Test - 2.3 Ecoboost Mustang

[Sioso]

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/05/16/2...t-ride-review/

Earlier this week, Ford invited us to Charlotte, NC, to ride in an all-new 2015 Mustang fitted with its turbocharged 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder. It's the first forced-induction, four-cylinder ponycar for the Blue Oval since the sun set on the 1986 Mustang SVO. We jumped at the opportunity, as only a handful of people have ever been in the passenger seat of this new car, and most automotive media won't get as close as we did until this fall.

As we revealed in our Deep Dive, Ford will slot this new turbocharged four as premium powerplant between its naturally aspirated 3.7-liter V6 and the naturally aspirated 5.0-liter V8. At last mention, the automaker said the direct-injected, all-aluminum engine will develop 305 horsepower and 300 pound-feet of torque, returning the best fuel economy of the three powerplants in the process. History buffs will note that those figures are appreciably stouter than the 200 horses and 240 lb-ft that the '86 SVO realized out of the same displacement, and the latter's figures were hugely impressive at the time. On paper, the new EcoBoost four looks to be a good fit for most owners who want to balance performance with efficiency – we were eager to see how it felt from the passenger seat.

Riding Notes

Ford is continuously polishing its final product. The Mustang we rode in was a prototype, still in need of some final tweaks. Its interior was mostly complete, but many of the surfaces were lacking texture or constructed with the incorrect material – standard prototype fare.
A manual and a traditional automatic transmission will be offered at launch, with both containing six gears. While the standard trans is a carryover, the automatic has been upgraded with paddle shifters and is driver configurable with four different electronic modes (Normal, Sport, Track and Snow/Wet) that alter shift points, traction control and throttle response. Our test car was equipped with the automatic.
The steering effort may also be adjusted between three different settings (Comfort, Normal and Sport), thanks to its new electrically assisted rack.
Our car was optioned with a Performance Package that will be a must-have for enthusiasts. It includes firmer dampers and higher-rate springs (take a closer look and note that the 2015 model already rides a bit lower, with tighter wheel well gaps), chassis bracing, upgraded front bushings and stiffer sway bars (by about five percent). More capable four-piston brake calipers are fitted to the front axle over 13.8-inch ventilated rotors, while the rear brakes retain a single-piston sliding caliper over 13.0-inch ventilated discs. The package does nothing for the engine, but a new 3:55 rear axle ratio (replacing a 3:31) will make it feel a bit quicker. Lastly, a set of 19-inch alloys wrapped in performance-oriented Pirelli PZero rubber (255/40R19 at all four corners) improves grip.
Off-the-line acceleration wasn't tire-chirpingly quick, even in the sportiest setting, but once the engine was under full boost – we noted a bit more than 15 psi on the analog dial between the center HVAC vents – it started to pull strongly, wanting to stretch its legs. (Ambient temperatures were in the mid-90s, with equally high humidity, both of which work against a turbocharged powerplant.) The short autocross course limited the driver to just second gear, with the shift from first to second arriving smoothly. Our pilot demonstrated shifting in both automatic and manual modes, which features nifty rev-matching throttle-blips, and it never felt sharp, harsh or tiringly aggressive.
As is nearly always the case with a four-cylinder engine, the new 2.3-liter lacks the ultimate smoothness of a six or eight. At this stage of tune, however, it's no better or worse than the racket emanating from BMW's new four. There was a notable intake and exhaust note, both pleasantly tuned, but we couldn't catch any turbo whine in our short jaunt (Ford didn't allow us to pry open the hood and view the intake design). This Mustang's siblings will each have much better lungs, while the four will require some acclimating.
One big advantage a four-cylinder holds over a six- or eight-cylinder is reduced mass. During the parking lot autocross, the new Mustang felt impressively agile and light. There was very little body roll, even during extreme maneuvering (the car in this picture is cornering aggressively). Under heaving braking, the new chassis and sporty underpinnings – independent rear suspension and all – seemed to successfully resist the urge to dive or become unsettled. There was a bit of front-end push in the tightest sections, but applying the throttle quickly moved the weight rearward, extinguishing the understeer (the front of the coupe felt lighter than the rear, which would indicate good balance). We'd be willing to bet that the four will be the most nimble in the family.
It's likely that Ford sees even more potential in the idea of an EcoBoost Mustang – new spy shots and video revealed earlier today suggests that the company may be working on a model with even higher performance, though its cylinder count remains unclear.

In a nutshell, we climbed out of the passenger seat in Charlotte impressed. Three quick laps observed from the passenger side are no substitute for a thorough test drive, but we've sat right seat in hundreds of vehicles, with the majority of those being far less competent. Climbing behind the wheel of the 2015 Ford Mustang for ourselves can't come soon enough.

[chevypower]

Great, thanks for sharing that. Turbo or V8? I love the feel of a turbo and the sound of a V8, so that would be a tough one. The only way to assuage my cognitive dissonance, would be to offer a turbo V8.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Great, thanks for sharing that. Turbo or V8? I love the feel of a turbo and the sound of a V8, so that would be a tough one. The only way to assuage my cognitive dissonance, would be to offer a turbo V8.

