2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[CodeRedR51]

Or carbon fiber.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

So they are almost identical in performance, weight, and fuel economy. But the V6 is cheaper. The only thing the ecoboost could be tangibly better at is city driving because of its slightly better torque curve. But then you have lag to contend with, even if it's minimal. On the other hand the V6 should be more responsive and fun to wring out. I doubt either difference could be consciously perceived by an average entry-level mustang buyer. Why have the option?

I think Ford is honestly nervous about not having a six-cylinder Mustang in it's lineup. It would be, perhaps surprisingly, more unprecedented than not having a V8, as a V8 was not offered at all in 1974. The 6 has been with the Mustang since day one, doing the undesirable business of base-model and fleet-sales. Maybe Ford sees the ecoboost Mustang as a bit of a gamble for their soul bottom-line bread winner. The SVO is a cult classic, no doubt, but there is a reason it died.

 

[eSZee]

They'll leave the V6 in for a few years and if sales are bad enough they'll pull it and the public will understand.
The ecoboost just needs a cheap perf. pack from ford that will up the boost considerably and people will forget the V6.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

They'll leave the V6 in for a few years and if sales are bad enough they'll pull it and the public will understand.
The ecoboost just needs a cheap perf. pack from ford that will up the boost considerably and people will forget the V6.

I don't think they will pull it. Because:

V6 > Turbo 4 in terms of durability, maintenance, and longevity.

 

[Slash]

I think Ford is honestly nervous about not having a six-cylinder Mustang in it's lineup.

The whole original concept was actually designed around a V4, but yeah the original car was all about the 6 cylinder engine.

as a V8 was not offered at all in 1974.

Not entirely true...in 1974 there was a V8 option offered, but only in Mexico, and it was installed differently than the later 75-78 Mustangs. It all depended on your location. America didn't get the V8 that year, but it still was used in the Mustang. The Mustang, technically, has always had a V8 option.


__________

Here's a rendering of the potential GT350, based on the recent test mules. This is probably the most accurate to date.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Needs a spoiler

 

[CodeRedR51]

And black out the verticle supports in the upper grille area.

 

[GTboyz]

Hey..... Looks better than what i'm imagined.

 

[Organ-Donor]

I like that a lot. Needs a spoiler like LMSCorvette said.

 

[Badasp5.0]

So they are almost identical in performance, weight, and fuel economy. But the V6 is cheaper. The only thing the ecoboost could be tangibly better at is city driving because of its slightly better torque curve. But then you have lag to contend with, even if it's minimal. On the other hand the V6 should be more responsive and fun to wring out. I doubt either difference could be consciously perceived by an average entry-level mustang buyer. Why have the option?

I think Ford is honestly nervous about not having a six-cylinder Mustang in it's lineup. It would be, perhaps surprisingly, more unprecedented than not having a V8, as a V8 was not offered at all in 1974. The 6 has been with the Mustang since day one, doing the undesirable business of base-model and fleet-sales. Maybe Ford sees the ecoboost Mustang as a bit of a gamble for their soul bottom-line bread winner. The SVO is a cult classic, no doubt, but there is a reason it died.

Unless you are at high altitude where a FI car will have less power loss vs a NA car.

 

[Keef]

I expect the I4 to have better city gas mileage in practical use. When you're idling at a stop light for 5 minutes with two fewer pistons flinging around you're saving fuel.

 

[Adamgp]

I4 should have better mileage, but will it be enough to offset the cost of premium gas for the ecoboom vs regular for the V6?

If I were in the market for one, I'd skip the EB all together and get the GT.

 

[Slash]

That's about the only time I can see it having better mileage. Smaller engine in an equally heavy car means its working harder to push that tank.


EDIT:


More and more of these are being spotted on the streets. First GT that I know of been spotted.

 

[YSSMAN]

I4 should have better mileage, but will it be enough to offset the cost of premium gas for the ecoboom vs regular for the V6?

*sigh*

Assuming the following:

• Modest fuel economy gains for the EcoBoost
• Same 16 gallon tank carrying over from the current car
• Average miles of 12,000 per year
• Locking in gas at $3.65 for regular, $3.85 for premium

3.7L V6: 19/29/24 MPG --> 500 gallons per year --> 31 stops per year --> $1825 annual fuel cost
2.3T I4: 20/30/25 MPG --> 480 gallons per year --> 30 stops per year --> $1848 annual fuel cost

A sum total difference of $23 a year on gasoline. Literally a drop in the hat for overall fuel costs per year.

Just for fun, lets assume the fuel economy gains on the EcoBoost are a bit better than that...

3.7L V6: 19/29/24 MPG --> 500 gallons per year --> 31 stops per year --> $1825 annual fuel cost
2.3T I4: 21/31/26 MPG --> 461 gallons per year --> 28 stops per year --> $1774 annual fuel cost

On that run, you get an actual savings of $51 a year. Again, still a drop in the bucket, but a fifty is still a fifty.



