2015 EcoBoost Mustang: Pony With A Power Problem

"Andrew T. Maness" (theroadlessdriven)
05/02/2015 at 13:00 • Filed to: Oppo Reviews, Ford Mustang, Ecoboost Mustang, Andrew Maness, The Road Less Driven, Car Buying

100

I’d like to believe that I’m a pretty opened minded person. I’ve watched more than one movie based on a Nicholas Sparks book, ordered sushi more than a days drive away from the ocean, I’ve even considered owning a Hyundai Genesis Coupe for a very, very brief moment. None of that compares to the internal struggle I faced when driving the 2015 EcoBoost Mustang.

Full Disclosure: Ford wanted me to drive the 2015 EcoBoost Mustang so bad that they put one in the Enterprise rental fleet in Phoenix where they knew I would be after accessing my email through a series of deep internet backdoor hacks. Then they made sure that I got a heavy discount so the Mustang would cost the same as the vehicle I was originally planning to get, thus eliminating any chance of me skipping over it. I’m not mad about it, frankly I’m impressed.

I want to be a progressive 21st century man, I want to be ok with a legendary American muscle car having a turbocharged 4 cyl as its power plant, really, I do. The fact is that I’m not and no one should be, at least not setup as this model is. Ford half assed the EcoBoost Mustang, they pulled out the soul of the car, hoped they could get away with it by saying things like “oh the aftermarket and tuning potential is huge” but that is the cop out of all cop outs. I don’t want to buy a new car just because it could be something great, I want a new car that IS great and could be even greater. The EcoBoost ‘Stang is not great, it’s not good, it is just OK.

To get it up to good you’ll need a CAI and full exhaust. To get it up to great you’ll need a down pipe, larger intercooler, larger turbo, stiffer engine mounts (more on that later) and a damn good set of tires, although that final issue could be addressed with addition of the Track Pack. The problem is that if you need to do all these upgrades just to give the damn thing an engaging driving experience, why not just get the 5.0 which has character to spare? Are there really that many people out there that are dying to have a relatively large car that screams “ American Exceptionalism ” in its styling but whispers “ Foreign Compromise ” in its performance?

I’d like to chat with someone who really wants the EcoBoost more than the 5.0, not someone who is getting it because it’s what they can afford but someone who would truly rather have the turbo. Maybe they’d be able to explain what it is about the car that makes it at all appealing because I just don’t get it. The Mustang needs a V8 like a Civic needs VTEC, without those things both cars just aren’t the same, they don’t live up to their expectations. Don’t get me wrong, there are many, many things to like about the new Mustang overall, the EcoBoost power train just isn’t one of them.

First off I think the exterior is fantastic, it’s hard to find a bad angle to look at the car from (although it is possible as we’ve seen) and at times I found myself really marveling at what a nice job the designers did of sprinkling in elements of the classic styling but overall making the car look fresh and modern. There has been plenty said about the design of the car both in print and online so I’ll simply say this, even the rental models seem more premium than the last generation so they must have done something right.

The inside of the Mustang is firmly now in “ better than you’d expect ” territory and that’s something to be proud of if you worship at the temple of the blue oval. Mustang interiors (like many other American performance cars) have been shit for years now and they’ve finally stepped up the quality of materials to a non-rage inducing level. We’ll have to wait a couple years to find out if they hold up better than the previous generation but in terms of initial satisfaction I’d rate the cabin very high.

I’m a sucker for toys and the EcoBoost Premium has a ton of them. Some are gimmicks, like the fully customizable interior lighting schemes and the Pony logo that shines on the ground when you open the door and some are “ useful ” like the 0-60 timer or lateral g meter. Additionally there are digital gauge readouts for all performance related information, oil-temp, air fuel mix, block temp, etc. etc. Basically if you know to know what’s going on under the hood of the car, there’s a menu there to tell you. Personally, I much prefer this to an A-pillar mounted gauge pod that lets everyone know you’re dying to ask the world “ do you even race bro? ”

Where the interior fails and fails miserably is being a place for more than two adult humans. I suspect that a child would be happy in the area behind the front seats but everyone else, not so much. It’s as if they finished the beautifully raked design and then someone said “ what about rear seat headroom? ” and then that person was promptly sacked. Clearly a last minute effort was made to allow for some comfort because the angle of the rear seat is extreme and you’re quite low but it’s just not enough. I was getting claustrophobic just being back there taking photos, I can’t imagine riding back there for any extended period of time. Major respect to my mother for doing so for about 45 minutes, on the freeway with me behind the wheel.

Bottom line, this generation of Mustang coupe is a true coupe in that it is best enjoyed by two people. If you’re looking to have fun with 3 friends, better get the drop top. Actually, I take that back, if you like the 2.3L EcoBoost motor and want to rocket around with a couple companions, just wait til next year when the Focus RS arrives because that’s the car this motor deserves.

