Anthony Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 http://www.motortrend.com/news/ecoboost-mustangs-getting-slower/ In a recent comparison test, we pitted a turbocharged four-cylinder Ford Mustang EcoBoost against a turbocharged four-cylinder Chevrolet Camaro. Despite its power advantage, the heavier Mustang was 1.1 seconds slower accelerating to 60 mph and 0.6 second slower in completing a standing quarter mile. This result made it the slowest EcoBoost Mustang we’ve ever tested and the latest in a worrying trend of ever-slower EcoBoost Mustangs. Although tested on different days, all cars were tested in the same location by the same driver. (The Mustang and Camaro from the comparison test were tested on the same day by the same driver.) Like all of our instrumented testing, we apply the SAE J1349 standardized conditions correction factor to account for variances in barometric pressure, temperature, and humidity, as does much of the industry. With the mathematical correction factor applied, all numbers are effectively on a level playing field, as if all cars were tested on the same ideal day. ... This still leaves us with the underlying question of why EcoBoost-powered Mustangs are getting slower. We reached out to Ford after our most recent test with all our data. A Ford communications representative noted that the quickest manual transmission Mustang EcoBoost we tested (the second car) was a pre-production model and speculated that it may have had a “different calibration.” He did not elaborate. He also speculated extremely hot weather could cause the computer to pull timing, but when presented with weather data showing the car was tested on a 55-degree day, he said “it should’ve been making great power.” 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 So the sample size that this entire article is based on is 2 with one being a pre-production model? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Because MT can't sell magazines and have to concoct stories. Tail wagging the dog... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosetang Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Cue an article in next issue about how the Bleco Bloost Camaro "surprised us with how quick it is!" Ah, MT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Another answer? Motor Trend has lousy drivers. From somebody who grew up drag racing (street) in the 60's, the cardinal rule is: A good driver in a slow car will always beat a bad driver in a fast car. Always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Just looked at the details in the article. The "slowest" one based on 0-60 and quarter mile e/t also had the highest trap speed. That indicates it isn't short on power since trap speed is all about hp. I'd like to see 60 ft times. That would probably tell the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Another answer? Motor Trend has lousy drivers. Since the same lousy driver also tested Camaro 2.0T in the comparison test, wouldn't that result in the Camaro "getting slower" too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Or they're purposely sandbagging the Mustang to make the shiny new Camaro look better.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucelinc Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 I have seen several ecoboost Mustangs run at the track. Mid 14s is common when they are stock. Launched too hard and they lose too much traction but not launched hard enough, they bog really bad. It appears the sweet spot is hard to find. They also sound like dog flatulence. The V6 Mustangs are quicker in the hands of the average driver and sound much better, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 They also sound like dog flatulence. The V6 Mustangs are quicker in the hands of the average driver and sound much better, too. Excellent analogy, brucelinc! NVH characteristics of the Ecoboost 2.3L engine in Mustang leave a lot to be desired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Or they're purposely sandbagging the Mustang to make the shiny new Camaro look better.... That doesn't appear to be the case. On the contrary, MT fielded a Mustang Ecoboost equipped with Performance Package in this comparison test. This pretty much guaranteed the Mustang would win, which it did. The only performance metrics in which Camaro delivered better results were those related to straight line acceleration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 So the sample size that this entire article is based on is 2 with one being a pre-production model? Sample size is 4 (including a Mustang Ecoboost tested by Automobile magazine, part of the same parent company as MT). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 All of this would be cured in dramatic fashion with full electrification. Pure direct power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Why are Camaro sales getting slower? 3 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.