2020 Ford Mustang EcoBoost 2.3-Liter High Performance Package new car reviews

Is the EcoBoost Mustang still worth talking about now that the new Mach 1 has been announced? Let's answer that question with some technical specs.

Under the hood is a 2.3-liter, turbocharged inline-four good for 310 horsepower and 350 lb.-ft. of torque. However, the Mustang we got to drive came equipped with the optional 2.3-Liter High Performance Package, which bumps the horsepower to 330. That may be shy of the GT's 460 horsepower, but to put that into perceptive, that's only 20 horsepower short of the Focus RS—which shares its basic engine with the EcoBoost Mustang.

Another thing to keep in mind: We've seen what four-cylinder "base model" muscle cars are capable of before. Does that mean that the EcoBoost a good performance alternative, or is it better to just throw down a little more cash for the V8?

Like what you're reading? We rely on your financial support. For as little as $3, you can support Grassroots Motorsports by becoming a Patron today. 

Become a Patron!

Other staff views

J.G. Pasterjak
JG Pasterjak
Production/Art Director

Okay real talk, y’all: I am 100% not sure how I feel about the Ecoboost Mustang. Like, if all there was was the EcoBoost variant, with the available 330hp and 350ft/lbs. of torque with the optional High Performance box checked, I’d say this was one of the best Mustangs ever, and a four-place grand touring pony car worthy of mention in the same breath as stuff like the BMW 4 Series.

But the GT exists. And that kind of screws everything up.

Yes, the GT is more expensive. Similarly equipped as a base-model plus performance package, you’re looking around $37k for an EcoBoost and $43k for a GT. So that’s more, but not a LOT more. If you’re financing, it’s about $70 per month, and for that extra $2 per day you get a tire-shredding 460hp V8 that only gets about 10% worse fuel economy and is only around 100lbs heavier.

So it’s difficult to discuss the merits of the Ecoboost without the specter of the GT lurking just off-camera, which is kind of a bummer because taken on its own merits the EcoBoost is a truly fantastic car.

First off, the interior of the S550-chassis Mustangs is such a radical improvement over the S197 cars it’s not even funny. The seating position and control layout is fantastic, feeling very much like a car you could blast down the autobahn in at 120mph all day, or do a track day then drive it home and have both activities be equally satisfying. Outward visibility is better than the previous cars as well, which is good because the hood feels longer and wider. Having a good view makes it easier to precisely place that big front end right where you want it.

The engine is a gem. A bit of a throwback in that it’s not sewing-machine smooth, but it’s also not harsh. The right mechanical sounds and feels come through the chassis to let you know the car likes you to wail on it from time to time. There’s hums, wooshes, snorts, all at the right level that add to the party when you want them to, but never get distracting when you just want to cruise and do errands.

I can nitpick the steering wheel a bit—the overly thick spokes make 9-3 hand positions awkward—but the wheel itself is sized and positioned nicely by modern standards, and connects to an excellent steering system that communicates well with the driver.

Indeed, one of my favorite parts of our 2012 Mustang GT project car was the excellent steering. For a big, heavy car, the steering made it feel nimble and tidy. And the newest generation of Mustang seems to have only improved on that feel and feedback. The steering has the right feel and ratio where you get the impression that your hands will never have to do more work than is necessary. For me, that’s a big part of getting me to like a car—even more than absolute numbers. And our demo EcoBoost didn’t even have the optional handling package with the trick magnetic shocks.

Our test car did have the 10-speed automatic, however, which shows just how good modern automatics are. Yeah, there were some shifting delays at certain throttle openings, but they were consistent, and nothing you wouldn’t get used to after a little seat time. While Ford’s 10-speed auto probably isn’t quite as track-capable as the ZF eight-speed, it’s darn good, and could probably be even better with a little digital tuning. It’s not great cold, though. In fact, the entire car likes to have some operating temperature in it before it starts performing properly. When cold, shift points feel fairly random, and power delivery feels inconsistent. Once things come up to temperature, though, the entire powertrain is slick and responsive.

