For long term ownership, I find the v6 to be just as, or more appealing than the EcoBoost. Same basic power, same or better fuel economy, and much fewer expensive parts to break. It always surprised me that Ford released the EcoBoost as the middle engine choice without making it powerful enough to separate itself from the V6. It's a shame that Ford has neutered the V6 into what it is now, but I understand why it was done.
Klayfish wrote: That's why I've held off from buying a V6. I know it's faster than it "feels", but if I'm buying a Mustang, I want it to be hairy chested and give me a concussion every time I mash the pedal.
Honestly, this is why all these discussions of the lower engine options are lost on me. If I'm going to buy a Mustang (or Cramit), with all the compromises involved (lack of space, high insurance costs, more attention-getting styling, crappy winter performance), I better damn well have the V8 or it's not worth it to me.
As a guy whose first car was a 67 camaro with a V8, I can't see myself ever buying a Mustang or Camaro with anything other than a V8. Even though the v6 in the camaro does make some really nice noises I couldn't give up the extra 100 hp.
So the short answer is no I don't care that the v6 mustang is going away.
And I might give the automatic a try, but probably not.
Klayfish wrote: That's why I've held off from buying a V6. I know it's faster than it "feels", but if I'm buying a Mustang, I want it to be hairy chested and give me a concussion every time I mash the pedal.
That's just a side effect of the modern automotive refinement being added to all types of cars, driving up the performance required to get a certain level of multi-sensory experience in the vast majority of cars on the market. I would argue that this is just as applicable to the V8 Mustangs, as it is the V6 Mustangs.
MadScientistMatt wrote: I have yet to drive a car with an automatic without thinking, "This car would be more fun with a manual."
L98 C4 Corvette, infinitely better car without the third pedal.
The only argument against the V6 Pony cars is that the V8 ones exist. Same argument against the 4 cylinder cars, even with boost.
Now an EB V8 OTOH...
As far as the 10 speed gearboxes...it seems like you might be better off not using the paddles and just letting the car handle it.
Adrian_Thompson wrote: L98 C4 Corvette, infinitely better car without the third pedal.
That may very well be the best candidate. I had one with an automatic, but never drove one with the 4+3.
Tom_Spangler wrote:Adrian_Thompson wrote: Auto boxes get better and better all the time. I'd have no issue buying the 10 speed auto, in fact if I ever get another Mustang I guarantee it will be 2 pedal no mater 4, 6 or 8 cyls.Yep. 10+ years ago it was a different story, but these days, automatics are so good, you're not really losing anything except the feel and involvement of a manual. Which, I get is a big part of driving for a lot of people. It was for me for most of my life. But these days, give me a modern auto and I'm just fine.
If you've got front tires much over 205mm in width, you are throwing away a lot of steering feel anyway, and I think steering is way more involving than determining which gear to put the trans in...
So IMO that genie is long out of the bottle! Might as well have a discussion on whether having a mechanical headlight switch vs. a request switch to a BCM is more involving for the driver.
If the V8's render the V6/I4 pony cars pointless...Wouldn't the supercharged V8's, with an even more substantial power increase, do likewise to the naturally aspirated V8's? 
I do miss the V6. I think it filled a vital role; sell a ton of Mustangs to regular folks so enthusiasts could buy the GT, GT-350, GT-350R, GT-500, Cobra, etc. etc. etc. The six cylinder Mustang has been the backbone of sales since 1964 and it's made it the best selling and longest running pony car and the only one that has had uninterrupted production.
Besides all that, the 3.7 isn't a terrible motor. For chrissakes it's an all-aluminum DOHC with continuously variable valve timing, 305hp and gets nearly 30mpg. If Ford had introduced a new RWD coupe with this engine that wasn't encumbered by all the baggage that goes along with the Mustang name we'd be dancing in the streets. The 3.8 and 4.0 were turds for sure, but this thing is pretty damn nice.
I've driven both the V8 and V6 configurations of the S550 and liked them both. I'll definitely try out an Ecoboost 4 at some point but I'm not overly optimistic. First, I hate turbo lag. Second, I hate having to buy premium gas all the time, especially when it goes to $4/gallon. The V6 swills 87 and puts out the same power levels all day long.
