Dave M (Forum Supporter) said:The boostang wins the speed for money argument, particularly once you factor in the discounts. It makes the wrong noises, and personally I think the it's too darn big,
Not if you drive to work on the freeways of Dallas surrounded by full sized pickups and SUVs pushing 80. My Miata was just too small for that. A Mustang or Camaro is as small as you want to go.
I owned a new SVO back in the day and should of kept it. I was excited when the Ecoboost came out and while the drive train was desirable, and the envelope and interior was a slam dunk, the heavy sedan like demeanor of the Mustang even with the Ecoboost was hard to swallow.
The problem for the Mustang, for those who really like top of the game handling, is the Camaro in any guise. On handling, I won't compromise. The best like car for the money gets the nod if it handles great and is fun to drive. Sure, some cars can put down the numbers in various handling tests, but how it feels, and is it a dream to drive, and do you always confidently know where you are at with its dynamics, that is the winner for me. The Camaro is more than the sum of its parts and that is a hard act to follow.
I have got no dog in the silly Ford versus Chevy nonsense. The best car wins. Ford, though, commendable in this recent effort, just fell a bit short. I'm not interested in boulevard cruisers.
And regarding MPG. A properly driven Ecoboost will get mid 30's to near 40-MPG. Some have exceeded 40-MPG.
I had a right seat ride as an instructor for a student with a plain 2.3 Ecoboost Mustang two years ago. After a weekend riding in it I wouldn't spend the extra for a V8 model. Unless your main interest is doing big burnouts at some point the HP level becomes one of diminishing returns. The Ecoboost 'Stang is a wonderfully balanced (if portly) pony car.
I've been test driving one for the past two days. I've never had a GT so the HPP is pretty nice. However, I've not gotten it close to the claimed 0-60 time. Everything I've read says sub 5 seconds, if not 4.5. I know that is on a track with high octane gas, but the best I could get was 6.5 seconds in Drag mode. - way different than 4.5. If it claims 4.5, shouldn't it at least do 5.5? Would it get better over time? Is there anything else I'm missing here?
Knerrpool said:I've been test driving one for the past two days. I've never had a GT so the HPP is pretty nice. However, I've not gotten it close to the claimed 0-60 time. Everything I've read says sub 5 seconds, if not 4.5. I know that is on a track with high octane gas, but the best I could get was 6.5 seconds in Drag mode. - way different than 4.5. If it claims 4.5, shouldn't it at least do 5.5? Would it get better over time? Is there anything else I'm missing here?
That's disappointing. I've had a mild interest in these since they came out. My GTI could better that though.
Turbo engines are heat sensitive. What's the weather like in your neck of the woods?
Knerrpool said:I've been test driving one for the past two days. I've never had a GT so the HPP is pretty nice. However, I've not gotten it close to the claimed 0-60 time. Everything I've read says sub 5 seconds, if not 4.5. I know that is on a track with high octane gas, but the best I could get was 6.5 seconds in Drag mode. - way different than 4.5. If it claims 4.5, shouldn't it at least do 5.5? Would it get better over time? Is there anything else I'm missing here?
Bad tires + traction control? That's a pretty big difference between claimed vs. real.
I'm surprised it's only 100 lbs lighter than the GT. That kills what I felt was the major case for buying one over a GT.
Knerrpool said:I've been test driving one for the past two days. I've never had a GT so the HPP is pretty nice. However, I've not gotten it close to the claimed 0-60 time. Everything I've read says sub 5 seconds, if not 4.5. I know that is on a track with high octane gas, but the best I could get was 6.5 seconds in Drag mode. - way different than 4.5. If it claims 4.5, shouldn't it at least do 5.5? Would it get better over time? Is there anything else I'm missing here?
Tires? Surface? Standard or auto? Are you getting into the traction control at launch?
That's slower than the claimed time for an Auto BRZ.
This is like saying "X car is faster than Y car on track." What is the prep level? Tires? Driver skill? etc. Can't really answer without knowing all the variables.
I'll admit, I'm not a pro. I'm testing this on streets, not tracks, in Virginia (hot but not ungodly at the moment). But, I generally think I know what I'm doing. It's a brand new car. New tires, good road surface. No spinning at launch (even at full bore although I tested it a number of different ways). It's automatic, with what I've read is supposed to be faster than manual. I tested in all modes - normal, sport, track and drag. The fastest I got was 6.5 in drag. I was not expecting to get 4.5, or even under 5 at all. But I was certainly expecting under 6. I currently drive a 2011 Fusion Sport that I've clocked (unofficially) at just about 6.
Not long after new I clocked a 5.1 0-60 in my S197 GT 5spd, same thing Motor trend got in their test. I could never hit it again, but it would regularly get under 5.5 without special prep. I wonder if the new cars are restricted for a time as part of the break in or something.
ultraclyde (Forum Supporter) said:I'm surprised it's only 100 lbs lighter than the GT. That kills what I felt was the major case for buying one over a GT.
Yeah, exactly. I was fully prepared to buy the car, and would have if it had even gotten close to that mark, but it didn't. I realize it's not like I'm going to race it, so maybe it doesn'treally matter. But, like someone said earlier, it's a matter of want versus need. Plus, if it says High Performance on the side badge, it ought to be able to beat my Fusion. The GM was not happy after I returned it following an overnight keep, but I felt that was a justifiable reason.