Mustangs are supposed to be fun, they’re supposed to induce a child like sense of wonder about the world and how a car interacts with it. I got that feeling when I drove !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ’ 2012 5.0 around Brooklyn at 5pm. I even got it when I drove a rental 2014 V6 Convertible (though that had more to do with my environment than the car) but when I drove this 2015 EcoBoost, I just kept wanting it to be better, more engaging, more Mustang-y. It handed the winding Arizona roads I took it on OK but not much better than your average family sedan would. However I don’t think it’s fair to pass final judgement on the handling prowess of the car given that it was running on rental fleet all season tires, so I’ll only comment on the things that are not effected by what kind of rubber it wore.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

The brakes for instance, I thought they were good, quite good actually given that they were working with sub-par tires. I came around a corner to find a rather substantial piece of a cactus in the road and with a vehicle already occupying the other lane I had no choice but to stomp on the left pedal. Much to my pleasure I stopped short of the prickly plant and took a moment to appreciate the fact that the engineers at Ford didn’t cut corners when it came to stopping power. What’s more impressive is the Mustang didn’t dive as much as I thought it would under heaving braking. I thought back to my brief time on the auto-x course with the manual transmission EcoBoost car and recalled that those brakes also felt good, even after being thrashed all day. So if there is a mechanical bright spot for the EcoBoost Mustang, I’d say the brakes are it.

So if the brakes are the mechanical high, then the 6 spd automatic transmission is the low. In a car with significant turbo lag one would hope that it has an excellent transmission to make up for the wait time on the power. That is not the case here and through a recent event in my life I have the perfect way to describe the SelectShift® gearbox. As some of you may already know my girlfriend just got herself a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and I swear the automatic in that thing feels better than the one in the Mustang. Keep in mind the Golf doesn’t get VW’s DSG gearbox, it makes due with a run of the mill ‘ol fashioned tip tronic setup that is slow, like mid aughts Audi slow.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

The Mustang’s gearbox is slower and more frustrating. You wait for shifts, when they do come they’re hardly noticeable and I do NOT mean that as a compliment. More than once I tapped the sad excuse for paddle shifters and waited for some indication that it had happened. Downshifting does nothing to slow the car down, you seriously cannot feel any difference in the behavior of the vehicle and maybe that’s why it has such good brakes. The only alert you get that downshift has in fact taken place is a slight variation in the high pitched 4 cyl whine coming from under the hood, no throttle blip, no exhaust bark, no nothing. This soggy transmission paired with the out of place motor makes for a wholly unenjoyable driving experience. Oh, I should mention that I experienced all of this in Track mode, Sport and Comfort were even worse.

Given that the EcoBoost Mustang isn’t fun to drive aggressively (at least not with an automatic transmission) and it’s not exactly a practical cruiser, I wonder what then is its purpose? The V6 model soldiers on as the go to for folks who want to get from point A to point B in a Mustang. The performance numbers are close, I actually prefer the power delivery of the V6 to the EcoBoost, at least there are no surprises with that motor. You know exactly what you’re getting and if you just want a Mustang for daily use and nothing else it’s well suited for the job.

The EcoBoost doesn’t seem to know what it wants to do, hell I found it odd that one was even in a rental fleet. I was downright giddy when I got into it, going out of the parking garage I was on and off the gas hoping to get some nice BOV acoustics like I got with the Fiesta ST but instead I got about 1/10th of the sound, presumably because the motor is so far away. Did I mention it feels like you’re piloting a cigarette boat when driving the new Mustang? Because it does and honestly the whole bulging hood thing is just ridiculous. To feel any type of connection to the road I had to have the drivers seat as low as it could go and in that position my 5’10 frame was quite comfortable but it came at the expense of road vision.

After my time with the car I began to wonder, is it me? Am I just not the right size for this car? Then I thought about my time with the 2015 Camaro ZL1 and realized no, I’m comfortable driving a large modern muscle car, it just has to be done right. As I said at the beginning, the EcoBoost Mustang feels like it was half assed, a good idea that just wasn’t executed properly.

I know Ford is in love with turbocharging right now and hey, they’ve got a right to be. The Fiesta ST and Focus ST are damn good cars that have earned every ounce of praise they’ve received. However a boosted power plant is the right fit for those cars, they make the most of them and the Mustang simply does not.

This Pony is lame and we all know what happens to lame Ponies...

they go live on a farm somewhere really nice, yeah that’s what happens.

Cheers,

-Andrew

The Good- Lots of toys, great seats, great brakes, overall handsome styling.

The Bad - Unfortunate combination of motor, transmission and size. 911-ish back seat.

Verdict - Get the V8 or get a different car.

