2015 3.7 Vs 2015 2.3 ecoboost - Page 3 - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > 2015+ Mustang Ecoboost (and V6)



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 12-21-2014, 06:19 PM   #71
Registered User
Newbie
 
Zulu6110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Irmo
Region: South Carolina
Posts: 13
I would personally go for the GT or the V6. As stated above, the eco boost is uncharted territory. I'm old school in thinking that a Mustang should either be in a V6 or GT even though they made 4 cylinders models in the past.

That being said, everyone has their own reason for buying a car and the options they get with them. It can be they like the looks of the car, but want to save money on gas etc.
__________________
Life is too short to be sitting on the side lines!
Zulu6110 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-21-2014, 06:56 PM   #72
Registered Member
Regular
 
2011 Kona Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Region: Maryland
Posts: 7,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zulu6110 View Post
I would personally go for the GT or the V6. As stated above, the eco boost is uncharted territory. I'm old school in thinking that a Mustang should either be in a V6 or GT even though they made 4 cylinders models in the past.

That being said, everyone has their own reason for buying a car and the options they get with them. It can be they like the looks of the car, but want to save money on gas etc.
Not saying the ecoboost is not a good strong engine but up until recently which has taken over 4 years watching power development, look how strong the cyclone engine is. Look at the power levels the cyclone engine is able to handle on factory internals.

I recall a good 3 plus years ago the rule for the cyclone engine was don't go over 450 rwhp for fear of blowing pistons and or rods. 4 years later and dudes are running 500, 600, 700 rwhp for months on end all on a factory block and internals. Look what LPF has accomplished with power levels with the cyclone engine on factory internals. 3-4 years ago no way people would of thought the cyclone engine was a far stronger built engine than the 4.6 and kill the 4.6 on rwhp with factory intervals.

Not saying the echoboost is not a strong engine but the cyclone is a proven solid engine with few issues over the years that can hold serious power. Us cyclone owners had no piston issues. This sums it up right here. Ha ha ha
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1419209793489.jpg
Views:	167
Size:	98.8 KB
ID:	172325  
2011 Kona Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2014, 08:23 AM   #73
Registered Member
Regular
 
Aggiesrok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bryan
Region: Texas
Posts: 1,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fintile View Post
Why would you put the ecoboost and 3.7 nun the SAME grouping? The ecoboost is no where near the same, besides body, as the 3.7 and should have its own section in the forum. Way to be lazy...

+1

Also Classic Mustangs should be in a different forum and not stuck in the V6 section.


Chevy runs deep, don't step in Chevy.
__________________
chevy runs deep, Don't step in chevy!

289 - Holley 4150 570cfm; Performer intake; mild cam; MSD HEI; 302 heads; Roller Tips; Hedman Tri-Y headers; H-pipe w/Flowmaster 40's; 9 in posi 3.50; 205/50-17F; 225/50-17R.
Aggiesrok is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-29-2014, 05:41 AM   #74
Registered Member
Regular
 
3.7Cyclone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Mansfield
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soccerluvr4 View Post
The V6 didn't change in power at all. They just changed the number they advertise to make the Ecoboost look better.


Bullitts are better than Bullets
My understanding is that the intake had to be made shorter due to hood clearance and that is why it was rated at a loss of 5hp. torque I believe was unchanged though.

One thing with the V6 that is still a constant is there is more aftermarket still for that right now, even though the EB stuff is starting to come out and while it is nice to have an already boosted car that yes can be easily tuned to be higher power than the stock V6 out of the box, that motor also has to use 93 in order to maintain its power ratings, the V6 manages its ratings on all octanes available so it makes full power on 87. That said if you weigh everything out everything between both the 2.3L and 3.7L the EB is so barely an upgrade I mean look at the power to weight numbers, gas mileage, etc. It really is not all that better. Ford is just trying to get people on board. imo
__________________
16 Mustang Ecoboost Prem Fast Back | 2.3L | 3.55 gears | 201A Package | 20" Foundry Wheels P265/35R20 Continental DWS tires | Interior Trim package | Shaker Audio with SYNC 3 | Redline Elite Hood Struts | Mishimoto catch can | Mishimoto Intercooler(Black) | TS Vee port supersonic BOV | Tune+ tuning | Driveshaft Shop aluminum DS | Map big turbo kit | AEM Meth injection w/Mishimoto charge pipe and bung | http://www.youtube.com/user/eclypse3d
3.7Cyclone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 07:14 AM   #75
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3.7Cyclone View Post
My understanding is that the intake had to be made shorter due to hood clearance and that is why it was rated at a loss of 5hp. torque I believe was unchanged though.

