Motortrend Takes A Ride in the 2015 2.3 Mustang

[BlackHorse]

I refuse to call it EcoBoost, so it will always be the 2.3 to me.

 

 

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1405_2015_ford_mustang_ecoboost_first_ride/

[akirby]

So it's good enough for Ford racing but not for you?

 

[BlackHorse]

Ford racing uses it because Ford wants to advertise the EcoBoost technology. I don't worship at the alter of Ford nor any other car company for that matter so yes it's good enough for Ford racing but its not good enough for me. I don't care for the EcoBoost name, so what. It's not a big deal.

[Bryan1]

What's wrong with the name? eco*BOOST* just means the power and torque of larger engines, but with better fuel economy.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Bryan1

[BlackHorse]

What's wrong with the name? eco*BOOST* just means the power and torque of larger engines, but with better fuel economy.

 

 

There's nothing wrong with it. Some people like it, some don't. It's not a bid deal.

[Edstock]

Sure looks nice in black.

[twmalonehunter]

I wish they would have stuck with twin force (for twin turbo setups of course).

[BlackHorse]

Sure looks nice in black.

 

I rather like the blue on this new body style myself.

[02MustangGT]

The color pictured in the motortrend article is Guard, not black. It looks great, although I like the lighter and brighter colors on the 2015 model better.

[Hydro]

but with better fuel economy.

 

That's up for MAJOR debate. 0 for 2 in my case. I'm not talking about EPA ratings. With my family and our driving style we are getting less MPG than the bigger NA counterparts from the years prior. I hope to God they aren't marketing the 2.3L Mustang as the MPG version. I'm positive the 3.7L will eat it's lunch when driven briskly.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Hydro

[chevys]

Ecoboost sounds like it belongs in a 74 Mustang II.

[RichardJensen]

 

and our driving style

 

Well, that's easy to rectify: Don't buy ecoboost again.

 

The nice thing about Ecoboost is that the efficiency doesn't get in the way of performance.

 

The bad thing is that they haven't revoked the law of inertia.

Edited May 16, 2014 by RichardJensen

[Hydro]

 

Well, that's easy to rectify: Don't buy ecoboost again.

 

The nice thing about Ecoboost is that the efficiency doesn't get in the way of performance.

 

The bad thing is that they haven't revoked the law of inertia.

 

Very true to all the above......except, the first fix. They are not offering any NA or big CI engines that make the big power. The fusion doesn't offer the V6 ( so wish they had the 3.7 or 3.0 available). With the 6.2L going away in the regular F-150's there isn't a strong top of the line V8 left. I hope there will be something in the next few years when I'll be in the market. Maybe sooner.. the F-150 has a bunch of pops, bangs, creaks in the drivetrain. Deanh, how soon can you get me 6.2L before they go away?????

[Bryan1]

 

That's up for MAJOR debate. 0 for 2 in my case. I'm not talking about EPA ratings.

 

I'll talk EPA ratings.

 

Here you stated you lost 1.5 mpg due to the larger heavier tires you put on.

http://www.f150forum.com/f38/new-bfgs-285-55-20-a-202618/index2/#post2570574

 

Here you stated you have average 13.6 50/50 city and hwy drving.

http://www.f150forum.com/f118/2016-raptor-spy-shots-258855/index3/

 

13.6 + 1.5 = 15.1 mpg

 

EPA rating is 11 to 17 city and 15 to 23 hwy.

http://www.f150forum.com/attachments/f38/115025d1338636926t-what-did-you-pay-your-new-2011-2012-f150-window-sticker.jpg

 

Your mpg is not the greatest, but it is within the EPA estimates. Changing your tires and driving style would probably help a lot.