So, I guess the whole point of this review is how much the Ecoboost is making me lust after a GT. It’s like a very well-cut trailer for one of the biggest movies of the year. It’s got lots of thrills and gets you very excited, but the most exciting stuff is left out.

David S. Wallens
David S. Wallens
Editorial Director

It feels like a Mustang. It looks like a Mustang. It even goes like a Mustang.

But does it sound like one?

That might be the only issue here. The EcoBoost engine makes plenty of steam–figure at least 310 with the turbo engine, 330 as tested here–and while there’s plenty of exhaust note, it’s just not that traditional V8. Like, if the V8 Mustang never existed, you’d like be like, Hey, this sounds pretty good. But it's no secret that V8-powered Mustangs are a thing.

Do you care about the non-V8 exhaust note? If so, look at the V8 models.

But if not, there’s a lot here to like here with the turbo engine. Lotta torque. The limited-slip diff comes standard. The spec sheet shows forged crank and rods.

And it looks and acts like a Mustang. Feels like one, too, down to the big doors, long hood and splashes of hard plastic across the interior. It does all of the Mustang stuff very well. (Well, except sound like a small block Ford.)

Is it a BRZ competitor? To me, at least, it’s a different animal. The Mustang is, simply, a larger beast.

But it’s a darn fine beast. That automatic box works very well in manual mode. Shifts are crisp and clean. And it'll run on the rev limiter if you let it.

The powerband doesn’t dip. Great steering. Then add the traditional Mustang styling both inside and out.

If you like your coupes with a slight old-school vibe, even if stuffed with new-school tech, definitely check out the current turbo Mustang.

Join Free Join our community to easily find more articles.
Comments
View comments on the GRM forums
BlindPirate
BlindPirate Reader
7/9/20 6:29 p.m.

Had a 300 hp V6 Mustang. Compared to my usual Miata or even mid 90s Z28 it was a rocket ship. Got it to handle ok too. But after a bit it gets in the back of your head what 400 hp GT would be like .

Snowdoggie
Snowdoggie Reader
7/9/20 6:32 p.m.

An Ecoboost Convertible is my daily driver. Not sure I need more than 310 hp to get to work. 

11GTCS
11GTCS Reader
7/9/20 6:57 p.m.

I’d like to try one to see what the feel difference is.   Sound wise it wouldn’t be a contest, I imagine the lighter weight over the front would be a handling bonus.   Having close to 400 lb. ft. of torque with the 8 is like crack to me after a lifetime of cars with “adequate” power though.  Maybe that should be a minor confession...

No question that over 300 HP and the potential for 30 MPG is pretty sweet for a daily driver. 

Javelin (Forum Supporter)
Javelin (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
7/9/20 6:57 p.m.

I don't understand why Ford doesn't put the full 350HP Focus RS version into the Mustang and call it the SVO. They could charge a premium and it would sell as long as it has a bi-level spoiler.

mr2s2000elise
mr2s2000elise SuperDork
7/9/20 7:06 p.m.
11GTCS said:

   Having close to 400 lb. ft. of torque with the 8 is like crack to me after a lifetime of cars with “adequate” power though.  

Agree 100%. I need nothing more than a low powered Toyota Yaris or Honda Fit to get me to work and do 99.99% of everything I need. However, needs and wants are different in life. I don't sit at home, drool over Yaris, or Fit, or 4 cylinder Mustangs. My own prejudice aside, I am sure the 4 cyl ecoboost is amazing. But to me if I want a Mustang, I rather have the 5.0L Coyote. Bargains in the 1-2 year old market place. 

BlindPirate
BlindPirate Reader
7/9/20 7:17 p.m.