One thing with the V6 that is still a constant is there is more aftermarket still for that right now, even though the EB stuff is starting to come out and while it is nice to have an already boosted car that yes can be easily tuned to be higher power than the stock V6 out of the box, that motor also has to use 93 in order to maintain its power ratings, the V6 manages its ratings on all octanes available so it makes full power on 87. That said if you weigh everything out everything between both the 2.3L and 3.7L the EB is so barely an upgrade I mean look at the power to weight numbers, gas mileage, etc. It really is not all that better. Ford is just trying to get people on board. imo
The EB doesn't NEED more of an aftermarket, tune with a turboback exhaust is already doing low 12s. Already well out in front of the V6 a few months after its release. Not sure what you are talking about with "full power" on 87, that is not true at all because you can run more timing and a more agressive tune on 93 and all the race tunes will be tuned for 93.

Don't get me wrong, the Cyclone is a great motor, I'd rather have a 11+ V6 than a 05-10 GT but its simply outclassed by the Ecoboost. Being kept around for the rental car fleets and I'm not even sure how long that'll last honestly.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 07:26 AM   #76
Registered Member
Regular
 
3.7Cyclone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Mansfield
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottydsntknow View Post
The EB doesn't NEED more of an aftermarket, tune with a turboback exhaust is already doing low 12s. Already well out in front of the V6 a few months after its release. Not sure what you are talking about with "full power" on 87, that is not true at all because you can run more timing and a more agressive tune on 93 and all the race tunes will be tuned for 93.

Don't get me wrong, the Cyclone is a great motor, I'd rather have a 11+ V6 than a 05-10 GT but its simply outclassed by the Ecoboost. Being kept around for the rental car fleets and I'm not even sure how long that'll last honestly.
What I am saying is of the three platforms the stock the 3.7 makes 305hp on 87 octane 91 or 93, the eb has to run on 93 stock to make the rated hp, same as the 5.0. So if you look at it from an operating cost standpoint it technically is a better performer and cheaper to run which negates any miles per gallon benefit ford is marketing with the EB as a better option over the V6. It just really isn't that much of a better platform.
__________________
16 Mustang Ecoboost Prem Fast Back | 2.3L | 3.55 gears | 201A Package | 20" Foundry Wheels P265/35R20 Continental DWS tires | Interior Trim package | Shaker Audio with SYNC 3 | Redline Elite Hood Struts | Mishimoto catch can | Mishimoto Intercooler(Black) | TS Vee port supersonic BOV | Tune+ tuning | Driveshaft Shop aluminum DS | Map big turbo kit | AEM Meth injection w/Mishimoto charge pipe and bung | http://www.youtube.com/user/eclypse3d
3.7Cyclone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 08:39 AM   #77
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,579
Arguing stock HP ratings is completely pointless. If we are talking about stock for stock, yeah the V6 and the Eco run pretty close. Start modding and the Eco runs away and does not look back. If you are worried about performance, arguing what octane you should run on is also completely pointless as everyone should be running 93 or even converting to E85.

I know the V6 guys don't like it but it was a short run motor. A great one, but fuel standards and keeping costs down by limiting the available motors will kill it. The Eco is just more cost effective for Ford and better for the EPA compliance.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 09:43 AM   #78
Registered Member
Regular
 
2011 Kona Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Region: Maryland
Posts: 7,653
I wonder how the Eco boost sales are doing thus far?
2011 Kona Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 11:10 AM   #79
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
That's a good point. I didn't realize it needed premium.

Great example...lots of idiots are buying the diesel chrysler truck. "Its a diesel, so it gets great mileage."

28 mpg at 3.50 gallon is NOT better than 25 mpg at 2.00. Besides the premium cost up front for being "Eco."

Don't get me wrong, I just paid 3.999 for E0 because that's what I do...but for people actually trying to get bang for buck, the eco4 isn't right.