I honestly don't know why people care that much about premium/regular when it comes to fueling up your car. It is probably a safe bet that the EcoBoost runs just fine on regular as well, but will make a little less power out of the box. At best, I wouldn't expect more than 21 MPG in the city, but highway numbers are anyone's guess. At or beyond 30 MPG and they've got a great PR tool. But, when it comes down to it, the actual cost to you the owner won't be in paying for premium gas, but, how much more the EcoBoost will cost from the outset. There's a good chance that that number will never be offset in the time you own that car.

 

[CodeRedR51]

My GTi requires premium (so says the sticker on the fuel door) so that's what I put in, but it runs fine on regular so there's no issue. Most new cars, even if they require premium, can run on regular with decreased performance.

 

[Joey D]

I'll never understand why people get bent out of shape over premium, it's $.20 difference in price and assuming you have a 15 gallon tank you're looking at $3.00 more to fill up your tank if you were completely out of fuel.

Smaller engine in an equally heavy car means its working harder to push that tank.

Smaller engine in terms of displacement, but in terms of horsepower and torque not so much.

 

[eSZee]

My GTi requires premium (so says the sticker on the fuel door) so that's what I put in, but it runs fine on regular so there's no issue. Most new cars, even if they require premium, can run on regular with decreased performance.

Most of the time, the performance decrease is nonexistent.

I'll never understand why people get bent out of shape over premium, it's $.20 difference in price and assuming you

Not in illinois it isn't. Not for over a year. It's now $.40-$.60 for reasons unknown to me. Even my recent trips to IN/WI showed more of the same trend.

 

[McLaren]

Most of the time, the performance decrease is nonexistent.

But the amount of miles you can get out of the tank can be more than noticeable.

I used to be one of those who saw no difference til' I learned that it's not safe with my compression ratio & because the engine is designed to run on premium, the fuel efficiency is much better; 300+ miles compared to 250-270 I was getting running lower grades.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

But the amount of miles you can get out of the tank can be more than noticeable.

I used to be one of those who saw no difference til' I learned that it's not safe with my compression ratio & because the engine is designed to run on premium, the fuel efficiency is much better; 300+ miles compared to 250-270 I was getting running lower grades.

Plus in the end you saved more money than the 3 or 4 dollars extra at the pump, in the long run.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Most of the time, the performance decrease is nonexistent.

Maybe, depending on the car it could only be a few horses which any normal person probably wouldn't notice.

 

[Adamgp]

*sigh*

Assuming the following:

• Modest fuel economy gains for the EcoBoost
• Same 16 gallon tank carrying over from the current car
• Average miles of 12,000 per year
• Locking in gas at $3.65 for regular, $3.85 for premium

3.7L V6: 19/29/24 MPG --> 500 gallons per year --> 31 stops per year --> $1825 annual fuel cost
2.3T I4: 20/30/25 MPG --> 480 gallons per year --> 30 stops per year --> $1848 annual fuel cost

A sum total difference of $23 a year on gasoline. Literally a drop in the hat for overall fuel costs per year.

Just for fun, lets assume the fuel economy gains on the EcoBoost are a bit better than that...

3.7L V6: 19/29/24 MPG --> 500 gallons per year --> 31 stops per year --> $1825 annual fuel cost
2.3T I4: 21/31/26 MPG --> 461 gallons per year --> 28 stops per year --> $1774 annual fuel cost

On that run, you get an actual savings of $51 a year. Again, still a drop in the bucket, but a fifty is still a fifty.

I honestly don't know why people care that much about premium/regular when it comes to fueling up your car. It is probably a safe bet that the EcoBoost runs just fine on regular as well, but will make a little less power out of the box. At best, I wouldn't expect more than 21 MPG in the city, but highway numbers are anyone's guess. At or beyond 30 MPG and they've got a great PR tool. But, when it comes down to it, the actual cost to you the owner won't be in paying for premium gas, but, how much more the EcoBoost will cost from the outset. There's a good chance that that number will never be offset in the time you own that car.

*sigh*

So as I suspected, not much if any $ savings. Especially once you factor in option cost. I'm not surprised.

I'm sure it will run fine on regular, but it doesn't make much sense to pay for the more powerful/more economical option if you are going to run it on reduced power, and likely reduced efficiency.

 

[Omnis]

That yellow is probably the most PMY color there is.

 

[eSZee]

But the amount of miles you can get out of the tank can be more than noticeable.

I used to be one of those who saw no difference til' I learned that it's not safe with my compression ratio & because the engine is designed to run on premium, the fuel efficiency is much better; 300+ miles compared to 250-270 I was getting running lower grades.