A 300 hp Mustang is more than enough on the street. 300 hp and close to 30 mpg is a pretty good combination, that's why I got one. For me it was just after a year or so it lost it's luster because there was something better out there. A Miata has far less power, but it is the most powerful Miata you can get. I know this isn't rational.

z31maniac
z31maniac MegaDork
7/9/20 8:09 p.m.
mr2s2000elise said:
11GTCS said:

   Having close to 400 lb. ft. of torque with the 8 is like crack to me after a lifetime of cars with “adequate” power though.  

Agree 100%. I need nothing more than a low powered Toyota Yaris or Honda Fit to get me to work and do 99.99% of everything I need. However, needs and wants are different in life. I don't sit at home, drool over Yaris, or Fit, or 4 cylinder Mustangs. My own prejudice aside, I am sure the 4 cyl ecoboost is amazing. But to me if I want a Mustang, I rather have the 5.0L Coyote. Bargains in the 1-2 year old market place. 

Exactly. Assuming I was going into the office at the moment, the best commuter would be a used Leaf.

I only drive about 40 miles per week most of the time.

A 401 CJ
A 401 CJ Dork
7/9/20 8:12 p.m.

These turbos seem to have good torque curves which should make them fun.  The fact that it’s “300 hp” doesn’t mean much to me though.  I had a 300 hp rental Camaro a couple years ago.  V6 VVT.  Unless you were really after it like a total hoon it felt very lazy.  I was not impressed running it up to Big Bear.  My old ‘94 LT-1 with only 275 hp FELT much more stout.  California gas maybe?  

 

 

Ranger50
Ranger50 UltimaDork
7/9/20 8:18 p.m.

I want to really like it, I truly do. But when a few more dollars gets you a v8 and a few more thousands and a call to Lebanon Ford gets you 750hp that is actually quite daily drivable, delivered to your doorstep, financed, and warrantied....

Patientzero
Patientzero GRM+ Memberand HalfDork
7/9/20 8:27 p.m.

I currently have an Ecoboost Fusion as my daily and my wife drives the F150 but works from home.  I drive 100 miles per day.  I'd much rather have the Mustang but really only have the Fusion as a backup for my wife to haul the kids around if I take the truck and racecar someone.  The Mustang just wouldn't be practical for my situation.

z31maniac
z31maniac MegaDork
7/9/20 8:36 p.m.
A 401 CJ said:

These turbos seem to have good torque curves which should make them fun.  The fact that it’s “300 hp” doesn’t mean much to me though.  I had a 300 hp rental Camaro a couple years ago.  V6 VVT.  Unless you were really after it like a total hoon it felt very lazy.  I was not impressed running it up to Big Bear.  My old ‘94 LT-1 with only 275 hp FELT much more stout.  California gas maybe?  

 

 

That's the torque, check out the torque curve on this engine.

wlkelley3
wlkelley3 UltraDork
7/9/20 8:57 p.m.

There's a guy local that autocrosses an Ecoboost Mustang. It is impressive, does better than you would think it would. Even with the new driver that's driving it. While not as fast as the V8 Mustangs it does seem to corner better. It's had me daydreaming about using the drivetrain in a smaller lighter car, should be even better. Been daydreaming about one of these in an old Mustang II Cobra, replacing that heavy anemic V8. Or MGB GT, Opel GT or maybe even a Spridget.

MrChaos
MrChaos GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
7/9/20 9:03 p.m.

my issue is for $7k less you can buy a base manual gt.

Patientzero
Patientzero GRM+ Memberand HalfDork
7/9/20 9:48 p.m.

In reply to MrChaos :

Where are you coming up with that?

$32,255 vs $37,075 right now on the Ford website.  

ProDarwin
ProDarwin UltimaDork
7/9/20 9:55 p.m.

I constantly daydream about this drivetrain in a 4 door car that is E46 sized.

JBinMD
JBinMD New Reader
7/9/20 11:43 p.m.

