually in the one I'm looking at

Nice! I bet you could get a lot right now since most american cars are 25% off msrp right now and the japanese are at 10% off msrp.

Any chance of a Civic Type R? Honda reworked the steering and suspension geometry so it has zero torque steer. The 2.0T produces greater than 300HP and it beats all of its AWD class competitors around the track. Reviews of it are rave.

I know very little about these cars.

I'm not one to comment or care much about aesthetics, but the Type R is atrocious and offensive. The si follows that style a bit too much also, so Mustang wins aesthetically.

If it were me, I'd probably take the money I'd spend on a new car and instead get a used Corvette. They get pretty decent fuel economy for their performance. Apparently the C6 Z06 can be found around $30k, and the car will get 28 MPG on the highway.

A used Elise can be had near those prices too, if you care nothing of creature comforts...

Actually, I'd get a motorcycle for fun ($2k), and a used Prius for grocery getting.

Hast to be 2 door manual otherwise all day and night I would. I wouldnt even have a decision to make if they made a coupe type r I'm also looking at quazi cost of ownership for replacement parts the Corvette and **** falls out of the category
Edit
Now that I'm getting to drive the si for the day im loving it sport mode messed up it's performance on test drive.now it's smooth

Rented a eco-boost stang in vegas a few years ago. Someone put regular in it and it pinged like crazy.

It went pretty good but sounded like crap.

On that trip I also rented a V-6 Camaro and was extremely impressed by how it drove. Unfortunately, you feel like you are in a tank because of the gun slit windows/windshield.

What's wrong with going 55mph? The point is what a car is capable of and what trade offs the person is willing to live with. There are plenty of road trips I can take around here and comfortably set the cruise at 55 and run through a tank. I can also get on the interstate and set the cruise at 85 mph and run through a tank. Guess what, even a Prius is probably not going to get 40 mpg doing the latter but every time I'm on the interstate they pass me doing just that.

Epa raw data on the 2019 EcoBoost Mustang has 46.8 mpg for the 10 speed auto and 44.0 mpg on the manual. That is the old style, unadjusted highway rating which is more of a low speed steady highway number but still does include some variation in speed and the acceleration up to speed.

PS a 2019 Civic R is 40.2 mpg in the same test so the Mustang is 10-15% better.

I wonder if anyone's done a study on actual highway speeds over the last fifteen years? Just in that time, I feel like the average speed has crept upward, to the point where on this last road trip to NY I felt like I was poking along going 70-72 mph with traffic still flying past me, where in 2004 when I drove across the country for the first time I could comfortably go 65 mph and not feel like I was holding up trucks and whatnot.

Honestly depreciation on those cars will more than match the repair cost of a c5z06. 0-60 in 4.0 quarter in 12.2 back in the day on normal tires compared to the sport cups they use now, and they get 28-30 mpg on the highway at 70.

Honestly, If you're not going at least 72 mph here you will fight with semi's passing and slowing down on you your entire trip and here in arkansas the speed limit is 65 mph for semi's and 70 mph for cars. I would say the average speed is 75 mph currently, and next year the speed limit will officially be 75 mph... which is why I said the 55 mph speed is kind of null.

Interstates suck anyway. There I cant wait for self driving where I can just go to sleep and ignore it all. Now back roads are another thing and many around here would be fun at 55 in a sports car as the corners are marked 25. If I'm going 85 on a concrete interstate I'd rather be in my minivan than a mustang. Our speed limit is 80 now but they don't even look twice unless you are at least 5 mph over.

I feel like a free person whenever I'm in Montana. There's a sense of relief when simply existing doesn't make you wonder if you're in violation of some obscure and nonsensical rule.

Check out mpg on fuelly of specific models. I looked on fuelly the civic was 9.6l/100k mustang 10.5l/100k.

I didnt feel there was a enoguh data with the newer models on there to make a judgment and

I agree, get the car that makes you turn around after you park it, just so that you can look at it once again.

Get the car that makes you want to wash it by hand, even when it's clean.

Yeah, that is also my other perspective. Either the cheapest thing to run OR something that makes me really happy, especially since I will be spending so much time in it.

Pennies don’t justify such a large expenditure of your hard-earned money.

I can’t think of a time I didn’t thrill to the sound of this Cummins turning over. I barely drive it these days (home once monthly), maybe 1000k miles last year. Doesn’t matter. There’s a lot wrapped into that sound (free-er flowing but stock-quiet).

Meaning.

I can ease off the clutch and get halfway across the continent on a tank.

Flatten every hill & mountain with 2k plus in the bed.

I don’t like these present circumstances of mine, I can quit the job, hitch the house and be on the road less than two hours after flipping off the boss.

As above, the more you like it (will keep it) the better off you are.

Fewer cars in a lifetime is ECONOMY. Mastery of the use of that vehicle is the reward.