Andrew Maness writes about cars because he has one and also has a computer. He’s been known to drunkenly tweet as !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and upload photos to !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . He also has a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and thinks talking about himself in the 3rd person is really weird but knows it’s necessary if he wants to be taken seriously as an automotive journalist.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

DISCUSSION (100)

puppyknuckles > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 14:36

I haven't driven one, but I would imagine that the track pack with the stick would change the game here a lot.

Andrew T. Maness > puppyknuckles
05/07/2015 at 14:40

That’s what I briefly drove at Ford’s EcoBoost Challenge, it was still un-inspiring. There’s just no connection, no lovely soundtrack, no soul.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 14:59

Power problem or weight problem?

Shifting Lanes > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:00

^ This is easily my favorite “full disclosure” yet. Hahaha. Well done.

cazzyodo > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:03

I overlook pretty much any Mustang without a V8. I mean, I’ll look but then move on.

Now, I don’t even want to look.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:03

I think Matt Farah got it right in his back to back take - the ST hatches are more fun for the money you would spend on the mustang, even if the mustang is a bit faster. The ecoboost mustang isn’t sprung to be a sharp little darter. Meanwhile the STs will do throttle off sides on command and have no issues dropping all pretense of seriousness to play in the dirt. So for a sub 30,000$ ford, why not get the V6 and throw on an exhaust for throaty NA noise? I’m not even sure it will be as good on fuel overall.

slicks30z > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:05

“I’d like to chat with someone who really wants the EcoBoost more than the 5.0, not someone who is getting it because it’s what they can afford but someone who would truly rather have the turbo.” - there is not a sane person with this mindset. I have been considering the Ecoboost as a replacement for my current 2000 mustang V6 for no reason other than the price and fuel economy. Truth be told I will probably end up with an FR-S.

friskfyr32 > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:05

It looks surprisingly good in white, though.

Junker_CM > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:08

The V6 one is for people like me who have never owned one till now. The V8 would get me killed. That and I wanted a base V6 with no special added shit that could go wrong with it.

akrach > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:08

Surprising that the GTDI hits the rental fleet instead of the V6.....

Dan Stephenson > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:08

Hey wait, what's wrong with the Gen Coupe with the 3.8 and a stick?

AudiAudiOxenFree > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:08

Compromising car is compromised. Next.

Saracen > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:09

It’s Mustang GT or nothing from me. Mustangs should have proper V8’s.

Kruezerman > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:10

Could it be the fact that it was a rental and was probably previously thrashed and there could be mechanical issues already?

This review is really harsh.

Foxfire15 > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles
05/07/2015 at 15:11

Because IIRC you can’t get any of the goodies on the mustang v6. At that point, may as well get a Camaro imo.

CleverBS > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:11

It’s a Mustang. Most people buying it are buying it for looks and show and care less about the go. Look at the severely underpowered versions of previous years for evidence of that.

A track pack and stick would probably alleviate most of your issues. But even then, it’s still a Mustang, so you can’t expect amazing everything on a mass market vehicle.

LugNutz > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:12

I haven’t driven one, but I do with a certainty that I wouldn’t be in the market for anything other than a 5.0. A car built to be boring, and the only way to make it proper is to void the warranty. I’m sure Ford will have some grossly overpriced performance parts for it that won’t.

dapper_otter > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:12

I realize this is a rental so it doesn’t apply to this particular review but why is every Ecoboost Mustang in the press fleet an automatic? I would think they’d throw a manual in there just to pander to fans and generate better reviews. I haven’t seen a single MT Ecoboost review.

DirtyVDub > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:12

There is a ton of power to be had on the stock turbo. Where did you research your tuning options?

mrmccourt7 > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:12

Kinja'd!!!

I think I see the problem here....

ShillyDevane > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:14

On a car this big, what is the point of a 4 banger? Just get a smaller sports car where V6 is the biggest engine.

SantaRita > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:14

Kinja'd!!!

When i first imagined an ecoboost mustang it was when Taurus SHO got the V6 turbo...that is still a car that deserves to be made but it might have been faster then the V8...certainly costlier...this engine is promising, but never mindblowing in this heavy of a car as it sits. It’s perfect for mom, jsut like the originals were. Next year ford promises a 200lb weight loss ...maybe that will realign the powerband/gearing with a more reasonable heft. Probably just more MPG.

What is your take on the old school v6 mustang? Likewise, many mention the same issues with its inadequacy...no matter what, these new 2.3 T4 are the ‘lesser models’ when there are half a dozen performance editions from Gt to above it.

The 2.3 may become the BRZ of mustangs.

We asked for it, they delivered.
However, we weren’t quite asking the right things so its only middling without fiddling.

The Gray Adder > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:14

Kinja'd!!!

