The Official Mustang Thread

[SJ_GTI]

Not sure how you can bitch about turbo lag on something that hits peakish boost at 2k rpms

1. Lag isn't just when the power comes on, it also means the time it takes from when you apply the throttle until when the turbo spools up again. So even if you are running on a track at a fairly constant higher RPM (4k+) you are still going to have a little bit of lag whenever you first apply the throttle (after letting off). You should be able to feel this pretty clearly on your car.

2. IME some cars that advertise peak torque from "2000-5000 RPM" are not really hitting peak torque at 2000 rpm. They are likely hitting their claimed torque that early, but not their peak. Some cars really do hit their peaks that low though, so I don't m=intend this as a blanket statement for all turbo cars.

[GoCougs]

Not sure how you can bitch about turbo lag on something that hits peakish boost at 2k rpms

do you even drive bro

Lag is 100% independent of power band. It's about throttle response, and all turbo cars have it by definition (= turbo spool; i.e., accelerate the turbo) to one extent or another.

Ever drive a diesel - dat lag is 10x worse, despite even lower RPM power band....

[r0tor]

Yea I drive a two point oh tee bro and it's hella tyte

I have also recently driven on a track a 3L I6 terbow, and 3.6 V6 terbow, and a 3.8L H6 terbow and all are way better then a vee eight

[FoMoJo]

So I have a bright green convertible Ecoboost Mustang rental for the week.

Dat hood. Like driving a battleship.

Ride and NVH better than expected - quite good actually.

Ecoboost has some lag and some grumble, but feels like a bigger motor. Power dives in the upper revs. MPG lags EPA estimate at 21.5. So, typical turbo motor.

10 sp AT is a mixed bag. Manual shifts are laggy at anything less than about 1/2 throttle, and jerky in sport+ mode. At least it won't auto upshift (which is so annoying).

Does decent burnouts, if you run it up against the brakes first. Lag prevents a snappy burnout from throttle alone. Seems to have an LSD even.

Ecoboost, as the name implies, is not necessarily meant for race car driving.  It simple offers the option of better mileage through normal driving or a bit of extra power in cases where needed.  I really don't approve of it as a engine for a Mustang.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

Ecoboost, as the name implies, is not necessarily meant for race car driving.  It simple offers the option of better mileage through normal driving or a bit of extra power in cases where needed.  I really don't approve of it as a engine for a Mustang.

So why did the put an Eco Boost in the Ford GT?

[GoCougs]

"Ecoboost" is also advertised as used in Focus RS and ST, Raptor SVT, Taurus SHO.

[12,000 RPM]

Yea Ecoboost is definitely a performance thing

[FoMoJo]

So why did the put an Eco Boost in the Ford GT?

"Ecoboost" is also advertised as used in Focus RS and ST, Raptor SVT, Taurus SHO.

Good question, but we know that it's marketing.  They should market the performance engines as "EcoBeast."

[MX793]

EcoBoost was originally to be marketed as TwinForce, but Ford changed the name at the last minute because green/eco was all the rage when it came out and they wanted a name to appeal to that trend.

[FoMoJo]

EcoBoost was originally to be marketed as TwinForce, but Ford changed the name at the last minute because green/eco was all the rage when it came out and they wanted a name to appeal to that trend.

TwinForce was a catchy name but implied power more than economy.  Ford was looking to improve their economy numbers.  For the most part, EcoBoost has done this.

[GoCougs]

TwinForce was a catchy name but implied power more than economy.  Ford was looking to improve their economy numbers.  For the most part, EcoBoost has done this.

Just as we saw a while back with r0tor's car via fuelly.com, no, turbos mos def do not improve mileage. Turbos are an economy sham - both by data and theory, and auto makers are paying the price - from Honda to Ford, in the form of class action suits, falling reliability, and wholesale failures and abandonment of product lines:

2018 Ecoboost F-150 = 16.52 mpg http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/2018?engineconfig_id=102&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=
2018 5.0L F-150 = 16.48 mpg http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/2018?engineconfig_id=302&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

[GoCougs]

For the week in the Ecoboost Mustang, I averaged 21.8 mpg. with a ~20 miles of driving a day on a 60 mph highway, with some stop lights (guestimating 80/20 highway/city driving split).