I honestly wish that the new Mustang was available with the 2nd gen 3.5L ecoboost V6.  I would prefer that over the 2.3L or the V8 every day of the week and twice on Sundays.  

secretariata (Forum Supporter)
secretariata (Forum Supporter) SuperDork
7/10/20 12:33 a.m.

I think this engine/trans combo would be sweet in a Factory Five 33 coupe with the 10 speed auto.  I had the superlust for a FF33 when they first hit the market, but then I sat in one at a GoodGuys show and realized how small the footbox was.  If you have a left foot and 3 pedals in a FF33 you have to be either riding the clutch or LF braking, because there is literally nowhere that foot can be.  I wear an 8.5D and couldn't figure out where to put my left foot...This is making me reconsider a FF33 once I retire in a few years...

MrChaos
MrChaos GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
7/10/20 6:29 a.m.
Patientzero said:

In reply to MrChaos :

Where are you coming up with that?

$32,255 vs $37,075 right now on the Ford website.  

I constantly see base gt's with manuals for 29k

z31maniac
z31maniac MegaDork
7/10/20 7:22 a.m.
MrChaos said:
Patientzero said:

In reply to MrChaos :

Where are you coming up with that?

$32,255 vs $37,075 right now on the Ford website.  

I constantly see base gt's with manuals for 29k

This is thread about the EcoBoost HP package, not the base GT. So yes, for $8k less you could get a GT. I promise this Ecoboost won't sell at MSRP either. Mustangs are always discounted, except GT350/500 type special editions......and actually because of what's going on, they are now. 

For example, this isn't a HPP car, but it's already marked almost $3k off MSRP. And I bet you could knock off another $1-2k without much effort. 

https://www.metrofordofokc.com/new-Oklahoma+City-2020-Ford-Mustang-EcoBoost-1FA6P8THXL5146179

 

Same dealer even has basically the same new car, but a '19 Ecoboost Premium for even less than the base '20.

 

Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter)
Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand UltimaDork
7/10/20 7:55 a.m.

My concern with hi output small engines is durability. Sure it's 330hp, but if it eats head gaskets and turbos 70k miles at $3-5k I'm out. Large non-boosted engines seem to last longer with less hassle. And tend to be smother, more low end torque, more tolerant of lower octane fuel.

calteg
calteg Dork
7/10/20 10:08 a.m.

Don't care, the exhaust sounds like a long fart into a wet paper bag and no amount of money can make me forget about it

D2W
D2W Dork
7/10/20 10:23 a.m.

My oldest son had a 2016 GT. Fabulous car, good handling, lots of power. Life got in the way, and living in our four season climate, he decided the payment was too much for a part time car.

Now he is in a better place with no snow. He bought a 2018 base 4 cylinder with 6 speed. Bought it last fall, end of the model year deal for $20K. He has since put on the suspension package from ford, ford's tune to take it up to 330HP, and added a 285 square tire setup. He is right at $23.5K now.

Now I am an old muscle car guy and normally would agree with what most were saying above about having the V8. However, I just got my first  chance to drive it over the 4th of July weekend. Color me impressed. It sticks like glue, and has plenty of power. It revs so fast I was constantly hitting the rev limiter. Would I still buy the V8? I would if money were no object, but for the money I would have this car over any miata/brz/370Z ect. 

 

Dave M (Forum Supporter)
Dave M (Forum Supporter) HalfDork
7/10/20 10:45 a.m.

The boostang wins the speed for money argument, particularly once you factor in the discounts.  It makes the wrong noises, and personally I think the it's too darn big, but if you want a cheap fast 2+2 coupe it wins.  The Camaro is not as discounted and the BRZ/86 is not as fast.  I would guess a GTI or Veloster are frequently cross-shopped.

Brake_L8 (Forum Supporter)
Brake_L8 (Forum Supporter) Reader
7/10/20 12:51 p.m.