Ricky Spanish wrote: I've driven the turbo, V6, and V8 - they each have their charms. I found the turbo to be surprisingly agile. The V6 is smooth power delivery and you gathers speed rapidly without feeling fast. The V8 is a V8. All of them are off the table for me - I stopped by the dealership with my kids Saturday morning to test them out. Somehow, such a big car has so little back seat room. The Camaro, in comparison, is like a Cadillac in the back. My 8 year old son told the dealer he prefers the M3 because it has more room in the back. My 4 year old daughter told the dealer she prefers the M3 because its prettier.
Kids are great and car sales people's worst nightmare
I was at the NE auto show with my son. We are in an Audi SUV thing I am in front and he is in back with the doors closed we see a young couple approaching with 1.6 kids. As we get out the sales man asked my sone what he thaught about it and he said that the seats are really uncomfortable and there was not enough leg room for him. He then told him that the Dodge Charger we were just in was a much better car. The salesman looked completely deflated the pregnant wife started saying something about the Mercedes suv and the guy behind the salesman gave us the big thumbs up with a huge grin. It was all I could do not to bust a gut laughing.
Driven5 wrote: If the V8's render the V6/I4 pony cars pointless...Wouldn't the supercharged V8's, with an even more substantial power increase, do likewise to the naturally aspirated V8's?
Having driven a 2014 GT500 at err, shall we call it closed runway speeds? You certainly have a point there. More seriously those cars are borderline too much. Having owned a couple of S197's V6's with only 2 pedals and driven many V8's with both 2 and 3 pedals my honest assessment for those cars is either a V6 manual or a V8 auto is the best bet. Partly because of my back surgery, I honestly never want to drive a clutch that's designed to hold more than 300hp ever again, at least in traffic. It could work for a back road blast, but all my cars have to see DD duty and I’m just not interested in the pain a clutch causes me any more.
Tom_Spangler wrote:Klayfish wrote: That's why I've held off from buying a V6. I know it's faster than it "feels", but if I'm buying a Mustang, I want it to be hairy chested and give me a concussion every time I mash the pedal.Honestly, this is why all these discussions of the lower engine options are lost on me. If I'm going to buy a Mustang (or Cramit), with all the compromises involved (lack of space, high insurance costs, more attention-getting styling, crappy winter performance), I better damn well have the V8 or it's not worth it to me.
There are posters from this board.
And there's the real world. Where the low option is the highest selling car, always, for Mustangs. Regardless of the engine choice, and typically and auto.
It's not a shock that most here would rather have a V8. Nor is it that big of a surprise that the rear seats are not exactly comfortable. Never would have been the model year that the rear seats were significant.
I will add the entire planet isn't a gorilla either. The BRZ Crammit Mustang ect are comfortable to some people with a useable back seat.
Now most of those people have rare genetic disorders that prevent them from riding a roller coaster, but hey they need cars too.
As long as the back seats are better than those in a 911, I can't complain too much. 15 minutes in the back of a 997 convertible was the worst 15 minutes of my life. I'm 5'9" but with short legs. Legs fit fine. Torso, not so much. I was bent forward to keep my head off the top and the seats are already shaped to kinda fold you in half a bit. I was literally squishing my guts to fit in there...
mblommel wrote: Besides all that, the 3.7 isn't a terrible motor. For chrissakes it's an all-aluminum DOHC with continuously variable valve timing, 305hp and gets nearly 30mpg. If Ford had introduced a new RWD coupe with this engine that wasn't encumbered by all the baggage that goes along with the Mustang name we'd be dancing in the streets. The 3.8 and 4.0 were turds for sure, but this thing is pretty damn nice.
I haven't driven a 3.7 in a Stang but I did in an F150 and it does motivate well. I don't think anyone here is saying it is a bad motor, just that they wouldn't miss it in a Mustang. I know if I bought a 3/5th scale F150 (new Ranger please) I would be very happy with the 3.7
mblommel wrote: I hate having to buy premium gas all the time, especially when it goes to $4/gallon. The V6 swills 87 and puts out the same power levels all day long.
All three engines run on 87. To get maximum rated HP from the EB and GT you need to run premium. To achieve peak MPG Ford recommends 87 for the EB.
rslifkin wrote: As long as the back seats are better than those in a 911, I can't complain too much. 15 minutes in the back of a 997 convertible was the worst 15 minutes of my life. I'm 5'9" but with short legs. Legs fit fine. Torso, not so much. I was bent forward to keep my head off the top and the seats are already shaped to kinda fold you in half a bit. I was literally squishing my guts to fit in there...