Never mind the power problem. It’s ugly as sin. Why would I spend money to be seen in that?

Kruezerman > mrmccourt7
05/07/2015 at 15:15

Yeah. The shifter.

It needs to be a darker color. Burns hands in the heat.

Andy Sheehan, StreetsideStig > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:15

Kinja'd!!!

I want to believe you about the power train, but... I think that’s your problem.

Pending Approval > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:15

Kinja'd!!!

they only have rear steats because they know how hard it would fail in sales if they were removed, despite them being practially useless. I’m not tall at all, 5’8 but my head will still touch the glass if i’m sitting in the back seat.

Not so sure about this > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:15

Here’s what I don’t understand: Why a 2.3L EcoBoost?

Wouldn’t it be more worthy of a 3.5L EcoBoost? That would rip up pavement and provide far more muscle for what’s supposed to be a “muscle car”.

As for the backseat, yeah, it’s a loss. Who buys this car for a back seat?

GrauGeist > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:16

Oh, please, Mustang glory starts with this bad boy:

Kinja'd!!!

The 2015 Ecoboost Mustang makes a LOT more power than the classic Mustang II with its Carterific 88-hp 4-banger.

And the Mustang II sold a lot. Huge numbers. Less power = better sales.

And Mustang guys, you’re welcome!

smokem777 > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:17

As somebody who sells these on a daily basis. You couldn't be more wrong. "Oh no you have to spend money to go fast".....duh

Tatanko > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:17

Out of curiosity, and to help put this review into perspective, what do you own and/or drive regularly? It would be helpful to know what you’re comparing your experiences to :)

jimz > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:17

that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

tickitytickityTANK > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:17

Hops in base automatic mustang and complains it isn’t a performance car, SMH. You deserved what you got.

Seriously the ecoboost is the V6 replacement. If your a car person and you weren’t aware of that you must have been buried under a rock for the last two years. If you want a peppy model that doesn’t break the bank a PP manual would check most of the boxes. The auto is fast on a drag strip but it was never meant for a road course as ford sells a manual. The base suspension is going to be soft because *gasp* it is the secretary model. If you want the low slung sitting position Im sure there is a flat brimmed hat and lightly used BRZ waiting for you, the rest of us prefer the decent visibility of sitting up (the low slung thing bugs the shit out of me when your in a car with poor visibility already, looking at you GM).

To summarize this rant ford will sell 10s of thousands of these to pay for our 5.0 addiction. So stop whining and encourage your non car friends, who want something sportier than that accord coupe, to buy one.

THUNDERL1PS > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:18

I agree. Mustangs are meant to have V8’s. That’s why I’m ordering a GT350...

m2m, apex detective > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:18

Kinja'd!!!

Maybe Ford should consider adding some lines of text to this button.

What a visual disgrace. :/

area man > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:18

Whatchu shootin with there Tex?

Burn535i > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:21

Times have changed, but that doesn’t mean that they need to twist the definition of a product over time as well. The Mustang has somehow transformed from the Pony car it originally was and intended to be, into the Muscle car it is now interpreted has. Maybe that’s just down to ongoing competition forcing evolution, maybe that’s just down to consumer desire, or maybe it’s the manufacturer thinking they know what we want best and forcing it on us. But consider now that the EcoBoost exists for several reasons which include but are not limited to, broadening the market and accessibility, meeting brand wide fuel requirements and agendas, getting back to basics, employing modular powertrain platforms, and slapping people in the face.

Earthbound And Down > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:21

From one Andrew to another, you’ve fallen prey to the age-old problem that befalls many people that write about cars: You think this car is for one audience, when in fact it’s for another.

This is not the Mustang that all the fun-bros will buy; that’s the GT. This is not the transmission that enthusiasts will get; that’s the manual. This is not the enthusiast model, and that’s proven because it was so heavily discounted at Enterprise that you cross-shopped it with whatever shitty Chrysler 200 they wanted to give you.

This is the Mustang that, more likely than not, will be purchased by the non-enthusiasts, the ones that like the looks but don’t care as much about pep, zip, or whatever other onomatopoeia I can come up with. They care about fuel economy, general comfort, and a decent selection of gizmos to fuck around with and eventually ignore. In that sense, I think this spec of Mustang is just fine. The first Mustang ever sold was bought by a little blonde woman who wanted something cute and fun; it wasn’t bought by the Stig for burnouts and lateral g’s. I think you’ve obfuscated the original message of the Mustang a bit.

But in terms of talking just to enthusiasts, you’re spot the fuck on. This combination of motor and transmission results in an experience less exhilarating than the one that many have ascribed to the Mustang over the years, which has helped that mythos build as time moves along.