I'm interested in what they hinted at with regards to a hotter Ecoboosted mustang. I like that idea

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

I'm interested in what they hinted at with regards to a hotter Ecoboosted mustang. I like that idea

Same, it's amazing what they could even do with a 2.3, but Ford could also use the new 2.7 V6 and probably push about 270kw/475Nm, or the 3.5 V6 at 330-350Kw/600Nm. Of course, being direct-injected, turbocharged, and intercooled, they could probably just dial in whatever horsepower they want.

The only thing that doesn't thrill me in road cars, is flappy paddles. In a racing car, they make sense because your hands are in a fixed position on the wheel and the paddles go around with it. Lock-to-lock is less than one full turn. On a road car, your hands don't stay in a fixed position relative to the wheel, and they shouldn't because lock-to-lock is more than 1 turn. It gets a little tricky trying to use those paddles when the wheel is inverted. I think if they attached them to the column, they might make more sense on a road car, rather than have them turn with the wheel.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Same, it's amazing what they could even do with a 2.3, but Ford could also use the new 2.7 V6 and probably push about 270kw/475Nm, or the 3.5 V6 at 330-350Kw/600Nm. Of course, being direct-injected, turbocharged, and intercooled, they could probably just dial in whatever horsepower they want.

The only thing that doesn't thrill me in road cars, is flappy paddles. In a racing car, they make sense because your hands are in a fixed position on the wheel and the paddles go around with it. Lock-to-lock is less than one full turn. On a road car, your hands don't stay in a fixed position relative to the wheel, and they shouldn't because lock-to-lock is more than 1 turn. It gets a little tricky trying to use those paddles when the wheel is inverted. I think if they attached them to the column, they might make more sense on a road car, rather than have them turn with the wheel.

Yeah but the flappies r only in the autos right? If you want the proper race feel you'll most likely get the auto anyhow. I agree tho, I just hope it's a good system out of the box so it keeps mustangs name clean.

Even tho the 5.0 mustang will be the "racers" pick.....the big reason I'm so interested in the race/track pack ECOBOOST stangs is not just the great engine....it's the balance the lighter engine will bring.....especially with how light,nimble and overall great the new mustang chassis will be.

Can't wait to see comparos

[chevypower]

My heart wants a manual, my head knows that the auto will accelerate quicker, especially when the 10 speed comes. A bit like the turbo vs V8 dilemma.

[chevypower]

Just picked up a new Fusion (Mondeo) Titanium with the 2.0 EB for our rental. Even that feels pretty quick, the 2.3 is going to be very impressive. I don't think it's going to set records at the drag strip, but I think it will do 0-100 in under 6 seconds, which is quick enough for most people on the road. I think it will be very fun to drive, because this Fusion is fun to drive. I tell ya what though, the engine makes it very rewarding to put your foot down with the sound and feel of those turbos. Each time I get rewarded for it, I see the "Eco" part of EcoBoost diminishing. But if you can avoid the temptation to drive like that all the time, people will see impressive numbers.

[Rodge]

Looks very good too. This is probably the vehicle most likely to bring me back into the Ford stable. Quick enough, (0-100 in around 6 seconds), is perfect when you no longer feel the need to prove your c@#k is bigger than the next guy's.

[Rastas]

Expect the 2.3 mustang to do the 0-100 in a time closer to 5.0 than 6.0 secs. This car is pretty well much a new RS focus in disguise.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by Rastas

Expect the 2.3 mustang to do the 0-100 in a time closer to 5.0 than 6.0 secs. This car is pretty well much a new RS focus in disguise.

Except it's a coupe not a hatch, and it drives the rear wheels not the front, and it is made in the USA not Europe, and they look nothing like each other.

[cheap]

I don't get a 4 banger in a Mustang, regardless of how hi-tech or the HP's and TQ's or the 6 second times quoted. If I wanted a 4 banger I'd get a hot hatch.

A V8 option for a Mini would certainly make a statement. A 4 banger option for a Mustang doesn't send me a good statement. But it seems to be all about sales - hopefully they've learnt a few things from the Eco-Falcon.

[Moby Vic]

Originally Posted by cheap

I don't get a 4 banger in a Mustang, regardless of how hi-tech or the HP's and TQ's or the 6 second times quoted. If I wanted a 4 banger I'd get a hot hatch.

Many European countries tax engine displacement. If Ford wants the Mustang to be a true global car, it needs to offer one with a smaller engine to sell in those countries.

[GasoLane]

It might be just me but I don't think the words '4 cylinder' and 'Mustang' should be in the same sentence!

Frank Bullitt would never stand for it

[Rastas]

Except it's a coupe not a hatch, and it drives the rear wheels not the front, and it is made in the USA not Europe, and they look nothing like each other.
__________________
Yes they are diffrent cars but with identicle power trains (2.3EB for next RS) and similer kerb weight my statement was primarily about expected 0-100 times.
Personaly I prefere the look of the mustang myself .

[Moby Vic]

Mustang offered a four cylinder as the base engine from 1974 through 1993, and as the top engine (the turbocharged SVO engine) for '84, '85, and '86.