Eco4 has a premium cost over the 6.
Eco4 beats it by 1 MPG, but...
Eco4 needs premium (¢60 extra per gallon here).

Agreed on aftermarket performance and all, and I look forward to whatever turbo engine is in my MKM (please Lincoln, MKMustang with 3.7tt?), but this isn't a good decision from a buyers perspective.

Sent from my XT1094 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 11:21 AM   #80
Staff

Regular
Staff
 
Strange Mud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Small Town
Region: Connecticut
Posts: 5,019
back on subject....for me it would break down in the $ per HP decision I made when I picked the V6 over the V8. The 8 is better but the 6 is a performance bargain. I'd have to drive both and see what they sell for but the old school in me likes the simplicity of non-aspirated. That being said I had a Fusion with the eco-boost in it for a week and was very impressed by it. I think the weights are similar and that car just felt fast. Someone mentioned that 99% of their driving was at lower rpm +1 on that thought.
__________________
2012 V6 with suspension, shifting, stopping and sound mods.
Strange Mud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 12:18 PM   #81
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Miami
Region: Florida
Posts: 342
But who wants a mustang that sounds like a honda or a chicken screaming? I am sorry but is the true. Mustangs are knows for loud exhaust and muscular designs and this EB cant compete with that.




Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
Ranger052 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 12:24 PM   #82
ME Bloodhound
Staff
 
Soccerluvr4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacramento/Bay Area
Region: California
Posts: 14,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger052 View Post
But who wants a mustang that sounds like a honda or a chicken screaming? I am sorry but is the true. Mustangs are knows for loud exhaust and muscular designs and this EB cant compete with that.




Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution

That "muscle car sound" was lost when Ford got rid of the pushrod.


Bullitts are better than Bullets
__________________

Bullitt build paused pending graduation

HID end all thread
Soccerluvr4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 12:30 PM   #83
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Miami
Region: Florida
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soccerluvr4 View Post
That "muscle car sound" was lost when Ford got rid of the pushrod.


Bullitts are better than Bullets

Yep but still this EB lol.

Have you seen the videos on youtube with Ford Racing Exhaust? It just sounds terrible.




Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
Ranger052 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 12:35 PM   #84
ME Bloodhound
Staff
 
Soccerluvr4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacramento/Bay Area
Region: California
Posts: 14,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger052 View Post
Yep but still this EB lol.

Have you seen the videos on youtube with Ford Racing Exhaust? It just sounds terrible.




Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution

I've heard it in person, started one up and revved it myself. Sounds like a normal 4 cylinder.


Bullitts are better than Bullets
__________________

Bullitt build paused pending graduation

HID end all thread
Soccerluvr4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 12:44 PM   #85
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Miami
Region: Florida
Posts: 342
Yep.




Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
Ranger052 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 12:45 PM   #86
ME Bloodhound
Staff
 
Soccerluvr4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacramento/Bay Area
Region: California
Posts: 14,672
So get a coyote if you don't like the sound lol


Bullitts are better than Bullets
__________________

Bullitt build paused pending graduation

HID end all thread
Soccerluvr4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 12:46 PM   #87
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Miami
Region: Florida
Posts: 342
I dont want a coyote lol

I have a V6 and I love it


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
Ranger052 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 12:51 PM   #88
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soccerluvr4 View Post
That "muscle car sound" was lost when Ford got rid of the pushrod.


Bullitts are better than Bullets
Nah, a cammed 2V or 3V still sounds bumpy and mean. Not like a pushrod but still good. Not that a 4V can't sound good either, but it doesn't sound like a "muscle car". Best is a 94/95 car with a fat cam in it and ppl looking around wondering where the 70 Chevelle is at before it dawns on them that its the jelly bean mustang right next to them lol.

And the Eco doesn't sound terrible either. It sounds like a 4 banger which it is. Not most ppl on here's cup of tea but a DD that'll run 11s with a tune and bolt ons and get 30+mpg is hard to beat even if it sounds like a weedwhacker.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 01:15 PM   #89
ME Bloodhound
Staff
 
Soccerluvr4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacramento/Bay Area
Region: California
Posts: 14,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottydsntknow View Post
Nah, a cammed 2V or 3V still sounds bumpy and mean. Not like a pushrod but still good. Not that a 4V can't sound good either, but it doesn't sound like a "muscle car". Best is a 94/95 car with a fat cam in it and ppl looking around wondering where the 70 Chevelle is at before it dawns on them that its the jelly bean mustang right next to them lol.