In the G37, the current lifetime average, over ~167k miles, is 21.1 mpg. Power/weight ratio and size are all about the same between the two cars, though the G has AWD and a lowly 7sp AT rather than a 10sp AT.

Hmm. 10+ years of development, and zero progress. We saw this with r0tor's car as well. Oh, and of course the G is not plagued with turbo lag.

Ford abandoned the upmarket F-150 Ecoboost for the Super Duty trucks and instead developed a new (pooprod ) motor. Ford also abandoned the GT's Ecoboost for the supercharged 5.2L for the new GT500. Will not be surprised if this is a continuing trend at Ford (and elsewhere).

[MX793]

The GT got the EB motor because the racing rules made that engine configuration more advantageous than a larger V8.  The GT500 isn't a homologated race car, there was no "dropping" of the EB motor.  There was no way Ford was going to put a 6 cylinder in their top shelf Mustang.  There were rumors abound that the GT500 was going to be an EcoBoost (turbocharged) V8 rather than supercharged.

EcoBoost has never been offered in the SuperDuty line.  The new Poopzilla V8 replaces the ancient Triton V10.  Can't abandon what never was.

I'd point out that the Raptor is still EB only.

As to fuel economy, my brother has a '14 F150 (last year of the steel body) with the EB3.5.  His prior truck was an '06 or '07 F150 with the 5.4 Triton.  He gets significantly better fuel economy with the newer truck, and way more power and performance.

[MX793]

Also, 21 mpg in an EB Mustang in 80% highway cruise?  Was it all up steep hills or were you going full throttle for the other 20%?  Average economy for 69 vehicles on Fuelly is 25.  It's almost a double bell curve with peaks at 24 and 28 mpg.  I assume the 24 mpg crowd are the typical 50/50 highway/city split and the 28 mpg crowd is the 80+% highway crowd.

In 80% highway driving, I can get 22+ mpg with my GT with the shortest available rearend gear.

[12,000 RPM]

21 MPG for a 350HP ~3600lb car sounds about right.

And depending on the implementation, turbos can definitely help mileage. The most direct comparisons I can think of is the F10 5 series. Kept the same ZF8 transmission, got an 8% bump in FE and healthy performance bump from the 3.0 I6 to the 2.0T 4 popper. The 3.0T basically matches the old V8s in performance but does measurably better on gas. Etc.

[MX793]

21 MPG for a 350HP ~3600lb car sounds about right.

And depending on the implementation, turbos can definitely help mileage. The most direct comparisons I can think of is the F10 5 series. Kept the same ZF8 transmission, got an 8% bump in FE and healthy performance bump from the 3.0 I6 to the 2.0T 4 popper. The 3.0T basically matches the old V8s in performance but does measurably better on gas. Etc.

My brother gets over 20mpg at highway cruise in his ~5000 lbs F150 3.5TT which has the aerodynamics of a brick.  If you're getting under 22 mpg in a 2.3T Mustang in 80% 60 mph highway driving, you're driving like you stole it.

Edit:  To put these numbers into perspective.  My GT gets ~28 mpg at steady 60-65 mph highway cruise with a 6MT and the 3.73 diff ratio.  The EB Mustang definitely does not do worse when cruising at that same speed.  If you are getting 28 mpg for 80% of your driving, it's physically impossible to get less than 22 mpg.  You could get 0 mpg for the other 20% of your driving and still get 22.4 mpg.

Another data point:  For kicks, I reset my fuel economy meter on my car right before my first run at an auto-x event.  At the end of the event, with lots of idling (and Ford's MPG meter takes into account idling in the fuel economy output) and lots of WOT in the upper half of the rev range, I had averaged 3.5 mpg over the course of the event.  So even driving like you stole it, you're not going to get less than 3 mpg (honestly, probably not less than 4 in an Ecoboost).

