92merc Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 I think the problem is perception. This is supposed to be an "all new, totally re-worked" Mustang. But on paper, it looks like it lost a couple HP, and only equaled the MPG of the outgoing Mustang. So on paper, it doesn't look like an improvement. Some may be disappointed in that. I'm sure a lot of "those people" probably weren't serious Mustang buyers anyway. But I digress. From what I'm reading, the MPG didn't improve on the EPA cycle. But I would bet that because the old MPG was rated on a gear ration most don't choose, Ford switched the rating to one most people do pick. So the EPA rating and real world driving are probably much closer on the new Mustang than the old. Even if the 2.3EB turns out to be same max torque as the old 3.7, I'm betting the drive-ability with the flat torque curve will be a better driving experience than either old or new 3.7. I just switched from a 3.0NA Montego to a 2.0EB Escape. Even though I'm only up about 35HP, the driving experience engine wise is so much better. But I would have to agree, I did expect a better MPG rating on the 2.3EB than it came out with. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Pretty sure Ford is not going to be trying to maximize EPA label ratings any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Two problems with that: 1 - the 2.3L is going to be the volume model. That's important for CAFE reasons (CAFE is sales weighted). It's far more important for say, 60% of all Mustangs to have this powertrain (22/31) than to have 5% ship with similar economy on a "SFE" model. 2 - matching tall gears to an engine that doesn't produce a lot of low-end torque is just mean. Especially in a Mustang. "Okay, I stepped on the gas. I'll give you a call tomorrow morning when the car starts accelerating" 1. I didn't know CAFE went off all cars sold. I thought it was FE of each model so they can say V6 mustang gets 33mpg, 5.0 gets 24. 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 I hope I change my mind after I drive it, and there is real retail demand. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 (edited) 1. I didn't know CAFE went off all cars sold. I thought it was FE of each model so they can say V6 mustang gets 33mpg, 5.0 gets 24. 2. 1 - yep. Most people don't know this. Nor do they know that CAFE is based off of uncorrected values from two of the five tests used to determine emissions and window sticker economy, such that fuel economy, per CAFE, is something like 15% higher than the combined mileage reported on the window sticker. So the 2.3L Mustang might be rated around 30MPG for CAFE purposes. Edited August 22, 2014 by RichardJensen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 That is downright stupid reasoning. The reason they used the 2.3EB is cut down on the amount of displacement taxes overseas...not to mention why would they want two engines with nearly identical HP outputs? not just that, my gut tells me there will be another 2.3 model that may stretch some boundaries...MPGS be damned..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 I hope I change my mind after I drive it, and there is real retail demand. youve noticed too.......I hope, hold it...I PRAY Ford Racing gets really crazy with add ons for the tweekers ( sadly Nick just entered my mind )....I dont think the true potential of the 2.3 in its fist iteration is anywhere NEAR its limits....375?..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Too heavy,too pricey, too many engines,questionable looks,tepid fuel mileage improvements. In fact the V6 has lost 5 HP...the car has completely lost it's excitement and buzz. They have over-promised and under delivered on this car. The Mustang is not a volume car,but it is the car the press and public uses to gauge the company. I'll bet under truth serum, they wish they had a do-over with this car and roll out. I the V6 answer is easy, gone is the dual exhause and the rear end has been changed to compensate, and in all honesty, I doubt anyone would notice 5hp seat of the pants, and ironically the rear end may make the car quicker....aftermarket exhaust is an easy fix.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Too heavy,too pricey, too many engines,questionable looks,tepid fuel mileage improvements. In fact the V6 has lost 5 HP...the car has completely lost it's excitement and buzz. They have over-promised and under delivered on this car. The Mustang is not a volume car,but it is the car the press and public uses to gauge the company. I'll bet under truth serum, they wish they had a do-over with this car and roll out. I also...my phones ringing off the hook.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 youve noticed too.......I hope, hold it...I PRAY Ford Racing gets really crazy with add ons for the tweekers ( sadly Nick just entered my mind )....I dont think the true potential of the 2.3 in its fist iteration is anywhere NEAR its limits....375?..... From what I've seen of just tunes for Ecboost engines, they gain quite a bit with just a 91/93 octane tune. I've seen Fusion 2L with a tune gain +40hp and +85tq. The 3.5L EB is a beast with a tune too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Haters gotta hate. Do you really think some small dip in fuel economy will really matter? Consider all the improvements, like IRS and the 2.3EB, plus little subtleties like improved window/door fit and a really serious effort in interior design. No wonder the telephone is ringing, just like Alice says. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z7I022m5GI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisH Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 (edited) Even if the 2.3EB turns out to be same max torque as the old 3.7, I'm betting the drive-ability with the flat torque curve will be a better driving experience than either old or new 3.7. Max torque on the 3.7 was around 270. Max torque on the 2.3EB is 320. Plus the torque curve on the 2.3 is much flatter. The 2.3EB hits max torque at 3000 rpm. It's torque curve is better than the 4.6 3V in my 2005 GT. By the way, max torque on my car is 320. My next car will probably be a 2015 Mustang 2.3EB. Edited August 22, 2014 by CurtisH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 From what I've seen of just tunes for Ecboost engines, they gain quite a bit with just a 91/93 octane tune. I've seen Fusion 2L with a tune gain +40hp and +85tq. The 3.5L EB is a beast with a tune too. funny, and Im pretty sure im in the majority, when i bought the ST I didnt even LOOK at the EPA rating....had ZERO influence on my decision.