And the Eco doesn't sound terrible either. It sounds like a 4 banger which it is. Not most ppl on here's cup of tea but a DD that'll run 11s with a tune and bolt ons and get 30+mpg is hard to beat even if it sounds like a weedwhacker.

I agree too. I've seen people debate it though which is why I left the SOHCs out.


Bullitts are better than Bullets
__________________

Bullitt build paused pending graduation

HID end all thread
Soccerluvr4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 02:10 PM   #90
Registered Member
Regular
 
2011 Kona Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Region: Maryland
Posts: 7,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger052 View Post
But who wants a mustang that sounds like a honda or a chicken screaming? I am sorry but is the true. Mustangs are knows for loud exhaust and muscular designs and this EB cant compete with that.




Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
That ecoboost sounds pathetic and horrible with aftermakert mufflers and no cats. Sounds like my weed whacker.

Leave that ***** quiet if someone is getting the 4 banger.
2011 Kona Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 05:34 PM   #91
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Mud View Post
back on subject....for me it would break down in the $ per HP decision I made when I picked the V6 over the V8. The 8 is better but the 6 is a performance bargain. I'd have to drive both and see what they sell for but the old school in me likes the simplicity of non-aspirated. That being said I had a Fusion with the eco-boost in it for a week and was very impressed by it. I think the weights are similar and that car just felt fast. Someone mentioned that 99% of their driving was at lower rpm +1 on that thought.
You prefer no aspiration? I guess if you push it into a lake that will happen...lol

Like my post above, $/HP is the v6. $/mpg is the 6. Aftermarket aside, I really figured the turbo would offer more. At the least better mileage.

Sent from my XT1094 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2014, 06:19 AM   #92
Staff

Regular
Staff
 
Strange Mud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Small Town
Region: Connecticut
Posts: 5,019
I wonder when they are going to start using artificial sounds outside the cabin......I've actually read where some EV's make synthesized noises to alert pedestrians I know the Prius on electric power is kinda spooky when it goes by.
__________________
2012 V6 with suspension, shifting, stopping and sound mods.
Strange Mud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2014, 06:54 AM   #93
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Mud View Post
I wonder when they are going to start using artificial sounds outside the cabin......I've actually read where some EV's make synthesized noises to alert pedestrians I know the Prius on electric power is kinda spooky when it goes by.
The whole artificial sound thing inside the car is ****ing stupid I'm sorry. Doing it for the outside... that's seriously like something a ricer would've installed on a Civic DX in 2001. And ricers do install that kind of stuff all the time like fake blowoff valves. I can see how you might actually need a noisemaker on an electric car but that's pretty much it.

I still don't get all the ecoboost hate I keep seeing everywhere honestly. Yeah its a 4 banger, so what? There have been a ton of 4 banger Mustangs over the years. And the V6 is still out for those who vehemently hate it and want a 2015 but can't afford a Coyote so...
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2014, 09:25 AM   #94
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Springfield
Region: Illinois
Posts: 188
Hmm I had the choice between the 2013 v6, and the 2012 v8 when I first got my car. I got the 13 v6. Why? while I am a die hard fan of the classic mustang, and V8's are amazing to just listen to, they are not the greatest dailies.

Before this I had a caliber (hated it), but before that I had an 07 vw gti. What I will say is that a 4 inline turbo (twin scroll) is a great setup, and will almost always be a strong lasting engine. The problem for me is weight. How much weight is the engine managing, and where is the power sent? FWD cars with turbo 4's are great, even the AWD, but ive not had alot of good experiences with turbo 4 rwd.

Now these newer 15 mustangs have better road management etc, but as far as options goes, why would you get the turbo4 stang when there are other cars out there for less or similar price with ALOT more performance and drivability?