I got to drive an EcoBoost Mustang HPP late last year, with the six speed. Holy cow it was a good, fun car to throw around some Maryland back roads. Felt very European and eager to turn in, compared to the V8 Mustangs I've driven. I really really really like and want V8 noises out of a Mustang, especially if I were to buy one... but it's plenty of power, handles very well, and great on fuel. Hard to argue against that.

Snowdoggie
Snowdoggie Reader
7/10/20 1:17 p.m.
Dave M (Forum Supporter) said:

The boostang wins the speed for money argument, particularly once you factor in the discounts.  It makes the wrong noises, and personally I think the it's too darn big, 

Not if you drive to work on the freeways of Dallas surrounded by full sized pickups and SUVs pushing 80. My Miata was just too small for that. A Mustang or Camaro is as small as you want to go. 

TreDeuce
TreDeuce New Reader
7/11/20 11:08 p.m.

I owned a new SVO back in the day and should of kept it. I was excited when the Ecoboost came out and while the drive train was desirable, and the envelope and interior was a slam dunk, the heavy sedan like demeanor of the Mustang even with the Ecoboost was hard to swallow.

The problem for the Mustang, for those who really like top of the game handling, is the Camaro in any guise.  On handling, I won't compromise.  The best like car for the money gets the nod if it handles great and is fun to drive. Sure, some cars can put down the numbers in various handling tests, but how it feels, and is it a dream to drive, and do you always confidently know where you are at with its dynamics, that is the winner for me.   The Camaro is more than the sum of its parts and that is a hard act to follow.

  I have got no dog in the silly Ford versus Chevy nonsense. The best car wins. Ford, though, commendable in this recent effort, just fell a bit short.  I'm not interested in boulevard cruisers. 

And regarding MPG. A properly driven Ecoboost will get mid 30's to near 40-MPG. Some have exceeded 40-MPG.

ddavidv
ddavidv PowerDork
7/12/20 6:29 a.m.

I had a right seat ride as an instructor for a student with a plain 2.3 Ecoboost Mustang two years ago. After a weekend riding in it I wouldn't spend the extra for a V8 model. Unless your main interest is doing big burnouts at some point the HP level becomes one of diminishing returns. The Ecoboost 'Stang is a wonderfully balanced (if portly) pony car.

Knerrpool
Knerrpool
8/18/20 10:19 a.m.

I've been test driving one for the past two days.  I've never had a GT so the HPP is pretty nice.  However, I've not gotten it close to the claimed 0-60 time.  Everything I've read says sub 5 seconds, if not 4.5.  I know that is on a track with high octane gas, but the best I could get was 6.5 seconds in Drag mode. - way different than 4.5.  If it claims 4.5, shouldn't it at least do 5.5?  Would it get better over time?  Is there anything else I'm missing here?

CAinCA
CAinCA GRM+ Memberand Reader
8/18/20 10:41 a.m.
Knerrpool said:

I've been test driving one for the past two days.  I've never had a GT so the HPP is pretty nice.  However, I've not gotten it close to the claimed 0-60 time.  Everything I've read says sub 5 seconds, if not 4.5.  I know that is on a track with high octane gas, but the best I could get was 6.5 seconds in Drag mode. - way different than 4.5.  If it claims 4.5, shouldn't it at least do 5.5?  Would it get better over time?  Is there anything else I'm missing here?

That's disappointing. I've had a mild interest in these since they came out. My GTI could better that though. 
 

Turbo engines are heat sensitive. What's the weather like in your neck of the woods? 

ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter)
ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) Reader
8/18/20 10:46 a.m.
Knerrpool said:

I've been test driving one for the past two days.  I've never had a GT so the HPP is pretty nice.  However, I've not gotten it close to the claimed 0-60 time.  Everything I've read says sub 5 seconds, if not 4.5.  I know that is on a track with high octane gas, but the best I could get was 6.5 seconds in Drag mode. - way different than 4.5.  If it claims 4.5, shouldn't it at least do 5.5?  Would it get better over time?  Is there anything else I'm missing here?