You've got four-cylinder Falcons now.

[Sprint]

Originally Posted by Moby Vic

Mustang offered a four cylinder as the base engine from 1974 through 1993, and as the top engine (the turbocharged SVO engine) for '84, '85, and '86.

You've got four-cylinder Falcons now.

yep 2.3 pinto mustang from the 80s really sucked but that was the late 80s for ya..

[Moby Vic]

Originally Posted by Sprint

yep 2.3 pinto mustang from the 80s really sucked but that was the late 80s for ya..

The SVOs didn't.

[1TUFFUTE]

I think people are more worried about the mustang name being watered down with too many "Eco" engines........but they're are worrying about nothing! They will be epic......the new mustang will be a worldwide epidemic

[Polyal]

Id say globally the reach of the 4 pot Mustang is well worth the cash involved.

Hope all those bagging the 4 Mustang have a decent ride themselves, dont want to be trash talking and then silence by a hairdresser!

I cant see what the problem is, it could run on Green party members tears for all I care, they offer something for everybody.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Id say globally the reach of the 4 pot Mustang is well worth the cash involved.

Hope all those bagging the 4 Mustang have a decent ride themselves, dont want to be trash talking and then silence by a hairdresser!

I cant see what the problem is, it could run on Green party members tears for all I care, they offer something for everybody.

Totally agree. In many parts of the world (incl N.Z.) petrol is very expensive and speeding laws and measurement devices of same are more and more draconian so there's an increasing emphasis on handling as the last bastion of true freedom.

[XWGT]

I also think it might be to do with providing big enough differentiation from the V8.

If you don't want the V8, a V6 with similar fuel usage etc. is probably not going to be a big enough enticement to continue to buy. However a turbo 4 with good performance but much better economy may keep you interested enough to buy.

[Polyal]

I honestly dont know why they even bothered with the V6 when the EB4 pretty much does the same job. Why would you "want" a V6?

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by Polyal

I honestly dont know why they even bothered with the V6 when the EB4 pretty much does the same job. Why would you "want" a V6?

I can see the V6 being phased out over the life of the S550, leaving the Coyote for the die hards and the Ecoboost for those wanting more economy over performance.

I think it's great to have the option, but surely the V6 will become redundant.

[FG50T]

I prefer turbo's over anything other than a v12 and will so in the stang also . Should be fun enough with tweaks.

[nstg8a]

I'm always looking at ft86s and if the eb4 mustang isn't priced too ridiculously then it could be a very viable alternative.

[GasoLane]

Unfortunately the Mustang might not fare well with family man with kids.......

Unless the Wife likes them, then she will condescend to a 2 door car.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Unfortunately the Mustang might not fare well with family man with kids.......

Unless the Wife likes them, then she will condescend to a 2 door car.

Depends on how much one really wants a Mustang, if you find yourself making excuses like "it doesn't have four doors" or "it doesn't seat five" then you don't really want one.

I really wanted one so I got one, it fits me the wife and the two young fella's, it isn't the main family car but it ain't no garage queen. It does daily duties and commutes, road trips, shopping runs and I took it to the last NZ WRC event over all sorts of dodgy roads, no problem.

Putting kids in cars seats in the back is a pita but one is in a booster now so the problem is halved and when the kids are too big to fit they won't want to be going out in the car with mum and dad anyway.

[Crazy Dazz]

Obviously it will sell, they're not total dummies. There's probably some European country somewhere whence all cars must have engine of less than 1.0lt, and they'll make a "Mustang" for there too.
But seriously, people also buy Cherrys and Giglis, doesn't mean you should be raving about them.
Nothing wrong with 4 cylinders, in their place, my current drive is an XR4.
There will come a time when all cars run on batteries (hopefully I will be dead) and there will be one called a "Mustang." Doesn't mean it won't be a dreadful piece of garbage though.
If you want to buy a 4 cylinder car with a Mustang badge on it, and consul yourself that it will do 0-100 almost as fast as a Fiesta, fine, its your life and your money, but you really have missed the point of owning a Mustang.

[Rodge]

Magpie - Does your 5.0 Coyote engine use 500 mls of oil every 1,000 km's like my Sc GT-P did ? As you will probably be aware there's plenty of guys complaining about excess oil consumption on the Mustang forum. Reason enough of its own to opt for the 2.3 turbo engine IMO and that's before we start talking about the handling advantages of the lighter weight engine.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Magpie - Does your 5.0 Coyote engine use 500 mls of oil every 1,000 km's like my Sc GT-P did ? As you will probably be aware there's plenty of guys complaining about excess oil consumption on the Mustang forum. Reason enough of its own to opt for the 2.3 turbo engine IMO and that's before we start talking about the handling advantages of the lighter weight engine.

No oil use on mine Rodge, as for handling advantages it's not like the Coyote is a heavy brute of a engine anyway, I couldn't believe how light it felt compared to my 5.4 XR8.

I just couldn't buy 4 cylinder stang.

Can understand the attraction for some, I'm sure it will be a good alternative to the 86/BRZ type of car.