Im not going to prejudge this mustang, I think ford is doing great with their vision, but untill this is a proven working car I think the stable 6 is still my option.
Ponyboarder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2014, 10:08 AM   #95
Staff

Regular
Staff
 
Strange Mud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Small Town
Region: Connecticut
Posts: 5,019
Although I am against artificial sound because of complexity (Mud likes simple) just for arguments sake the majority of us that have swapped out exhaust/intake/speakers have done it just for sound...heck some of you have already hated on the Turbo 4 cause of it's sound...if it sounded just like a cammed V8 other than tradition why would it be wrong?

plz note I used the word majority...I know there are a good percentage of you that have done it for performance.
__________________
2012 V6 with suspension, shifting, stopping and sound mods.
Strange Mud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2014, 02:27 PM   #96
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Mud View Post
Although I am against artificial sound because of complexity (Mud likes simple) just for arguments sake the majority of us that have swapped out exhaust/intake/speakers have done it just for sound...heck some of you have already hated on the Turbo 4 cause of it's sound...if it sounded just like a cammed V8 other than tradition why would it be wrong?

plz note I used the word majority...I know there are a good percentage of you that have done it for performance.
Sound from changing your exhaust is one thing. Piping in fake vroom vroom sounds through the speakers is just idiotic.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2014, 06:16 PM   #97
Registered Member
Regular
 
Aggiesrok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bryan
Region: Texas
Posts: 1,883
2015 3.7 Vs 2015 2.3 ecoboost

I can't believe it's been reduced to arguing over MPG and Mustangs.

The other point is everyone looks at HP between V6 EB & GT. There is a lot more to consider. Yeah you can bump up HP on the V6 & EB, but the GT already has all the suspension upgrades and a descent amount of HP, obviously.
__________________
chevy runs deep, Don't step in chevy!

289 - Holley 4150 570cfm; Performer intake; mild cam; MSD HEI; 302 heads; Roller Tips; Hedman Tri-Y headers; H-pipe w/Flowmaster 40's; 9 in posi 3.50; 205/50-17F; 225/50-17R.
Aggiesrok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2014, 12:32 AM   #98
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Charlotte, NC
Region: North Carolina
Posts: 1,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc View Post
That's a good point. I didn't realize it needed premium.

Great example...lots of idiots are buying the diesel chrysler truck. "Its a diesel, so it gets great mileage."

28 mpg at 3.50 gallon is NOT better than 25 mpg at 2.00. Besides the premium cost up front for being "Eco."

Don't get me wrong, I just paid 3.999 for E0 because that's what I do...but for people actually trying to get bang for buck, the eco4 isn't right.

Eco4 has a premium cost over the 6.
Eco4 beats it by 1 MPG, but...
Eco4 needs premium (¢60 extra per gallon here).

Agreed on aftermarket performance and all, and I look forward to whatever turbo engine is in my MKM (please Lincoln, MKMustang with 3.7tt?), but this isn't a good decision from a buyers perspective.

Sent from my XT1094 using Mustang Evolution mobile app

Actually that's not true. The ecoboost can run off of regular 87 gas it just reduces hp but it can run just fine. I want to say car and driver said using 87 drops it to around 280 hp.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
StarzTA17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2015, 08:13 AM   #99
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarzTA17 View Post
Actually that's not true. The ecoboost can run off of regular 87 gas it just reduces hp but it can run just fine. I want to say car and driver said using 87 drops it to around 280 hp.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
Thank you for proving my point.

NOT using premium reduces everything. So pay MORE for the EB, use regular gas, and then have less power than the 6, and worse fuel economy than the 6.

Do you get what I am saying? The t4 should have blown us away (get it?), in its current form, it does not. A stock t4 vs v6, the 6 wins. No matter what, it is cheaper to run the 6.

Don't get me wrong- we are headed in the right direction, but for the 4 to be a smart choice over the 6, power needs to go up, or MPG needs to go up. All they did was match the v6 and tack on an extra charge.

Maybe I am "hating" on the t4, but I don't see the point in spending more money to have weaker performance and the same mileage, at best. IF using premium, same power, a hair better MPG- but that's >10% more expensive fuel for it.

Add 25 HP or 3 MPG stock, and I will see the point more. 50 HP, or 5 MPG stock, and I will be on the bandwagon. Anything more, and I might sell my 6.

Sent from my XT1094 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2015, 01:03 PM   #100
Registered Member
Regular
 
David Young's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Clinton
Region: Tennessee
Posts: 1,005
I only have 21,500 miles on my 2011. I 'had' planned on buying a 2020 GT after our 2014 Edge Limited is paid off. With the EB4 running in the 12's (automatic transmission) with just a cai and tune, i'm now going to buy one of them over a GT.