Although I do think that buying a car for its potential as a base is a fine thing to do. It’s why Subaru built the shit out of the chassis and left the engine alone in the new STI; the aftermarket is already thick with ways to get more power out of it, and for much cheaper than a major automaker would be able to provide. Thus, they spent time doing what the aftermarket couldn’t — developing a chassis that’s more than sorted to handle all that extra power, if it comes.

The remainder of your review seemed to be rather positive, insofar as the Mustang’s handling characteristics were concerned. It’s very much like the STI in that case then — it’s a solid chassis with a powertrain that leaves a fair bit on the table. So, yeah, this is a base off which to make it your own. Or grandma can leave it alone and keep it tame.

But if you want to sell a car to hundreds of thousands of people (Ford is a business, not the Red Cross for Hoons), the worst thing you can do is immediately alienate 90% of that group because it’s way too powerful.

The car isn’t bad. It’s just not aligning with your personal tastes.

I probably did it > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:22

Hmm, tests a Mustang and complains about back seat room.

Tests a base ecoboost mustang and complains about handling.

Tests an automatic modern car and complains about no engine braking.

I respect the opinions but question their basis when the car quite obviously wasn’t equiped to be the performance model, and its a Pony car..so backseat space is expected.

moardots > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:22

And the soundtrack comes from the speakers :(

ScrotumKnots > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:22

Can we stop whining about how 2+2 cars have little to no backseat room? If you want 4 comfortable seats, BUY A SEDAN!

Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:23

I also don’t get the point of selling a car by saying it has potential with a few upgrades when you can just buy the upper model and not have to worry about tunes or the aftermarket

theshinobi01 > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:24

I think people found the V6 to be a good value (when it was just the V6 and V8). TBH I think the Ecoboost Mustang is just lost in the middle. The V6 has nearly the same power, though less torque at a higher rpm, I feel the Ecoboost is just a bad value IF you keep the car stock. Of course, I’m going to bet at least 50% of EB Mustangs are going to crank up the boost.

Kahless > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:24

i want the eb more than the 5.0. I wanna see what its got. being lighter up front and cheaper to drive and insure day to day makes a difference. the difference between 16mpg and 26mpg would add up considering I drive about 25k a year. and I don't need a loud ass engine to have fun in a car. ive got a motorcycle for that.

BmacIL > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:25

Thus why I got the 5.0 for my 2015 Mustang...

68Comments > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:26

“First off I think the exterior is fantastic, it’s hard to find a bad angle to look at the car from (although it is possible as we’ve seen) and at times I found myself really marveling at what a nice job the designers did of sprinkling in elements of the classic styling but overall making the car look fresh and modern.”

This is where I disagree. I hate the front end, although it looks great on the Fusion, and I’m not all that fond of the rear of the car either. The front of the car does not look like a mustang to me. It is the sad result of ‘branding’ a grill and mandating it across all car models in the line up.

55_mercury > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:26

here’s the dumbest thing about this: According to the numbers I saw the 4 bangers gets a total of 4 MPG less than the V6. Seems not really worth the effort.

Dick Nickels > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:26

The amount of phallic character in that shifter is highly impressive.

Christopher Winslow > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:28

I am wondering if the EcoBoost is just for the car modder. I can imagine you could mod the hell out of that engine to get what you want. Price point you can get a nicely equipped car with the 4 pot and then mod the hell out of it to get the power spread you want.

Andy Sheehan, StreetsideStig > mrmccourt7
05/07/2015 at 15:28

Man Drives Automatic Car, Complains About Power Delivery

AZRCD > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:28

I completely agree, if that is the motor you want, then that is not the car you want it in. (Or vise versa too.) The only answer I’ve ever gotten in reply to why you would want a Mustang over the FistST, FocST or FocRS is, “It’s rear wheel drive.” But simply RWD on it’s own isn’t the be all and end all of, frankly, anything.

Maxxuman > GrauGeist
05/07/2015 at 15:30

Mustang glory starts with the car that ushered in 30 years of Mustang malaise? You crazy bro!

The Devil Drives a Mustang (Rotary Pending) > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
05/07/2015 at 15:30

Having never driven it, and in my uninformed opinion, it’s a power band problem.

Ecoboost: 320ft-lbs @ 3,000 RPM; 310hp @ 5,500 RPM

V8: 400 lb-ft @ 4,250 RPM; 435 @ 6,500 RPM

It’s a bias of mine, but I think that a good sports car should have an engine with a “top weighted” power band. I recognize for daily drivability having some oomph in the low to mid range is needed, but a good sports car engine should still get better as the tachometer climbs. It should not peter out a full 1,500 RPM before the red line.

The current turbo is fine for those who just want a stylish coupe and don’t want the performance. Really, a loaded Ecoboost premium without the performance package is a hell of a car for $35k and is easily just as good of a grand tourer as the BMW 228i, Audi A5 2.0T, or any of the coupes coming from Europe.

