I'd like to see a base model camaro vs an ecoboost mustang base model grm review.
I'd like to see a base model camaro vs an ecoboost mustang base model grm review.
Found this. looks like my own limited sample size of rental car driving experiences corroborated with C and D... what does GRM say?????????????????????????/
John Welsh said:BoxheadCougarTim said:...not much scope for opening it up when you're stuck in Bay Area rush hour traffic.
Next time, try to rent a dark green one!
I'm not that cool.
I miss inefficient turbo cars. One of my favorites was the early 80's Volvo 240 with intercooler. You had the initial lag, then 7 or 8 psi until 3500 rpm, then 11 psi to redline. Every time it switched state, you got a little kick in the backside that said, "Hey- Remember me?" Modern stuff doesn't remind you about stuff- it just makes more power than it is supposed to. Where is the fun in that?
I'm still not convinced the F150 ecoboost is the right choice for people actually using the truck like a truck. I've heard gas mileage horror stories, I've seen horrible oil consumption under load.
And a Mustang is supposed to sound V8-ey, even if its slower and thirstier than a turbo 4. That is just the way it is.
/luddite/
In reply to Streetwiseguy :
The gas mileage under heavy load with the ecoboost seems to be similar to the 5.0, maybe a hair worse. It's definitely a bit better with the truck empty though. Most F-150s aren't loaded to the gills 24/7, so that's probably a good compromise.
rslifkin said:In reply to Streetwiseguy :
The gas mileage under heavy load with the ecoboost seems to be similar to the 5.0, maybe a hair worse. It's definitely a bit better with the truck empty though. Most F-150s aren't loaded to the gills 24/7, so that's probably a good compromise.
My son has one, and it rarely gets used like a truck. It's much too nice for all of that. 
Gas mileage is far, far better than our F150 with the 5.0.
In reply to racerdave600 :
And he is the right owner for an ecoboost. I had a guy with an ecoboost who got quite angry with me when I suggested hauling a 26 foot travel trailer into a Saskatchewan wind was a heavy load. He WAS NOT an ideal owner.
Streetwiseguy said:I miss inefficient turbo cars. One of my favorites was the early 80's Volvo 240 with intercooler. You had the initial lag, then 7 or 8 psi until 3500 rpm, then 11 psi to redline. Every time it switched state, you got a little kick in the backside that said, "Hey- Remember me?" Modern stuff doesn't remind you about stuff- it just makes more power than it is supposed to. Where is the fun in that?
You may be pleased to know that the S60R has noticable turbo lag. Not very much, and some of it may simply be throttle mapping since hitting the (Clarkson voice) Advanced button makes 90% of it go away. But enough that trying to drive smoothly in traffic is awkward. Go to accelerate and not much not much OMGWTFBBQ BOOST.
Getting the hang of it.
And then there's the fuel consumption. City driving absolutely demolishes economy, especially when cold. This morning it was 20 degrees. I was cruising down the road at 30mph. Not accelerating, not going uphill, nothing. The instant economy minder said 10mpg. Just rolling along. Ouch. It gets better once warmed up but I don't get to full warmup until the city part of my drive to work is over. As my friend Eric Gee once said, Jesus OPEC Christ that is awful. But then again it's only 8.5:1 compression and the catalyst is so far down the exhaust stream that Volvo has got to be doing some funky ignition and cam timing tricks to get it to light off, with mid-00s emissions requirements.
alfadriver said:Without the F150, the Mustang would not have a V8 available, since they are the only two vehicles that have that engine. And that's interesting (can't go farther than that).And then the notion that a turbo V6 is the proper engine for the F150 is kind of mind boggling. When I first heard that we were putting that into a truck back in 2006, I thought the notion that our truck buyers would choose that over the V8 was insane. How so very wrong I was. It's crazy to see the sales difference in the V6 to V8.
Anyway, that's my side notes seeing what's being posted.
The world is a strange place if you look at it with the right kind of eyes.
I mainly take umbrage at the idea that if you don't get what someone else wants, you're "settling" for what you got. I don't want a V8. I actively don't want a V8, unless maybe it was in the 2 to 2.5l range. I'm not "settling" for a small displacement engine any more than the guy who buys a GT350R is "settling" for a Mustang instead of a Ford GT. (Or for that matter, the person who buys a V8 Mustang is settling for a large displacement engine since Ford doesn't make anything that revs very high, so they need to make power with torque instead of RPM)
Clearly, Ford must understand that not everybody wants the same vehicle, otherwise they wouldn't have the Mustang available with so many engine options. Likewise the F150.