If you drove it like you stole it for the 20% of your time not cruising on the highway and only got 3 mpg, to get an average of 21.8 would mean you were still getting 26.5 mpg highway, which sounds a bit low but if you're an aggressive highway driver and it wasn't true highway cruise, I might buy it.

[FoMoJo]

Just as we saw a while back with r0tor's car via fuelly.com, no, turbos mos def do not improve mileage. Turbos are an economy sham - both by data and theory, and auto makers are paying the price - from Honda to Ford, in the form of class action suits, falling reliability, and wholesale failures and abandonment of product lines:

2018 Ecoboost F-150 = 16.52 mpg http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/2018?engineconfig_id=102&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=
2018 5.0L F-150 = 16.48 mpg http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/2018?engineconfig_id=302&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

You fail to realize/admit with EcoBoost, or other manufacturers' small displacement modern turbo engines, you can get better efficiency or worse efficiency based on your driving style.

With the EcoBoost 2.0 in my Discovery Sport HSE, I've gotten as much as 6.6 L/100K (35 mpg) highway which is far beyond the EPA rating.  I can get a lot worse if I drive like a maniac. 

[Soup DeVille]

People flog rentals. This is not a mystery.

I mean, if one post you're giving instructions on how to do burnouts and the next complaining about mileage...

[Eye of the Tiger]

People flog rentals. This is not a mystery.

I mean, if one post you're giving instructions on how to do burnouts and the next complaining about mileage...

I actually got 29 MPG highway in my C6 Corvette rental. I did not do a burnout.

[12,000 RPM]

You fail to realize/admit with EcoBoost, or other manufacturers' small displacement modern turbo engines, you can get better efficiency or worse efficiency based on your driving style.

With the EcoBoost 2.0 in my Discovery Sport HSE, I've gotten as much as 6.6 L/100K (35 mpg) highway which is far beyond the EPA rating.  I can get a lot worse if I drive like a maniac.

Turbo engines can work; they just have to be properly sized. IMO anything less than 4lb per turbocharged cc is too much. So a 2.0T in a crossover is out of bounds IMO.

[r0tor]

Just as we saw a while back with r0tor's car via fuelly.com

Do you want another current pic of my car averaging over 30mpg for the last 3k miles?  I can once again include my middle finger in the pic...

Oh and do I need to bring up again that's 50% better then your awd sedan while also being a shit ton faster?

[FoMoJo]

People flog rentals. This is not a mystery.

I mean, if one post you're giving instructions on how to do burnouts and the next complaining about mileage...

Flogging any car/engine will get bad mileage, as well all know.  With a small displacement turbo engine, the extremes seem higher.  Higher mileage if you pussyfoot it, higher consumption if you leadfoot it.

[FoMoJo]

Turbo engines can work; they just have to be properly sized. IMO anything less than 4lb per turbocharged cc is too much. So a 2.0T in a crossover is out of bounds IMO.

Our Discovery weighs close to 4,000 lbs.  It gets remarkably better mileage than the '09 Escape with a 2.5 (Mazda) engine my wife had which weighed about 300 lbs. less.  The 9 spd. vs the 6 spd. helps, but it's mostly down to the EcoBoost, imo; not to mention considerably more power on tap.

[GoCougs]

Also, 21 mpg in an EB Mustang in 80% highway cruise?  Was it all up steep hills or were you going full throttle for the other 20%?  Average economy for 69 vehicles on Fuelly is 25.  It's almost a double bell curve with peaks at 24 and 28 mpg.  I assume the 24 mpg crowd are the typical 50/50 highway/city split and the 28 mpg crowd is the 80+% highway crowd.

In 80% highway driving, I can get 22+ mpg with my GT with the shortest available rearend gear.

No, I drove like the others on fuelly.com:

2018 Ecoboost Mustang: 22.57 +/- 0.65 mpg - http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2018?engineconfig_id=34&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=
2019 Ecoboost Mustang:  23.92 +/- 0.45 mpg - http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2019?engineconfig_id=34&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

Note that for each, the largest bucket is 20 mpg and 22 mpg, respectively.

There is no secret and there is lots of of data. Turbos = at best equivalent economy, but more often than not, as shown by the data, worse economy.