Bad tires + traction control?  That's a pretty big difference between claimed vs. real.

ultraclyde (Forum Supporter)
ultraclyde (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand UltimaDork
8/18/20 11:01 a.m.

I'm surprised it's only 100 lbs lighter than the GT. That kills what I felt was the major case for buying one over a GT. 

z31maniac
z31maniac MegaDork
8/18/20 11:14 a.m.
Knerrpool said:

I've been test driving one for the past two days.  I've never had a GT so the HPP is pretty nice.  However, I've not gotten it close to the claimed 0-60 time.  Everything I've read says sub 5 seconds, if not 4.5.  I know that is on a track with high octane gas, but the best I could get was 6.5 seconds in Drag mode. - way different than 4.5.  If it claims 4.5, shouldn't it at least do 5.5?  Would it get better over time?  Is there anything else I'm missing here?

Tires? Surface? Standard or auto? Are you getting into the traction control at launch?

That's slower than the claimed time for an Auto BRZ.

 

This is like saying "X car is faster than Y car on track." What is the prep level? Tires? Driver skill? etc. Can't really answer without knowing all the variables.

Knerrpool
Knerrpool New Reader
8/18/20 11:40 a.m.

I'll admit, I'm not a pro.  I'm testing this on streets, not tracks, in Virginia (hot but not ungodly at the moment).  But, I generally think I know what I'm doing.  It's a brand new car.  New tires, good road surface. No spinning at launch (even at full bore although I tested it a number of different ways).  It's automatic, with what I've read is supposed to be faster than manual.    I tested in all modes - normal, sport, track and drag.  The fastest I got was 6.5 in drag.  I was not expecting to get 4.5, or even under 5 at all.  But I was certainly expecting under 6.  I currently drive a 2011 Fusion Sport that I've clocked (unofficially) at just about 6. 

ultraclyde (Forum Supporter)
ultraclyde (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand UltimaDork
8/18/20 12:09 p.m.

Not long after new I clocked a 5.1 0-60 in my S197 GT 5spd, same thing Motor trend got in their test. I could never hit it again, but it would regularly get under 5.5 without special prep. I wonder if the new cars are restricted for a time as part of the break in or something. 

Knerrpool
Knerrpool New Reader
8/18/20 12:36 p.m.
ultraclyde (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm surprised it's only 100 lbs lighter than the GT. That kills what I felt was the major case for buying one over a GT. 

Yeah, exactly.  I was fully prepared to buy the car, and would have if it had even gotten close to that mark, but it didn't.  I realize it's not like I'm going to race it, so maybe it doesn'treally matter.  But, like someone said earlier, it's a matter of want versus need.  Plus, if it says High Performance on the side badge, it ought to be able to beat my Fusion.  The GM was not happy after I returned it following an overnight keep, but I felt that was a justifiable reason.

My question now is, was it just this car or is it all of them?  I don't know if I want to spend the time to track down another one.

Knerrpool
Knerrpool New Reader
8/18/20 1:08 p.m.
ultraclyde (Forum Supporter) said:

I wonder if the new cars are restricted for a time as part of the break in or something. 

That's kind of what I was thinking (hoping?) too, although I don't know why that would be.  Plus, I'm sure the salesperson/GM would have made that point clear when I told him I was disappointed with it.

engiekev
engiekev Reader
8/18/20 2:17 p.m.
Knerrpool said:

I've been test driving one for the past two days.  I've never had a GT so the HPP is pretty nice.  However, I've not gotten it close to the claimed 0-60 time.  Everything I've read says sub 5 seconds, if not 4.5.  I know that is on a track with high octane gas, but the best I could get was 6.5 seconds in Drag mode. - way different than 4.5.  If it claims 4.5, shouldn't it at least do 5.5?  Would it get better over time?  Is there anything else I'm missing here?

You need to run high octane gas 93 Octane minimum to get advertised power on the 2.3L, if you run 87 Octane expect at least 12% drop in horsepower down to 275HP (that's without HPP package), torque drop is not as drastic but still some. 