I'm always disappointed by the lack of ecoboost mustang love where I sell them. A 2018 ecoboost performance pack with a 6 speed stickers around 31k. Not a lot of rwd options at that price point that will outperform it. And it would absolutely walk away from the majority of mustangs pre coyote. And as far as the v6 trucks go, even the little 2.7 ecoboost is a beast of an engine. It pushes the 2018 fusion sport (another suuuper under appreciated car) to a 13.7 in the 1/4 mile. I keep hoping we'll get one in so I can test drive it 
In reply to MazdaFace :
I priced out a Camaro (Camero, Cramit) with the 2.0 and Brembo brake package and it was about $31k, too. (Getting the correct blue skunk stripes and spoiler pushed it up to $31k) Chevy doesn't let you do the full suspension boogie on the fours, you need to get the V6 for that.
While the V6 is a fine engine, it's not a turbo four and not what I'd want in a performance vehicle.
Knurled. said:alfadriver said:Without the F150, the Mustang would not have a V8 available, since they are the only two vehicles that have that engine. And that's interesting (can't go farther than that).And then the notion that a turbo V6 is the proper engine for the F150 is kind of mind boggling. When I first heard that we were putting that into a truck back in 2006, I thought the notion that our truck buyers would choose that over the V8 was insane. How so very wrong I was. It's crazy to see the sales difference in the V6 to V8.
Anyway, that's my side notes seeing what's being posted.
The world is a strange place if you look at it with the right kind of eyes.
I mainly take umbrage at the idea that if you don't get what someone else wants, you're "settling" for what you got. I don't want a V8. I actively don't want a V8, unless maybe it was in the 2 to 2.5l range. I'm not "settling" for a small displacement engine any more than the guy who buys a GT350R is "settling" for a Mustang instead of a Ford GT. (Or for that matter, the person who buys a V8 Mustang is settling for a large displacement engine since Ford doesn't make anything that revs very high, so they need to make power with torque instead of RPM)
Clearly, Ford must understand that not everybody wants the same vehicle, otherwise they wouldn't have the Mustang available with so many engine options. Likewise the F150.
It's not that I thought people would be offended or not, I just didn't think that our long time truck owners, some who probably date back to the original F1, many who had simple and torquey V8's in their trucks would accept a high tech V6. To me, the acronyms assigned to the engines would be a good comparison- the V8 had VCT, the V6, turbo, GDI, iVCT. And while many equate the GTDI to a diesel, I was not convinced our buyers would believe that.
It's not a question of the V6 was settling. Not at all. It was a question of a "simple" V8 vs. a "complex" turbo V6. And most of these buyers were not in the diesel camp.
I was happily wrong. Even after so many years of anecdotes that the V6 and V8 were not much different, people still get the V6 in much higher numbers. To the point that it very much questions massive investments in the V8, as it's a very small player anymore.
Here's the crazy thing about that- that's all driven by customers- not any huge FE requirements.
Streetwiseguy said:I'm still not convinced the F150 ecoboost is the right choice for people actually using the truck like a truck. I've heard gas mileage horror stories, I've seen horrible oil consumption under load.
I am, for one reason: Torque. The Ecoboost makes more of it, at lower RPM than the V8.
And a Mustang is supposed to sound V8-ey, even if its slower and thirstier than a turbo 4. That is just the way it is.
On this we agree.
In reply to alfadriver :
I remember when people struggled to buy up the last of the '96s because the '97s with the 4.2/4.6/5.4 engines were "wimpy" compared to the 4.9/5.0/5.8 because they had to downshift sometimes or something.
Never mind that the '97 was a spaceship of a vehicle compared to the '96. By gum they had to be able to to tow a trailer uphill at 1500rpm and they didn't care if the whole chassis did the Lambada every time it drove over a pebble.
In reply to Knurled. :
We also have to put this into the context of the major competitors, too- both GM and Chrysler have big (sometimes REALLY big in displacement) V8's. And in GM's case, it's a real gem of a pushrod v8. And even Toyota and Nissan use V8's in their trucks. So it's not exactly a given that a complex v6 that performs generally the same would be accepted. Especially when I first heard this idea 11 years ago. 2006 is a lot different than 2017 in terms of what you see the customers buying.
I thought the question was about the T4 vs V8 Mustang? Seems like half the thread is talking about pickup trucks and Camaros.
So back OT...
I've been in the right hand seat as a HPDE instructor of both flavors of Mustang. I can tell you that if I were faced with purchasing a S550 I would absolutely buy the turbo four over the GT. The boosted Mustang was fast, handled well, stopped easily and didn't even get hot during our summer track day. The V8 felt only marginally faster, handled well, stopped decently (on stock pads!) and didn't get hot during our November track day though the brakes were rolling off smoke after one session. The GT has more power...but I didn't feel it was terribly useful for doing anything more than pushing you back in the seat a little harder, making neato noises and consuming vast quantities of fuel. IMO it isn't worth the price premium unless you need to have the V8 experience or will be embarrassed by everyone who teases you about not getting the GT.