.

I've had quite a few as rentals and generally get about 30-32 mpg in mixed driving. I really doubt you will get 40 mpg.

The Camaro V6 does similar and I got 28 mpg in the 455 HP Camaro SS. I had a base model V6 Challenger last week and only managed 26 mpg.

The wife and I bought a new eco boost mustang when they came out in ‘15. It was a 6 speed performance pack. It was fun, but neither of us got anywhere near the claimed mileage, and it didn’t make fun noises either. We were getting 20-22 in mixed driving, and on long haul interstate going 80 it got 27-28. The kicker was the drivers seat killed my back. We traded it in at 1 year and 10k miles on a ‘16 Challenger 5.7L 6 spd shaker R/T. The Challenger easily does 20 in mixed, and 25-26 on the super slab, cruise on 83 mph. For reference, the 2001 mustang bullitt 4.6 5 spd that we had before the eco-mustang got 20-22 mixed and 25-26 highway with 100 less hp and probably 800 lbs less than the challenger. I had higher hopes for the mustang but it just didn’t deliver for us.
Travis..

To be clear, the Ecoboost Mustang has a 2.3L turbo I-4 motor, not any of the 2.7, 3.0, or 3.5L twin-turbo V6 motors that Ford/Lincoln offer in other applications.

The I-4 is very closely related to the Focus ST motor, and the L3-VDT motor in the Mazdaspeed3, Mazdaspeed6, and Mazda CX-7. Having run a lifetime average of above 32mpg on the highway in my nearly 3600lb, AWD, very short-geared (70mpg is just under 3100RPM) Mazdaspeed6, I can say that I could definitely believe a more modern incarnation of the engine with less driveline losses could achieve closer to 35 or 40mpg under the right conditions.

I'd assume since your here ur probably not a bad driver as well. I'm actually impressed with that milage out of the Challenger

I think I’m pretty good;). Tried short shifting it, letting it rev out with light throttle, brisk accel up to cruise speed, didn’t seem to matter. The lie-o-meter in the dash always claimed 24-26 mixed. I was hoping for a fun car that got good mileage, especially on road trips since we travel the vast spaces of the west fairly often. It just didn’t deliver for us. On the other hand, the challenger is what I would consider very good for what it is. The manual cars don’t have cylinder deactivation either, the autos get better hi way mpg than mine. Even then, I have no desire for an automatic equipped car. We actually would have bought a charger if it were available with a stick
Travis..

I've owned Turbo (2.1L and 2.3L) Volvo's from 1981-2009 and I know how to get the best mileage out of one. Rules one and two, stay out of boost, keep the RPM's under 2,500, and you'll get the best fuel mileage.

What people don't understand on modern turbo's is when the boost goes up so does the extra fuel being dumped into the cylinders. Not just to compensate for more air being pumped into the engine but that extra fuel is also used to cool the cylinders.

You might be driving a 2.3 liter Eco Boost but spool the turbo up and you might as well be driving a NA 3.5 liter as far as the amount of gas being pumped into the cylinders. :(

You were asking between the two which car would be better? I would go with the Mustang for the simple reason that if you planned on using the car on the highway it is far easier to swap out the rear gears for better mileage. I think it comes with 3.31 rear gears and you could swap those out easily for a set of 3.08's.

The problem I have with the 1.5L Honda is the motor is undersized for that car. Toyota learned that lesson with the Prius 1.5 liter and went to the 1.8 liter and upped the fuel mileage and power in the third generation.

My opinion for what it is worth is that 1.8-2.0 liters is the sweet spot for power and economy NA or Turbo. Go below the 1.8L range with Direct injection and Turbo charging and you're only looking for trouble in the "long run" with engine reliability.

Yup. Ford for this reason. You can go to 2.73s easily on any model. Only use FRPP gears though if you do. Also, the easy part went out the window with the IRS models.

You have to be careful how high you go on the gearing or you'll be causing more problems with your fuel mileage especially with a Turbo. Go too high in the gearing and you'll be in the Turbo more than you want. The slightest incline and the motor will be boosting.

Most car manufactures bump the gearing up by one set to improve the drive ability for a slight decrease in fuel economy. My experience with Volvo's is if the car came with 3.73's in an automatic the best economy would be with 3.54's. If it came with 3.54's with a manual transmission then the 3.31's would be the best for economy.

There are gear calculators out there when you can play with gearing for the transmission as well as the differential and tire sizes. You can tune the rpms to vehicle speeds with these online calculators.

With an Eco Boost four cylinder, manual transmission Mustang, I'd be looking at rpms running around 1750-1800 at 65 mph for the best fuel mileage. With a V8 Mustang you can run 1200-1300 rpms at 65 mph because the engine produces so much torque at low RPM's it isn't an issue.