Why didn't you just put the top down or were you sitting in the engine bay? 
alfadriver wrote: There are posters from this board. And there's the real world. Where the low option is the highest selling car, always, for Mustangs. Regardless of the engine choice, and typically and auto. It's not a shock that most here would rather have a V8. Nor is it that big of a surprise that the rear seats are not exactly comfortable. Never would have been the model year that the rear seats were significant.
Agreed completely. Different strokes for different folks, and all that. My wife had a 2.3L 87 Mustang when I met her. I was only speaking for myself and my own preferences.
The fact that the "base" engines in pony cars are so capable these days is a great thing. It's just not my thing.
I've posted these pics before. This is one of our old V6 S550's. Note, three teenage girls on the school run every day to middle school. My daughter, the one in green behind the driver was only 5'9" then, although she's taller now.
And this is the fuel econ. That's calculates out as 77.xx mph for as near as damn it 30mpg. Cruising speed for the freeway portion of the trip was about 85mph. The V6 made good power for great economy.
There was a lot to love about those cars. This is my wife proving that a Mustang convertible is a great Sport UTILITY vehicle.
FlightService wrote: Why didn't you just put the top down or were you sitting in the engine bay?
It was raining 
The fuel economy vs. octane discussion is an interesting one as well. If you run premium fuel in the 2.3L turbo to attain maximum power, your overall fuel costs are probably going to exceed the 3.7L on 87 octane. If you're a budget conscious Mustang buyer, the price of entry and running costs will be higher with the 2.3L.
In the Camaro's case the V6 is an optional extra and runs 87. The 2.0L runs 91. Performance aside, a cost/benefit case can be made for the V6.
mblommel wrote: I do miss the V6. I think it filled a vital role; sell a ton of Mustangs to regular folks so enthusiasts could buy the GT, GT-350, GT-350R, GT-500, Cobra, etc. etc. etc. The six cylinder Mustang has been the backbone of sales since 1964 and it's made it the best selling and longest running pony car and the only one that has had uninterrupted production. Besides all that, the 3.7 isn't a terrible motor. For chrissakes it's an all-aluminum DOHC with continuously variable valve timing, 305hp and gets nearly 30mpg. If Ford had introduced a new RWD coupe with this engine that wasn't encumbered by all the baggage that goes along with the Mustang name we'd be dancing in the streets. The 3.8 and 4.0 were turds for sure, but this thing is pretty damn nice. I've driven both the V8 and V6 configurations of the S550 and liked them both. I'll definitely try out an Ecoboost 4 at some point but I'm not overly optimistic. First, I hate turbo lag. Second, I hate having to buy premium gas all the time, especially when it goes to $4/gallon. The V6 swills 87 and puts out the same power levels all day long.
Meh if a few dollars per tank of fuel is a deciding factor, you (general you) were never going to buy it or you (general you) can't afford it anyway.
Adrian_Thompson wrote: I've posted these pics before. This is one of our old V6 S550's. Note, three teenage girls on the school run every day to middle school. My daughter, the one in green behind the driver was only 5'9" then, although she's taller now.
Yes, and your daughter has a look on her face like the seat is crushing her feet...in fact you can see she's using her right arm in a futile attempt to shove the seat forward and save herself from years of pain.
I completely agree that the volume seller for the 'Stang and Cram are the base engine autos, so I totally understand why they have them. I also think these are golden times...a "base" model would absolutely lay waste to a Mustang GT of just 15 years ago, or maybe even 10 years ago. Far cry from the base 2.3L of the Fox 'stang or Iron Duke offered in the Camaro. I think the base V6 S550 is a damn good car, I've said it before. I have been, and still am, tempted to buy one. But I can't shake the "I could have had a V8" part.
z31maniac wrote:mblommel wrote: I do miss the V6....Meh if a few dollars per tank of fuel is a deciding factor, you (general you) were never going to buy it or you (general you) can't afford it anyway.
Meh I don't agree. Some people just don't like buying premium gas all the time.
mblommel wrote:z31maniac wrote:Meh I don't agree. Some people just don't like buying premium gas all the time.mblommel wrote: I do miss the V6....Meh if a few dollars per tank of fuel is a deciding factor, you (general you) were never going to buy it or you (general you) can't afford it anyway.
The car is, what, $30k? And premium is an additional 3-4 bucks a week?
That's almost as silly as the people who complain about having to buy a jug of DEF every now and then for their $50k truck that runs on fuel that costs a buck a gallon more than gasoline, and sucks it down at an alarming rate.
You'll need to log in to post.