But what the turbo needs is a true SVO version. One with a manic 1980’s style turbo system that does jack squat for the first half of the RPM range and then kicks you in the balls somewhere around 3,500 to 4,000 RPM.

Kruezerman > Earthbound And Down
05/07/2015 at 15:30

You just made a bunch of EcoBoost owners here feel real bad.

olddirtydiesel > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:30

Well they still sell the 300hp 3.7 V6 Avis special. I’m just saying.

BeaterGT > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:32

It’s a pony car. And who likes ponies?

5ptBro > Earthbound And Down
05/07/2015 at 15:33

Exactly, the only enthusiast buyers of the ecoboost Mustang will be the ones who cannot afford the GT.

SantaRita > 55_mercury
05/07/2015 at 15:33

19/28 for the v6 and 22/31 for the 4 banger but I’m guessing driven hard the 4 is thirstier.

looks like they could afford to have given the 4 a little less eco and more boost and gotten the same numbers.

The Devil Drives a Mustang (Rotary Pending) > Pending Approval
05/07/2015 at 15:33

It is nice to be able to still find coupes out there that can do duty as a family car. I am not going to be taking my daughter in it all the time, just sometimes. So it’s nice to have the back seat there.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:34

Kinja'd!!!

I really hate these “poser” shift knobs we’re seeing these days...

5ptBro > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles
05/07/2015 at 15:35

The 3.7 in the S197 especially sounds pretty wicked believe it or not. It pops and crackles from the factory, pretty cool.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:35

I haven’t driven an EcoBoost Mustang. Or any Mustang for that matter. I’m actually a pretty big GM guy, but if my car got totaled on the way home to day, but EcoBoost would be on my short list, and here’s why:

1) Potential. I’m one of those people who loves to tinker with shit and I look at a car like this a a blank canvas. I have no illusions that I can do better than the factory, or make a GT beater, or save myself money. I just genuinely would get this to mess around with.

2) Economy. I currently pull high 30mpg’s for fuel economy. It would be very hard for me to go back to driving something that get’s shit gas mileage. I also live in Northern VA. Traffic blows and there’s not too many great driving roads. But I also get up into western Maryland regularly (1-2 times a month or more) where there are awesome roads, so to me this car would be a perfect compromise.

thedangler > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:35

It would have been interesting to see the 3.5 ecoboost in it. I would go 5.0 or bust though. Or buy a Wrangler because I live in the northeast... dammit.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:36

It is amazing how much of a difference the sounds a car makes... makes.

jjhats > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:37

so let me get this straight the engine is the problem, when you know and like the ST twins? you do realize those tiny 1.6 and 2.0 mills actually are limited by the aftermarket due to the tiny turbos and the front drive non lsd drivetrain? here we have a great potent 4 banger with a big turbo and lots of potential in a very capable lighter irs with lsd big brakes and RWD. but you went ahead and complained because it doesn't have a v8 and the backseat is small. this car is fantastic and better than the GT for many reasons. you just need to readjust your perception of it

Schraderbrau > The Gray Adder
05/07/2015 at 15:37

I know aesthetics are subjective, but I still have a hard time swallowing that. I park by a white one at work and am impressed at how cool and clean the design is, while being appropriately aggressive at the same time.

Manic Otti > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:38

I don’t think anyone has ever bought a Mustang for the backseats. They are just sort of a bonus “in case you need them”. As for the Ecoboost, it’s basically a possible replacement for the 6 cyl., which nobody buys for performance anyway. I never hear people say “buy the V8 Genesis or don’t bother at all, but for some reason everybody says this about the Mustang.

GrauGeist > Maxxuman
05/07/2015 at 15:39

All that matters is sales, and the Mustang II sold very well.

If the 2015 sold like the ‘74, Dearborn would ecstatic.

2 Wheels awesome! > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:39

Do you think they bitched like this about the 1964 Mustang hardtop with the 170 cubic inch inline 6 with 101 horses? The Ecoboost is the model for people who want to drive a 4ish seat pony car and still get 32 mpg highway. It’s not for people who want to listen to a burbely 5.0 v8 sound tubed into their cockpit.

Austintatious > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:39

Kinja'd!!!

I found your problem. hmmm if only there was a magic lever I could use to keep my turbo spooled just right.

ReforMatt > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:40

i thought it would fit in properly between the v6 and the 5.0. don’t get me wrong, i would get the 5.0 or a different car. but i actually have a similar engine to the ecoboost in my 2015 WRX and its pretty fun.

PS9 > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:41

Are there really that many people out there that are dying to have a relatively large car that screams “ American Exceptionalism ” in its styling but whispers “ Foreign Compromise ” in its performance?