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Haters? Come on...you gotta be kidding me. Just pointing out our concerns that we observe...I love the product and company enough to point out problems I see...not a hater at all. The issues I have discussed are real and many in the public share these concerns. This car should have had the chops to create unbelievable excitement...the car and team are making excuses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Could you please tell me how this vehicle could be both lighter AND cheaper than the outgoing model without being noisier and/or less refined? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 "This car should have had the chops to create unbelievable excitement" — you're entitled to your opinion. Considering how expensive it can be to provide "unbelievable excitement", the initial offering seems fine to me, but that's just my opinion. Besides, it doesn't look like a Camaro. Now, maybe a Shelby/SVT version with, say, 700hp might be termed "unbelievable excitement", depending of course, on just what "unbelievable excitement" means to you. Seriously, some might require a 1,000 hp turbo Coyote to challenge their sang froid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 (edited) Haters? Come on...you gotta be kidding me. Just pointing out our concerns that we observe...I love the product and company enough to point out problems I see...not a hater at all. The issues I have discussed are real and many in the public share these concerns. This car should have had the chops to create unbelievable excitement...the car and team are making excuses. in defence I havent seen this excitement about a Mustang for 10 years at least, if ever....aside from when the GT500 was initially released....I will add though, some of the initial "gotta have it " guys caved in to fords $4000 incentives on the outgoing 14's... Edited August 22, 2014 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 "This car should have had the chops to create unbelievable excitement" — you're entitled to your opinion. Considering how expensive it can be to provide "unbelievable excitement", the initial offering seems fine to me, but that's just my opinion. Besides, it doesn't look like a Camaro. Now, maybe a Shelby/SVT version with, say, 700hp might be termed "unbelievable excitement", depending of course, on just what "unbelievable excitement" means to you. Seriously, some might require a 1,000 hp turbo Coyote to challenge their sang froid. expect a ramp up in opinions once the media gets their hands on em.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Haters? Come on...you gotta be kidding me. Just pointing out our concerns that we observe...I love the product and company enough to point out problems I see...not a hater at all. The issues I have discussed are real and many in the public share these concerns. This car should have had the chops to create unbelievable excitement...the car and team are making excuses.I understand this. Maybe my expectations were out of wack, but for the 50th anniversary I had high hopes. I don't hate the new Mustang, but I feel it scored a notch or two below what I was hoping for in most categories. It definitely feels evolutionary not revolutionary. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OX1 Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 in defence I havent seen this excitement about a Mustang for 10 years at least, if ever....aside from when the GT500 was initially released....I will add though, some of the initial "gotta have it " guys caved in to fords $4000 incentives on the outgoing 14's... Yup. I was considering a 15 due to IRS, but really hate the front end look (not saying they had to keep retro look, but it needed to be much different than the rest of fords cars, and it's not). Just grabbed a base GT auto in DI blue for under 27. Might be years before you ever see that price again. As for the 3.7 vs 2.3, 3.7 proving to be pretty stout. LPF just put up 600 on stock internals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 The new one is heavier so it makes sense that mileage would go down, at least some. The 2015 V6 auto is about 110 pounds heavier than the equivalent 2014 model. More like ~30 pounds heavier: http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/news/ford-announces-official-2015-mustang-horsepower-ratings-ecoboost-v6-gt Here are the official numbers, straight from Ford, "pending certification." For this sixth generation, the base 3.7-liter V6 model’s power rating drops from 305 hp to 300 hp. Torque holds steady at 280 lb-ft. Compression ratio for the V6 is 10.5:1. The base V6 fastback with a manual weighs in at 3526 lbs, an increase of 30 lbs over the 2014 model. With an automatic, the curb weight is 3530 lbs, a 12-lb increase. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 I can't figure out what the hell you people were expecting from the regular volume production models beyond what they delivered. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 More aluminum and a higher price tag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 More like ~30 pounds heavier...... My mistake. The weights I posted in my previous post were for the 5.0L V8 version of the car: "The 2015 Mustang’s curb weight has increased on four of the six models. The new car is slightly larger than the outgoing model. Weights for the coupe range from 3,524 pounds for a four-cylinder automatic to 3,729 pounds for the V-8 automatic. The 2014 models ranged from 3,501 pounds for the V-6 manual coupe to 3,618 pounds for the V-8 automatic. Ford has not released curb weights or EPA mileage numbers for the convertibles." Full article here: http://www.autonews.com/article/20140821/OEM04/140829970/leaked-stickers-suggest-a-thirstier-2015-ford-mustang-as-weight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taurusguy Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Just to add my 2¢ from the viewpoint of a Mustang Owner and potential future Mustang buyer.... Around this time 10 years ago I couldn't wait to see the new 2005 Mustang in person. Just a couple of weeks after seeing and sitting inside one for the first time, I became the owner of one. I still have and love that car, but the day will come when it's time to trade it in. Today, with what I've seen and read, I don't have the same excitement for the 2015 at all. In fact, between the added weight, disappointing fuel economy numbers, reduction of headroom by 1" (I'm 6'4" tall, so it matters!), and price tag, I think I'll pass on this generation Mustang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.