My question now is, was it just this car or is it all of them? I don't know if I want to spend the time to track down another one.
ultraclyde (Forum Supporter) said:I wonder if the new cars are restricted for a time as part of the break in or something.
That's kind of what I was thinking (hoping?) too, although I don't know why that would be. Plus, I'm sure the salesperson/GM would have made that point clear when I told him I was disappointed with it.
Knerrpool said:I've been test driving one for the past two days. I've never had a GT so the HPP is pretty nice. However, I've not gotten it close to the claimed 0-60 time. Everything I've read says sub 5 seconds, if not 4.5. I know that is on a track with high octane gas, but the best I could get was 6.5 seconds in Drag mode. - way different than 4.5. If it claims 4.5, shouldn't it at least do 5.5? Would it get better over time? Is there anything else I'm missing here?
You need to run high octane gas 93 Octane minimum to get advertised power on the 2.3L, if you run 87 Octane expect at least 12% drop in horsepower down to 275HP (that's without HPP package), torque drop is not as drastic but still some.
Most dealers keep 87 octane in the 2.3L mustangs.
"When running the good stuff, the EcoBoost engine produces 310 horsepower and 320 pound-feet of torque. Should you decide to fill up with 87, you can expect a power output of 275 horsepower and 300 pound-feet of torque, at least that's according to a Ford training manual obtained by Mustang6G"
In reply to engiekev :
Thanks, that is helpful and I figured there would be some such dropoff. Don't know what that translates into regarding the 0-60 time, but it still should handily beat my Ford Fusion (which is also using 87 octane gas). It doesn't.
3500lb curb weight is where I'm lost.
Ford should put this in a sub 3000lb, small, mid engined car and call it the RS2300. Shake up the market for the frisbee twins, miata and AWD turbo rocket sleds.
My 4.6L S197 with full premium interior scales at mid 3400lbs with the jack and spare removed. Probably makes 325hp. so comparable to the EB Mustang, basically.
Sounds like the drop from 310 to 275 in the EB on low octane is worth about 2 seconds on the zero to sixty.
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:3500lb curb weight is where I'm lost.
Ford should put this in a sub 3000lb, small, mid engined car and call it the RS2300. Shake up the market for the frisbee twins, miata and AWD turbo rocket sleds.
They sell a Ford Focus with the same engine in Europe. It wouldn't be that hard to ship a few of them here.
I’ve tried to hit 0-60 times from the magazines in several cars and never come close.
I’ve heard people at the magazines say you will never hit their numbers. The amount of launches they do on certain surfaces is way more than you’d want to put your car through was the sentiment I got.
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:3500lb curb weight is where I'm lost.
Ford should put this in a sub 3000lb, small, mid engined car and call it the RS2300. Shake up the market for the frisbee twins, miata and AWD turbo rocket sleds.
Would love to have an opportunity to buy a new "RS2300" and would probably be my last new car. : D
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:3500lb curb weight is where I'm lost.
Ford should put this in a sub 3000lb, small, mid engined car and call it the RS2300. Shake up the market for the frisbee twins, miata and AWD turbo rocket sleds.
I have a feeling that total frisbee and Miata combined sales don't add up to enough for Ford to bother venturing into the market. Ford has overwhemingly decided that they want nothing to do with niche markets.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
There's a reason for them to make it work. It be in obtainable halo car. For people that have obviously other vehicles multiple vehicles and are likely the types to buy the first vehicles for their children. if you're confident and the other offerings that you have on your showroom floor when they come in for their midlife crisis car you're going to have the potential to sell them three to four to five other vehicles within the next 10 to 12 years.
In reply to captdownshift (Forum Supporter) :
This is the same company that has placed all its chips in "Americans will be buying conservative utility vehicles so we ain't gonna bother selling anything with a trunk that doesn't rhyme with Schmustang". The Mustang IS their halo car. They had zero interest in selling Fiestas and Focuses and Fusions and Tauruses because THEY did not sell in large enough numbers to bother!
Sad truth is, if you want a fun little car, you have to go to Japan, where niche sales are a way of life. Or if you want an actual CAR, you need to buy a Hyundai, where they are still (thankfully) about ten-fifteen years behind, trend-wise.
Now, I hear the UK Pound is cratering, making it very export friendly, and the isles have traditionally been a source of cottage industry sports cars. AND, Ford sells an emissions legal crate version of the 2.3 Ecoboost. AND, kit cars below a certain sales per year are exempt from US safety regs as long as they meet emissions standards. The math, I'll let you do it.
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:3500lb curb weight is where I'm lost.
Ford should put this in a sub 3000lb, small, mid engined car and call it the RS2300. Shake up the market for the frisbee twins, miata and AWD turbo rocket sleds.
That would be a relatively expensive car.
Even the BRZ weighs basically 2800 lbs. Add in the turbo and associated plumbing, crash standards, the trim level/options that would be required to support the price...............
I it suspect it would noticeably more expensive than a PP2 Mustang GT and a LOT less profitable.
A '95 MR2 Turbo would be $51k in today's dollars. And that's essentially what you're asking for.
I don't think you'll see people buy something like that when they could spend a few more and get " 'Murica V8 Corvette"
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:3500lb curb weight is where I'm lost.
Ford should put this in a sub 3000lb, small, mid engined car and call it the RS2300. Shake up the market for the frisbee twins, miata and AWD turbo rocket sleds.
Isn't that what the Alfa 4C is (was? Are they even making it anymore?)
You'll need to log in to post.