No. But there are a significant amount of people out there who cannot drop $40-50k on a Mustang. Or an anything. Volume on a coupe is going to be low enough as it is, there isn’t any room in the business plan for telling potential buyers to get the V8 or GTFO.

JaredTheGeek > Junker_CM
05/07/2015 at 15:41

The V6 can have a satisfying grunt when paired with the right exhaust. You get a nice power band and a good amount of power.

i_say_uuhhh > m2m, apex detective
05/07/2015 at 15:42

Seriously, I wonder who approved such a horrible thing.

VoltRon > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:42

Thank you for writing something honest about this car...even if it hurts to hear.

Austintatious > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:42

Kinja'd!!!

“Given that the EcoBoost Mustang isn’t fun to drive aggressively (at least not with an automatic transmission).” So you write an article about how boring the turbo four is, and then explicitly state it’s probably the transmissions fault. I mean don’t get me wrong, I get where you’re coming from, but come on.

UnknownPerson2 > SantaRita
05/07/2015 at 15:42

I don’t remember anyone asking for the 4 cyl EB. I want the 3.5EB, but then the 5.0 guys would have their feelings hurt when a v6 is faster.

I'm Abe Froman > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:42

What about weight and balance, buddy?

Paullubbock > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:43

Something sounds fishy. How can a car with 310HP and 320lb -ft of torque feel lame? I mean something should be kicking in at some point? It doesn’t make sense to me. Are you sure the rental folks didn’t do something to the car because you know, it’s a rental . If I was a rental place I would put the car in gimp mode so stupid people wouldn’t go out and kill themselves in it.

[REDACTED] > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:44

I’ve been wondering what stopped Ford from using the F-series Ecoboost 6?

Lopoetve > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:47

You wanted to chat with someone who wants the turbo more than the V8? Well, here I am. I’ve been looking at potentially a fully loaded EcoBoost - the 5.0 isn’t even on my list. The ‘Stang as a whole is pretty far ~down~ my list, mind you, but there’s no way I’d consider the Coyote anytime soon.

Why?

1. I live at altitude. 5300 feet outside my front door. That puts the 5.0 at ~336 HP, vs the Ecoboost at 310 (albeit with a slightly longer spool time). That’s before we go for a fun drive in the mountains, where at 8,000 ft the Eco is still making 310, and the 5.0... well, lets not go there - it’ll be embarassing. At the crank, of course.

2. If I want to make more power, a tune quickly amps that 310 up a ways from there, ~especially~ on torque. As you said, downpipe, bigger tune, better fueling, exhaust - for a couple of thousand, hitting 300+ whp shouldn’t be all that hard (my understanding is that the 2.3 has some fueling issues around that point that get difficult, but the aftermarket will answer at some point) -fwiw, I haven’t done a ton of research into the 2.3 yet, so I may be off here in numbers. That’d be about 2-3k all in at that point. On the 5.0, Intake/Headers/Exhaust gets you what, about 40hp? So now we’re at 350 vs about 375 crank on the 5.0, maybe a nudge bit more, and the price will be about the same. On the 5.0, we’re now looking at heads and cams as the next logical step, which starts to toy with emissions (from the cam side) and easily racks the price up ~quite~ a bit, while we’re still on bolt-ons for the Turbo. In other words, due to altitude being a complete and utter power sap, the turbo is now putting out more (or the same) power, but doing so cheaper and easier. Say what you will about “the ease of making power from an N/A V8”, it ain’t cheap. Not when comparing to a modern turbocharged engine where a tune alone starts adding the same power that it used to take a full end-to-end intake/exhaust system to make. We’re still early into the 2.3 tuning landscape in the Mustang, but it’ll be a bright bright future - and it’ll be easy, in comparison to digging into the entire valvetrain of a V8.

3. Fuel economy. Say what you will, cruising on the highway, I’ve easily gotten better MPG out of the turbo-4s I’ve had than any of the V8s (and I’ve had plenty of the latter). It matters, at least on a daily driver.

4. Last but not least, it’s cheaper - which means I can get the Ecoboost ~at~ 5.0 power levels for the same price. And it’ll ~still~ make that power in the mountains or anywhere else. No gasping for air here.

In other words - easier to modify, better power, cheaper, more efficient - what’s not to like? Even at sea level, only one of those goes away... It’ll never have the V8 rumble, but that’s what the stereo is for.

mrspof > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:48

Kinja'd!!!

Introducing the Ford BonerShiftronic!

Wacko > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:48

So an Eco-boost mustang with an Auto is a My little Pony car.

Not only does it look like an accord coupe, but it also has a 4 banger.