I wonder if we'll be hearing about 'some' people with the 'engine tick' problem on the 2015 5.0's
__________________
Little Red. 2011 V6. Automatic Trans., C&L CAI, JLT Catch Can, BBK Ceramic Coated Long Tube Headers with BBK Catted X Pipe, Axle Exchange (American Muscle) Aluminum DriveShaft, GT 500 Lower Control Arms, Koni (orange) Dampers, Steeda Watts Link, Ford Racing 3.73 Gears, Magnaflow Street Series Axle Backs and a few more mods....Wifes car, 2014 Ford Edge Limited.
David Young is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2015, 01:14 PM   #101
Registered Member
Regular
 
2011 Kona Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Region: Maryland
Posts: 7,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Young View Post
I only have 21,500 miles on my 2011. I 'had' planned on buying a 2020 GT after our 2014 Edge Limited is paid off. With the EB4 running in the 12's (automatic transmission) with just a cai and tune, i'm now going to buy one of them over a GT.

I wonder if we'll be hearing about 'some' people with the 'engine tick' problem on the 2015 5.0's
I'm waiting for the 2025 mustang to see if they make it have a less fugly rear end and actually muscle looking entire pony again.
2011 Kona Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2015, 01:42 PM   #102
Registered Member
Regular
 
Villain175's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Spring, TX
Region: Texas
Posts: 48
Haha I totally agree with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
Villain175 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2015, 01:58 PM   #103
Registered Member
Regular
 
2011 Kona Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Region: Maryland
Posts: 7,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Villain175 View Post
Haha I totally agree with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
Ha ha ha. 😎
2011 Kona Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2015, 09:09 PM   #104
Registered Member
Regular
 
Aggiesrok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bryan
Region: Texas
Posts: 1,883
I wonder if we'll be hearing about turbos going out after 50k miles?


Chevy runs deep, don't step in Chevy.
__________________
chevy runs deep, Don't step in chevy!

289 - Holley 4150 570cfm; Performer intake; mild cam; MSD HEI; 302 heads; Roller Tips; Hedman Tri-Y headers; H-pipe w/Flowmaster 40's; 9 in posi 3.50; 205/50-17F; 225/50-17R.
Aggiesrok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2015, 09:40 AM   #105
Registered User
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Rockwall
Region: Texas
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponyboarder View Post
Hmm I had the choice between the 2013 v6, and the 2012 v8 when I first got my car. I got the 13 v6. Why? while I am a die hard fan of the classic mustang, and V8's are amazing to just listen to, they are not the greatest dailies.

Before this I had a caliber (hated it), but before that I had an 07 vw gti. What I will say is that a 4 inline turbo (twin scroll) is a great setup, and will almost always be a strong lasting engine. The problem for me is weight. How much weight is the engine managing, and where is the power sent? FWD cars with turbo 4's are great, even the AWD, but ive not had alot of good experiences with turbo 4 rwd.

Now these newer 15 mustangs have better road management etc, but as far as options goes, why would you get the turbo4 stang when there are other cars out there for less or similar price with ALOT more performance and drivability?

Im not going to prejudge this mustang, I think ford is doing great with their vision, but untill this is a proven working car I think the stable 6 is still my option.
Care to name these other cars with "ALOT" better performance at a cheaper price than the EB?

Hopefully you don't say any that look terrible
Cades is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > 2015+ Mustang Ecoboost (and V6)

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2015 ecoBoost...the fact no one is talking about. grom80 2015+ Mustang Ecoboost (and V6) 68 03-30-2016 11:44 AM
2015 Mustang: Leaning toward Ecoboost model... tedness 2015 Mustang GT 82 05-19-2015 04:59 PM
Thinking about getting a 2015 ecoboost. ponie1992 2.3 Mustang 29 09-06-2014 01:03 PM
2015 Mustang. Independant Rear Suspension and an Ecoboost 4 cylinder. Thoughts? 4968coyote 2015 Mustang GT 81 01-14-2014 02:02 PM
new 2015 engine lineup info including Ecoboost Coyote Ricky35 2015+ Mustang Ecoboost (and V6) 84 05-04-2013 10:13 PM

» Like Us On Facebook



02:46 AM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.