Mustang Ecoboost review

A couple of weekends ago, I rented a car for a trip to Tallahassee, a 5 hour journey from here in Melbourne.  My youngest daughter and I toured FSU, after which she committed to attend there in the fall.  My baby is a ‘Nole!

The car I got for a rental was this Mustang Ecoboost Premium:

This car has the same engine as my RS, the 2.3 liter turbo four-cylinder that’s been around for some time, but in a slightly less frenetic state of tune.  It was also equipped with Ford’s new 10-speed automatic, which proved to be a very impressive transmission.  I believe the engine was tuned for more low-end torque than it is in my RS, and the plethora of gears in the transmission keep it right at its torque peak all the way from 10 to 80 mph and even a little higher.  I was accelerating up an on-ramp at one point in the journey, and stayed on it for a few extra seconds in order to merge ahead of a slow-moving truck.  When I reached the end of the merge lane, I was astonished to see that I was well over 90.  The remarkably smooth rush of boundless torque felt amazingly quick, easily the equal of the 2016 Mustang GT I had as a loaner during my head gasket recall service.  In fact, I felt more impressed with this Mustang than I was with the V-8 version.  And after 600 miles of driving in a single day, I was astonished to see this average gas mileage on the display:

This was an impressive ride.  At least Ford’s last car in their American lineup is a good one.

I agree. That's why I bought one. 

This is my daily driver. 

My only complaint about the Ecoboost Mustangs is that they don't make V8 noises. 

APEowner said:

My only complaint about the Ecoboost Mustangs is that they don't make V8 noises. 

But they can make big turbo noises......

kevinatfms said:

APEowner said:

My only complaint about the Ecoboost Mustangs is that they don't make V8 noises. 

But they can make big turbo noises......

There is that.

APEowner said:

My only complaint about the Ecoboost Mustangs is that they don't make V8 noises. 

With $4 a gallon gasoline I don't have a problem with that.

I've had 3 or 4 in the past year as rentals.  I agree that for a little 4 pulling a large car, it drives very well.  Very quick, good transmission (with good logic) and pretty good handling.  Interiors are far better than Mustangs of the past.  The last one I had was during the holiday season.  I know it's corny, but I got a kick out of turning the numbers on the gauges green and the halos around them red.  I left it that way for the next renter....

Wow, I didn't realize it could crack 30mpg...I might have to look a bit closer

I've been thinking about these cars, there are more of them around than the V6 versions. 

Driving them didn't really impresse though, just felt like an ordinary car, keep waiting for BOOOST but never really happened.

The turbo 4 Camaro dispite less power felt much more lively above 4000rpm.

30 mpg highway is good to see, was that on premium or 87 octane?

What's the long term 100k+ mile durability on these?  When ever I see a OHC with a Turbo all I can think of is a endless loop of head gaskets, timing chains and turbos needed to be replaced.

A coworker is a big mustang guy and bought a 17 as a daily a while back. He really liked it at first, after getting used to it, he noticed within the first  couple miles of a drive power was way down even on 93. After some checking he found the intercooler would heat soak real quick, IATs would sky rocket and it would pull power. He ended up doing the Ford tune which came with the gt350 intake, charge pipes and an upgraded intercooler. After that he said IATs would stay with 5-10 of ambient even in the texas summer and it was a completely different car.

Ran low 13s and low 100 traps.

Engine let go at ~30K miles, Ford fixed it under warranty, he said he had no faith in it anymore and sold it.

Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:

I've been thinking about these cars, there are more of them around than the V6 versions. 

Driving them didn't really impresse though, just felt like an ordinary car, keep waiting for BOOOST but never really happened.

The turbo 4 Camaro dispite less power felt much more lively above 4000rpm.

30 mpg highway is good to see, was that on premium or 87 octane?

What's the long term 100k+ mile durability on these?  When ever I see a OHC with a Turbo all I can think of is a endless loop of head gaskets, timing chains and turbos needed to be replaced.

I filled it with regular.

In reply to calteg :

I’ve gotten close to 27 on a tank with a 5.0 and 3.73 rears without really trying, this the miracle of modern engine management.   400 plus HP and better than 25 mpg at 75 mph is pretty awesome.  

The Ecoboost engines definitely punch above their weight, the 2.3 is putting down very similar numbers to the 4.6 V8 on the 2005-2010 Mustang with significantly better efficiency. 

I've been thinking about the differences between the Mustang and my RS that could cause the 9 mpg difference (23 vs. 32) at 80 mph with the same motor.

1. Tires - I'm sure the all-seasons on the Mustang have a much lower rolling resistance than my Pilot Sport 4s's do.
2. Gearing - My RS spins pretty close to 3K at 80, while the Mustang was at 1400 rpm at that speed.
3. Aerodynamics - The Focus body is much taller and has a larger frontal area than the Mustang.

I'm sure there are other, smaller factors but those are the biggest drivers, I think.

In reply to jstein77 :

Aero is a big one.  As much as smaller cars can be lighter (good for mpg, particularly in the city), as speed increases a short (length-wise) car starts to become a disadvantage.  The longer the body, the easier it is to get a good aerodynamic shape without making huge compromises to get there.  And then lower frontal area compounds that improvement. 

A quick search didn't turn up frontal area numbers, but the drag coefficient for the Mustang is certainly lower than the RS based on what I found (0.32 vs 0.35). 

RPM-wise, if you can spin it slow enough, you mitigate a lot of the pumping loss disadvantage of a big engine when cruising with a low HP demand.  That's why most of the big V8 cars are geared so tall at this point. 

In reply to jstein77 :

Relatively speaking- the Mustang with the 2.3 is just a basic car- while it has performance, it's more laid out to be a reasonable car to own.  Whereas the RS is a performance car, and everything needs to point that way.

Let alone, the 10 speed vs. a 6 speed.

FWIW, our '17 Mustang GT (5.0/6MT/3.73) knocked down 33mpg on a 500 mile day where speeds were kept under 70mph.  Calculated, not computer.  In more normal interstate driving (75-80mph) it was good for 27-28mpg.

I drove an Ecoboost car with the HPP and a manual transmission and really liked it but it seemed to run out of steam in the higher rpms.  Everything I have read leads me to think the 10 speed may be the better match for that engine.

Ironically the 5.0 in the GT (which I ultimately bought) felt like it pulled harder up high in the rpms.  However I was super impressed with the near instantaneous low end torque of the EB.

alfadriver said:

In reply to jstein77 :

Relatively speaking- the Mustang with the 2.3 is just a basic car- while it has performance, it's more laid out to be a reasonable car to own.  Whereas the RS is a performance car, and everything needs to point that way.

Let alone, the 10 speed vs. a 6 speed.

Oh, yes - I agree completely. I love my RS and plan to keep it as long as I can. It's capability in slippery conditions is unmatched.