Did you find any honda logos on the engine, or windows??

whan > Christopher Winslow
05/07/2015 at 15:49

I agree, but there’s always going to be that other segment of american muscle tuners who make even bigger power on the 5.0. And I’d always feel a bit weird having the modded EcoBoost next to those

BOB JACOBSON > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:50

This seems like a common phrase around here but i firmly believe that this will be a good buy on the used market.

Im betting they are going to depreciate pretty heavily and in a few years you can pick one up for cheap. Buy some used parts and itll be a performance bargain.

Chasaboo > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:50

A guy at work bought one with a stick and didn’t like the sound either so he went to GAS and got their exhaust setup. Sounds really nice I think. He loves the car and it looks amazing in graphite.

SantaRita > UnknownPerson2
05/07/2015 at 15:52

i definitely said in 2010 “ Wow, an ecoboost mustang would be great! “instead of “A taurus SHO v-6 ecoboost mustang without AWD would be great!”

However ford overheard and murmured to themselves “ Why not...we tried a 2.3turbo mustang in the 80’s right? We can probably afford to build another the 2.3T if we stick it in everything like we did last time...” then they went on and screwed up this mustang by not giving it the focus ST’s 35 more HP which would liven it up properly.

IMO they did this for a few reasons: MPG, first year build quality, a guaranteed Model Year update path.

I had a conversation on an flight with one of Ford/Roush’s development engineers. he had been traveling setting up ECU’s for whatever track they were on. We got to talking about Saab H-blocks since it was all we had experience tuning in common and he loved the 2.0L ...i had disdain the 2.0 and prefer the 2.3 for street driving where it has a little more guts in the torque department but for his needs, the 2.0 would be wound out most of the time so it was more than enough on track and with a good tune equal in peak power and better on fuel. He was tuning v8 cars either way. When I saw the 2.3 was going into the mustang I remembered that conversation and was so glad they didn’t go 2.0 in this car...the 2.3 is all potential right now.

mrspof > Kruezerman
05/07/2015 at 15:52

Not me. My Focus ST3 is freakin awesome.

afghan vacation > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:53

Hey. You pull the shifter back to “s” and hit the drive mode button to “s+” or “track” Did you even try that? Because it sounds like you were trying to trash a rental pony in normal or comfort. No freaking wonder you found it anemic. I get wheel spin changing gears in sport+ on the performance package Pirellis. The slow shifts is the traction control trying to keep that from happening during normal driving.

whan > Kruezerman
05/07/2015 at 15:53

EcoBoost mustang? Or Focus/Fiesta. The bottom line is, would you rather have gotten a 5.0 if you could have? I’d bet for most enthusiasts the answer is yes, but for a lot of non-enthusiasts, they probably wouldn’t really care.

boxrocket > SantaRita
05/07/2015 at 15:54

When I first heard about the EcoBoost project, I imagined a wide swath of offerings, from the 1.0L I3 to a twin-turbo V8. With the reveal of a TT V6-powered Ford GT and Raptor, I know the dream of factory TT Fords is most likely dead, and it makes me sad.

Brian, The Life of > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
05/07/2015 at 15:55

It’s cheaper to add power than reduce weight.

Unless you’re talking about building a LeMons race car.

Junker_CM > JaredTheGeek
05/07/2015 at 15:55

Best of all, its more consistent and I don’t have to worry about a lag.

Mister_Moon > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:56

I rented a V6 2015 recently and I actually kind of liked it. But I found myself questioning why anyone would buy the Ecoboost. A V6 6MT would be a pretty good car for very little money.

I don’t understand all the bitching about the rear seats. They are not actually intended for humans, so why even try to sit back there?

Brian, The Life of > Manic Otti
05/07/2015 at 15:56

Exactly this. The backseat of my ‘66 Fastback was a terrible place for an adult to ride for more than 5 minutes.

Touch Connors > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:56

I get it, you want your power delivered in a very particular way out of the box and the T4 doesn’t do that. But the issue is with you, not with the car. I’ll get off your lawn now so you can write your next article about how the Corvette should always have its engine up front.

Junker_CM > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:57

Hey Andrew, have you tried any of the other ‘15s? Or just the I4 T?

Loki240SX > Andrew T. Maness
05/07/2015 at 15:58

Kinja'd!!!

The fact that my Focus ST has none of these toys is downright maddening.

Kruezerman > whan
05/07/2015 at 15:59

Whenever news of the EcoStang first came out, everyone here was ecstatic with the tuning oppurtunites the turbo would give and the lighter weight from the four banger compared to the V8.

Manic Otti > Brian, The Life of
05/07/2015 at 16:00

I’d imagine the back seats of my Torino aren’t much better, and It’s giant by today’s standards.

Junker_CM > Earthbound And Down
05/07/2015 at 16:00

You have to remember that the Mustang has been the everyman muscle car. Little grannies to shithead teens can all get in a Mustang and enjoy it.