Most dealers keep 87 octane in the 2.3L mustangs.

"When running the good stuff, the EcoBoost engine produces 310 horsepower and 320 pound-feet of torque. Should you decide to fill up with 87, you can expect a power output of 275 horsepower and 300 pound-feet of torque, at least that's according to a Ford training manual obtained by Mustang6G"

https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1096178_2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-power-down-with-87-octane--updated-with-comment-from-ford#:~:text=The%202.3%2Dliter%20EcoBoost%20produces,a%20lower%20octane%20fuel%20mixture.

Knerrpool
Knerrpool New Reader
8/18/20 2:24 p.m.

In reply to engiekev :

Thanks, that is helpful and I figured there would be some such dropoff.  Don't know what that translates into regarding the 0-60 time, but it still should handily beat my Ford Fusion (which is also using 87 octane gas).  It doesn't.

captdownshift (Forum Supporter)
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand UltimaDork
8/18/20 2:45 p.m.

3500lb curb weight is where I'm lost.

 

Ford should put this in a sub 3000lb, small, mid engined car and call it the RS2300. Shake up the market for the frisbee twins, miata and AWD turbo rocket sleds. 

ultraclyde (Forum Supporter)
ultraclyde (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand UltimaDork
8/18/20 2:55 p.m.

My 4.6L S197 with full premium interior scales at mid 3400lbs with the jack and spare removed. Probably makes 325hp. so comparable to the EB Mustang, basically.

 

Sounds like the drop from 310 to 275 in the EB on low octane is worth about 2 seconds on the zero to sixty. 

Snowdoggie
Snowdoggie HalfDork
8/18/20 3:15 p.m.
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:

3500lb curb weight is where I'm lost.

 

Ford should put this in a sub 3000lb, small, mid engined car and call it the RS2300. Shake up the market for the frisbee twins, miata and AWD turbo rocket sleds. 

They sell a Ford Focus with the same engine in Europe. It wouldn't be that hard to ship a few of them here. 

CyberEric
CyberEric Dork
8/18/20 3:28 p.m.

I’ve tried to hit 0-60 times from the magazines in several cars and  never come close.

I’ve heard people at the magazines say you will never hit their numbers. The amount of launches they do on certain surfaces is way more than you’d want to put your car through was the sentiment I got.

stan
stan GRM+ Memberand UltraDork
8/18/20 4:02 p.m.
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:

3500lb curb weight is where I'm lost.

 

Ford should put this in a sub 3000lb, small, mid engined car and call it the RS2300. Shake up the market for the frisbee twins, miata and AWD turbo rocket sleds. 

 Would love to have an opportunity to buy a new "RS2300" and would probably be my last new car.  : D

 

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) MegaDork
8/18/20 4:53 p.m.
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:

3500lb curb weight is where I'm lost.

 

Ford should put this in a sub 3000lb, small, mid engined car and call it the RS2300. Shake up the market for the frisbee twins, miata and AWD turbo rocket sleds. 

I have a feeling that total frisbee and Miata combined sales don't add up to enough for Ford to bother venturing into the market.  Ford has overwhemingly decided that they want nothing to do with niche markets.

captdownshift (Forum Supporter)
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand UltimaDork
8/18/20 5:04 p.m.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

There's a reason for them to make it work. It be in obtainable halo car. For people that have obviously other vehicles multiple vehicles and are likely the types to buy the first vehicles for their children. if you're confident and the other offerings that you have on your showroom floor when they come in for their midlife crisis car you're going to have the potential to sell them three to four to five other vehicles within the next 10 to 12 years. 

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) MegaDork
8/18/20 6:03 p.m.

In reply to captdownshift (Forum Supporter) :

This is the same company that has placed all its chips in "Americans will be buying conservative utility vehicles so we ain't gonna bother selling anything with a trunk that doesn't rhyme with Schmustang".  The Mustang IS their halo car.  They had zero interest in selling Fiestas and Focuses and Fusions and Tauruses because THEY did not sell in large enough numbers to bother!