[Hydro]

^ that's just the thing Bryan. When we had our 3.0L fusion it killed our current 2.0L fusion by 4 mpg or so and felt just as quick. Same with my 2003 5.4L F-150. It achieved better mpg. The EB F150 would crush it in power, no contest there. I'll take the extra power for a MPG hit when it's that extreme. Doesn't make sense in the Fusion. Not going to change our driving style, just need to pick an engine or manufacture who will offer one which best suits us. Good thing the Mustang GT is keeping the flagship motor a NA V8. The 2.3L in the Mustang is a joke IMO. The 3.7L will hang with it performance wise and I'm sure it'll net better MPG when flogging it or hwy cruising. There are reports of quite a few people getting 31 mpg driving 70-75 mph with the 3.7L. Our Fusion couldn't get that going downhill at those speeds while making less power.

 

FYI, that's a 5.0L window sticker. The EB says 17-25 hwy and 12-18 city.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Hydro

[akirby]

When we had our 3.0L fusion it killed our current 2.0L fusion by 4 mpg or so and felt just as quick.

 

I went from a 2006 3.0L Fusion to a 2013 2.0L EB Fusion. My mileage went from 17 to 20-22 depending on driving conditions and the 2.0EB has far more power.

[twintornados]

I wish they would have stuck with twin force (for twin turbo setups of course).

Twin Force referred to the use of turbocharging AND direct injection to give better performance and better economy....the name switch was a Jim Farley idea...

[twmalonehunter]

Twin Force referred to the use of turbocharging AND direct injection to give better performance and better economy....the name switch was a Jim Farley idea...

Didn't know that. Makes me like Twin Force even more.

[NickF1011]

I'd say there's a reason Ford let MT test the 2.3 first. It's probably going to be the volume model. So trying to name it anything other than what it really is, "the base model", is kinda silly. You have to refer to it as something in the order guides to distinguish it from what will like be its fleet-heavy sibling, which has the comparably awesome name "V6" in the order guide.

[RichardJensen]

 

Very true to all the above......except, the first fix. They are not offering any NA or big CI engines that make the big power

 

But you couldn't expect to do better than the EB motors if you were buying a high displacement engine with loads of power---

 

That is to say, surely you wouldn't expect to be doing better than 13.6MPG combined with a 6.2L V8 F150!

[RichardJensen]

I'd say there's a reason Ford let MT test the 2.3 first. It's probably going to be the volume model. So trying to name it anything other than what it really is, "the base model", is kinda silly. You have to refer to it as something in the order guides to distinguish it from what will like be its fleet-heavy sibling, which has the comparably awesome name "V6" in the order guide.

 

You could call it the "LX" model--if you wanted to resurrect an obscure prior reference

[NickF1011]

 

You could call it the "LX" model--if you wanted to resurrect an obscure prior reference

 

Even LX doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since that was more of a content indicator, not necessarily a powertrain one.

[akirby]

The problem is they used an engine specific name for the previous base model (V6) rather than a generic name like GT. And you wouldn't want to call it ecoboost by itself since you might have another eb engine at some point.

 

Mustang 2.3T would seem to be the obvious choice.

[NickF1011]

The problem is they used an engine specific name for the previous base model (V6) rather than a generic name like GT. And you wouldn't want to call it ecoboost by itself since you might have another eb engine at some point.

 

Mustang 2.3T would seem to be the obvious choice.

 

Eh, it may have officially been called the "V6" but you'd never know it by looking at the car. There are no "V6" badges or logos on it. Just a running horse. I always just call them "base models" just as I likely will call the 2.3's if that's what they really turn out to be. The names really don't matter for anything except dealer literature and order guides unless those names actually translate over to the vehicles' actual designs.

 

I'd say it's similar to the period of time when Ford offered the 2.3L, 3.8L, and 5.0L simultaneously in the Mustang in the 80's. There was absolutely nothing visual to distinguish the 2.3L from a 3.8L from what I recall and I'd still refer to both of them as "base models".

Edited May 16, 2014 by NickF1011

[akirby]

 

Eh, it may have officially been called the "V6" but you'd never know it by looking at the car. There are no "V6" badges or logos on it. Just a running horse. I always just call them "base models" just as I likely will call the 2.3's if that's what they really turn out to be. The names really don't matter for anything except dealer literature and order guides unless those names actually translate over to the vehicles' actual designs.

 

But it won't be the "base model" any more so you need a way to distinguish between the 3.7L V6 and the 2.3L EB.