The logs I ran don't fully back that up.
Timing was pulled and mpg was worse BUT only for the first 1-3 fill ups. The same occurred when switching from one brand of gas to another. After the learning period, the difference was negligible.
The only time I would recommend sticking to premium are really hot summer days, 90*+ for extended periods. Timing pull at idle was noticeable but as soon as the cars started moving and IAT temps dropped, timing was back to normal.

 

[CodeRedR51]

The logs I ran don't fully back that up.
Timing was pulled and mpg was worse BUT only for the first 1-3 fill ups. The same occurred when switching from one brand of gas to another. After the learning period, the difference was negligible.
The only time I would recommend sticking to premium are really hot summer days, 90*+ for extended periods. Timing pull at idle was noticeable but as soon as the cars started moving and IAT temps dropped, timing was back to normal.

Well since I live where it's 105+ on average during the summer (110 today) premium it is for me.

 

[McLaren]

The logs I ran don't fully back that up.
Timing was pulled and mpg was worse BUT only for the first 1-3 fill ups. The same occurred when switching from one brand of gas to another. After the learning period, the difference was negligible.
The only time I would recommend sticking to premium are really hot summer days, 90*+ for extended periods. Timing pull at idle was noticeable but as soon as the cars started moving and IAT temps dropped, timing was back to normal.

I didn't realize whatever car you got your log on applied to all cars. Sorry, it doesn't work that way to just run premium whenever you feel it's beneficial. Every car is different.

The effects are long term. Running low grade in my car will eventually cause the engine to lag and cause poor MPG, nevermind serious damage because the car runs 11:1 ratio so even mid grade can cause pinging in it. Paying more at the pump is worth if it means not needing the engine to be repaired.

And even outside my own car, I will continue to buy premium in anything that requires it after having a Raptor come back to work to have the gas drained because someone decided to "save money" at the pump by putting in 87 grade gas. This caused the truck to sputter and die because the cheap bastard didn't bother learning the truck had a 600hp kit on it.

 

[eSZee]

I didn't realize whatever car you got your log on applied to all cars. Sorry, it doesn't work that way to just run premium whenever you feel it's beneficial. Every car is different.

I'll be sure to not run 87 on my 600hp raptor tuned for 91. Thanks for the heads up.
Come on, that's hardly relevant.

 

[McLaren]

I'll be sure to not run 87 on my 600hp raptor tuned for 91. Thanks for the heads up.
Come on, that's hardly relevant.

Except for the fact it drives my point further. My car is tuned by the factory to run higher octane & it only makes 300hp. The fact is, being a cheap ass on gas doesn't do your car or your wallet any good long term if you actually know how your engine is supposed to run. Manufacturers don't put Premium only on the tanks for ***** & giggles.

Your logs don't provide any back up to your claim that running premium is really only beneficial in the heat.

 

[eSZee]

Except for the fact it drives my point further. My car is tuned by the factory to run higher octane & it only makes 300hp. The fact is, being a cheap ass on gas doesn't do your car or your wallet any good long term if you actually know how your engine is supposed to run. Manufacturers don't put Premium only on the tanks for ***** & giggles.

Your logs don't provide any back up to your claim that running premium is really only beneficial in the heat.

The raptor has an 87 octane recommendation doesn't it? With a 2.5% hp bump when on premium? The shop wasn't able to retain that and that's how your point is driven further? hilarity.
Local speed shop wagging their e-peen with aggressive tune is the same as a manufacturer suggesting premium to cover their ass in case on of their customers decides to take a road trip to death valley.

 

[McLaren]

The raptor has an 87 octane recommendation doesn't it? With a 2.5% hp bump when on premium? The shop wasn't able to retain that and that's how your point is driven further? hilarity.

Hennessey couldn't retain that because Hennessey didn't tune the truck to ever run on 87 octane after the mods performed. The point isn't whether or not it's possible, the point is when you know what your engine runs best on, it's best to stick to that & not try to be cheap. The client was made aware of the mods when he bought the truck & was advised that it was probably no longer safe to run the truck on the recommended 87.

Local speed shop wagging their e-peen with aggressive tune is the same as a manufacturer suggesting premium to cover their ass in case on of their customers decides to take a road trip to death valley.

Not even close, but you're so far off the mark by this point, I doubt you'll get it with further explanation.

The only time I would recommend sticking to premium are really hot summer days, 90*+ for extended periods.

Hilarity is thinking this is solid advice. Yep, that's totally the only time to run Premium in my car. Forget the fact that it runs a 11:1 compression ratio, it'll run just fine on 87 octane & not have any chance of failing as long as it's not above 90 degrees.

Thank god you don't work in the automotive industry.

 

[eSZee]

Thank god you don't work in the automotive industry.

..anymore. I was a tech at BMW. Then I put 87 in a customer's 335i and it 'sploded in the shop.

I digress. RECOMMENDING people not use premium was just a slip in the heat of the moment. I didn't even realize I wrote that til you pointed it out. Sorry.