Disclaimer: I own a 4.0 S197 Mustang. I find it fun to drive on the street, has adequate enough power to be entertaining with the 5 speed manual and actually isn't hateful on the track when I elect to use it. My 4.0 taught me that as just a car the lesser engine model is perfectly acceptable. Autocross? Depends on the power delivery. Track? More power just makes the straightaways shorter; doesn't help you in the turns.
rslifkin said:In reply to alfadriver :
I never expected the turbo 3.5 to be such a great truck engine either. Until I drove one. The power is just there, with no drama, no waiting for a downshift and the revs to build, etc. It's like a diesel that learned how to rev.
On-topic? Meh. I have a '13 Ecoboost F150 and just yesterday I was marveling at how I was going up a hill, in 6th gear, at 1600 rpm, and it wasn't slowing down.
Fueled by Caffeine said:
Found this. looks like my own limited sample size of rental car driving experiences corroborated with C and D... what does GRM say?????????????????????????/
But that review isn't really the ecoboost 'stang vs the base crammit...isn''t the base crammit the 2.0T while the base 'stang is now the V6?
This is the comparison that I want to see...
Motor Trend's comparison of 4 cyl turbos: Mustang vs Camaro
In reply to secretariata :
Don't forget to click on the link where they put decent tires on the Camaro and Pobst says "it might be better than a Miata".
I don't have a problem with the GM LNF 2.0L engine, it's pretty nice, but I don't understand it in the Camaro. The 3.6L is more potent, more fun and sounds great. It's ~100lbs more, in a medium weight car. The two engines cost "the same" because of the 87 vs. 91 octane requirements. N/A cars tend to produce less heat so the V6 is a nice choice for the track too, particularly with the cooler goodies from the SS aka. V6 1LE. In the Mustang I understand the 2.3L vs. the V6, it is torquier and had more aftermarket (or Ford performance) potential due in part to the slightly larger displacement vs. the 2.0L. The Ford 3.7L wasn't as nice as the GM 3.6L, either.
A couple of issues I have with the Motortrend review:
Why would you bother comparing a car with all season tires to one with summer tires? I'm not sure why the brakes on the Camaro were problematic, they've run the same brakes on other variants in other tests (resolve before comparing?). The Mustang's Willowsprings laptime was 1:27.32, whereas testing another time yielded a 1:25.19 for the Camaro V6 1LE. The prices could be comparable. They obtained a 1:24.29 for the Mustang GT with PP1.
In reply to Snrub :
I think the V6 vs the turbo 4 in either car is a flavor of ice cream issue. Neither one is the V8.
^ and the V8s aren't the supercharged V8 or the Voodoo V8. I really do think the V6 Camaro is a compelling vehicle all on its own.
In reply to mazdeuce - Seth :
Gotta go back and click on that!.Missed it the first time... 
In reply to ddavidv :
I like your approach to this topic!
I remember when people struggled to buy up the last of the '96s because the '97s with the 4.2/4.6/5.4 engines were "wimpy" compared to the 4.9/5.0/5.8 because they had to downshift sometimes or something.
Never mind that the '97 was a spaceship of a vehicle compared to the '96. By gum they had to be able to to tow a trailer uphill at 1500rpm and they didn't care if the whole chassis did the Lambada every time it drove over a pebble.
I can sort of relate to that thought process. The 'new' v8s were just blah. I feel like the late 90s were the heyday of designing engines that didn't really perform any better but looked better on a spec sheet because they had more cams. I get that they were quieter and more efficient yada yada but on the other hand GM has pretty clearly shown that simply designing a better version of a simple engine was viable for at least 20 more years (so far..) after the others went all-in on their initially-crappy ohc designs. Also i will defend the 4.2 to the grave because it's a good engine and if the previous 6cyl was limited to the same displacement there would just be no contest at all. Having said that, a gear driven cam, crapload of main bearings and a huge oil capacity (i.e. 4.9) sure do a lot to make an engine seem stupid-proof, and that's very endearing all on its own.
I had a 2013 F150 5.0 Loved it. I now have a 2016 F150 Ecoboost with about 40K miles.. Will not buy ecoboost again Mileage is horrible regardless of the driver. My 5.0 got the same mileage towing a car on a trailer as the Ecoboost does without. I am now looking to replace my 16 with possibly another F150, will be a 5.0. Dealer tried to tell me how much better the new 3.5 Eco with the 10 speed trans is mileage wise.... no thanks..
You'll need to log in to post.