[GoCougs]

You fail to realize/admit with EcoBoost, or other manufacturers' small displacement modern turbo engines, you can get better efficiency or worse efficiency based on your driving style.

With the EcoBoost 2.0 in my Discovery Sport HSE, I've gotten as much as 6.6 L/100K (35 mpg) highway which is far beyond the EPA rating.  I can get a lot worse if I drive like a maniac. 

As many many many of miles of data shows, turbos are at best equivalent in MPG:

2018 F150 Ecoboost: 16.52 mpg (398 vehicles and 5.2 millions miles) - http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/2018?engineconfig_id=102&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=
2018 F150 5.0L: 16.48 mpg (173 vehicles and 2.2 million miles) - http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/2018?engineconfig_id=302&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

[FoMoJo]

As many many many of miles of data shows, turbos are at best equivalent in MPG:

2018 F150 Ecoboost: 16.52 mpg (398 vehicles and 5.2 millions miles) - http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/2018?engineconfig_id=102&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=
2018 F150 5.0L: 16.48 mpg (173 vehicles and 2.2 million miles) - http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/2018?engineconfig_id=302&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

I rely on my personal experience over many, many, many miles/kilometres.

[GoCougs]

Do you want another current pic of my car averaging over 30mpg for the last 3k miles?  I can once again include my middle finger in the pic...

Oh and do I need to bring up again that's 50% better then your awd sedan while also being a shit ton faster?

2018 Giulia Ti: 23.78 mpg - http://www.fuelly.com/car/alfa_romeo/giulia/2018?engineconfig_id=13&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=1578
Note that there is no distinction between AWD and RWD, so AWD will be a bit lower, so let's be generous and subtract 1.5 mpg, thus, your mpg is thus 22.28 mpg.

2011 G37x: 19.2 mpg - http://www.fuelly.com/car/infiniti/g37/2011?engineconfig_id=&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=93

So, 10+ years of development, less power, smaller car, more speeds, and a bit slower, and the advantage is ~16% improved mpg. This is THE definition of no improvement.

[r0tor]

Let's see... You state your average mileage is 21mpg in the G.  Mine is 30mpg in the Alfa.

30mpg is wait for it... A 42% improvement!

It's also see.  Motor Trend got 0-60  mpg run of 5.4 sec.  My best is 4.3 sec.

4.3 sec is wait for it... A 20% improvement!!!


How the hell do you live with yourself spending 42% more in fuel for a 20% slower car??

[MX793]

No, I drove like the others on fuelly.com:

2018 Ecoboost Mustang: 22.57 +/- 0.65 mpg - http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2018?engineconfig_id=34&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=
2019 Ecoboost Mustang:  23.92 +/- 0.45 mpg - http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2019?engineconfig_id=34&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

Note that for each, the largest bucket is 20 mpg and 22 mpg, respectively.

There is no secret and there is lots of of data. Turbos = at best equivalent economy, but more often than not, as shown by the data, worse economy.

You conveniently left out 2015-2017.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang?engineconfig_id=&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=1682

Not how the largest number of vehicles report 24 and 28 mpg.

And how do you know you drove it the same as the others on Fuelly?  You said 80% of your driving was 60 mph highway cruise.  Looking at the 2018s, any vehicle with close to 80% highway was 25+ mpg.

C&D recorded 24 mpg @ 75 mph in a 10AT EB Mustang.  If you were only going 60, you should have been getting better than that (more like 27-28).  Even assuming you got the same 24 mpg, then you were only getting 13 for the rest of the time.  I don't get 13 around town in my GT unless I'm driving like a jackass.  My brother gets better than 13 mpg in his 5,500 lbs 3.5TT F150 driving around town.

[GoCougs]

You conveniently left out 2015-2017.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang?engineconfig_id=&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=1682

Not how the largest number of vehicles report 24 and 28 mpg.

I left out earlier model years because they are different cars. Beginning in 2018 the Mustang received an up tuned version of the Ecoboost (350 vs. 320 lb-ft of torque) and 10 sp AT. I had a 2019 rental.