'15 Turbo 4 Cyl

[Gearbanger 101]

I dunno, its all speculation until the car comes out i guess. Gearing will play a big factor also, i am just basing off of my own personal expierience with the EB in my truck being very close to the real world MPG of the 5.0 in similarly equiped trucks.

Even if it gets 40mpg i still dont understand the mentality of someone that buys a 30+k dollar sports car to be fuel efficient and save money. You could just buy an older honda or something, get similar mileage and save the sports car for nice days with the more powerful engine.

Speculation perhaps, but using your F150 as a basis for your example might not be the best way to gauge how the Mustang is going to perform. Setting aside the obvious 1.3L displacement difference between the mill in the Mustang and the one in the F150, let's also keep in mind the 1,200-1,800lb weight difference (depending on how the F150 is configured) between the two vehicles and the substantial drive train loss a truck experiences in comparison to a car. After all, we all know how the mileage drops like a rock when you load the Ecoboost F150's up, so it only stands to reason that cutting the weight and rolling resistance substantially is only going to improve the Mustangs chances of retaining fuel mileage?

As for why someone would bother.....I suppose for the same reason people bought I-4 and V6 Mustangs before it? They wanted to be in a Mustang and probably couldn't pony up the bucks/fuel/insurance costs of the V8? The sad fact of the matter, is that not everybody is a hotrod enthusiast. Some people just like the styling and the heritage and could care less what's under the hood, as long as they get to drive around in one?

Besides....if you could have a "do it all" sports car, wouldn't you? Why limit yourself if you don't have to? There's no harm in obtaining excellent performance, while retaining creature comforts, while saving fuel in the process. I think most Fox owners don't look favourably on the fuel economy, or a creature comfort aspect because frankly, it's really not an option for us.

No matter what we do to our cars, high performance, refinement, reliability and outstanding fuel mileage will never be peas of the same pod for us. There's always going to have to be a compromise in there somewhere and I can't help but sense a little envy.....dare I say jealousy from a lot of the old school crowd? I know I sure am.....if I could have it all in my Fox, you an be damn sure I'd accept it with open arms.

After all, the 4-cylinder Mustangs outsold the V8 Mustangs back in their day, didn't they? And that was before the latest "Fast and Furious" generation went small displacement, turbo crazy like they are now....so yeah, I'd say there's probably a market for it.

 

[tamadrummer88]

Speculation perhaps, but using your F150 as a basis for your example might not be the best way to gauge how the Mustang is going to perform. Setting aside the obvious 1.3L displacement difference between the mill in the Mustang and the one in the F150, let's also keep in mind the 1,200-1,800lb weight difference (depending on how the F150 is configured) between the two vehicles and the substantial drive train loss a truck experiences in comparison to a car. After all, we all know how the mileage drops like a rock when you load the Ecoboost F150's up, so it only stands to reason that cutting the weight and rolling resistance substantially is only going to improve the Mustangs chances of retaining fuel mileage?

As for why someone would bother.....I suppose for the same reason people bought I-4 and V6 Mustangs before it? They wanted to be in a Mustang and probably couldn't pony up the bucks/fuel/insurance costs of the V8? The sad fact of the matter, is that not everybody is a hotrod enthusiast. Some people just like the styling and the heritage and could care less what's under the hood, as long as they get to drive around in one?

Besides....if you could have a "do it all" sports car, wouldn't you? Why limit yourself if you don't have to? There's no harm in obtaining excellent performance, while retaining creature comforts, while saving fuel in the process. I think most Fox owners don't look favourably on the fuel economy, or a creature comfort aspect because frankly, it's really not an option for us.

No matter what we do to our cars, high performance, refinement, reliability and outstanding fuel mileage will never be peas of the same pod for us. There's always going to have to be a compromise in there somewhere and I can't help but sense a little envy.....dare I say jealousy from a lot of the old school crowd? I know I sure am.....if I could have it all in my Fox, you an be damn sure I'd accept it with open arms.

After all, the 4-cylinder Mustangs outsold the V8 Mustangs back in their day, didn't they? And that was before the latest "Fast and Furious" generation went small displacement, turbo crazy like they are now....so yeah, I'd say there's probably a market for it.

To date the V6 mustangs sell more than the GT mustangs. Sometimes all people want is a Mustang. They could care less what motor is in it.

 

[JD1964]

We have the ecoboost 4 in the new escape. While it is quite peppy for a 4 banger, I think it gives a false sense of just how powerful it is. Here's why: You push the throttle half way down and you get about all it has. Put it to the floor and there's not much difference. Sure, at full throttle it will stay in each gear longer, but you dont get more tq or power beyond 1/2 throttle. The other thing that really helps it is the 6spd automatic. The extra gears keeps the engine in its optimal tq range.

Dont get me wrong, I like it. I just think the tuning and trans programming makes it feel more gutsy than it really is

 

[Gearbanger 101]

We have the ecoboost 4 in the new escape. While it is quite peppy for a 4 banger, I think it gives a false sense of just how powerful it is. Here's why: You push the throttle half way down and you get about all it has. Put it to the floor and there's not much difference. Sure, at full throttle it will stay in each gear longer, but you dont get more tq or power beyond 1/2 throttle. The other thing that really helps it is the 6spd automatic. The extra gears keeps the engine in its optimal tq range.

Dont get me wrong, I like it. I just think the tuning and trans programming makes it feel more gutsy than it really is

This is kind of another one of those apples and oranges comparison though. Not only is the Escape 200-300lbs heavier than the Mustang and pushing it's oats through a more power sapping CV drivetrain, but the baby 1.6L Ecoboost engine in it (the same one found in the Fiesta ST) is making almost 130hp/115lbs/ft of torque less than the 2.3L Ecoboost engine slated for the Mustang.

So while I don't doubt your driving impressions of the Escape, I really don't think that vehicle in particular accurately depicts the "sporty" nature of the upcoming Mustang. There's an absolutely enormous difference in both weight and power delivery between the two vehicles.

FWIW, the little 2.0L Ecoboost in my GF's Focus ST pulls right t0 the rev limiter, will run neck and neck (or quicker) with a stock Fox body in 1/4 of a mile and will top out at over 150mph.....and it's putting out 50hp and 30lbs/ft less than the upcoming 2.3L Ecoboost, through a more efficient drive-train, at almost the same vehicle weight.

I think the sceptics are going to be in for a real shock with this car. The 305hp, 3.7L V6 Mustang hurt enough feelings when it hit the road in 2011, nearly matching the previous S197's GT's acceleration numbers and trouncing any prior model year V8 Mustang before it. It's really gonna add insult to injury when a little 2.3L 1-4 does the same thing.....and knocks out 40mpg to boot.

 

[tannerc91gt]

My 1.4 Ecoboost in my '13 fusion was awesome. I'd really enjoy a 2.3t just wouldn't want my mustang that way.

 

[JD1964]

Just for the record, my '13 escape has the 2.0 ecoboost.