 

Sad truth is, if you want a fun little car, you have to go to Japan, where niche sales are a way of life.  Or if you want an actual CAR, you need to buy a Hyundai, where they are still (thankfully) about ten-fifteen years behind, trend-wise.

 

Now, I hear the UK Pound is cratering, making it very export friendly, and the isles have traditionally been a source of cottage industry sports cars.  AND, Ford sells an emissions legal crate version of the 2.3 Ecoboost.  AND, kit cars below a certain sales per year are exempt from US safety regs as long as they meet emissions standards.  The math, I'll let you do it.

z31maniac
z31maniac MegaDork
8/18/20 6:31 p.m.
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:

3500lb curb weight is where I'm lost.

 

Ford should put this in a sub 3000lb, small, mid engined car and call it the RS2300. Shake up the market for the frisbee twins, miata and AWD turbo rocket sleds. 

That would be a relatively expensive car. 

Even the BRZ weighs basically 2800 lbs. Add in the turbo and associated plumbing, crash standards, the trim level/options that would be required to support the price...............

I it suspect it would noticeably more expensive than a PP2 Mustang GT and a LOT less profitable. 

z31maniac
z31maniac MegaDork
8/18/20 6:34 p.m.

A '95 MR2 Turbo would be $51k in today's dollars. And that's essentially what you're asking for. 

I don't think you'll see people buy something like that when they could spend a few more and get " 'Murica V8 Corvette"

STM317
STM317 UberDork
8/19/20 5:06 a.m.
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:

3500lb curb weight is where I'm lost.

 

Ford should put this in a sub 3000lb, small, mid engined car and call it the RS2300. Shake up the market for the frisbee twins, miata and AWD turbo rocket sleds. 

Isn't that what the Alfa 4C is (was? Are they even making it anymore?)

Strizzo
Strizzo PowerDork
8/19/20 7:48 a.m.
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

There's a reason for them to make it work. It be in obtainable halo car. For people that have obviously other vehicles multiple vehicles and are likely the types to buy the first vehicles for their children. if you're confident and the other offerings that you have on your showroom floor when they come in for their midlife crisis car you're going to have the potential to sell them three to four to five other vehicles within the next 10 to 12 years. 

The mustang GT is already an obtainable halo car. For just over the average new car sales price, you can get a 460hp rocket ship that makes insane noises when you want it to. For around 40k you can get one with all the track pack, recaro seats, fancy stereo, etc

engiekev
engiekev Reader
8/19/20 7:56 a.m.
Knerrpool said:

In reply to engiekev :

Thanks, that is helpful and I figured there would be some such dropoff.  Don't know what that translates into regarding the 0-60 time, but it still should handily beat my Ford Fusion (which is also using 87 octane gas).  It doesn't.

It could definitely account for a couple seconds off the 0-60 time.  With turbo engines, octane makes a far larger difference than naturally aspirated engines.  This is just physics and thermodynamics at play, nothing new with the ecoboost engines. Also like others stated its very difficult to reproduce magazine or mfr 0-60 times, there are far too many variables to get just right in uncontrolled tests on the street.  I would caution against comparing the measured 0-60 time from the Ecoboost Mustang, to the mfr stated 0-60 from the fusion.  Regardless, you would likely see 1-2s off your 0-60 test time with 93 octane gas, allowing some time for the ECU to "learn" the higher octane fuel before the test.

You also have to consider area under the curve of the engine power output; with 93 Octane it makes 310HP peak, with 87 Octane it makes 275HP peak.  Those are mfr stated numbers at the crankshaft in brake horsepower. 

Granted this is not the HPP mustang results, but here is a vehicle dyno plot showing wheel horsepower. What is important here is the difference between 87 vs 93 octane (trying to compare absolute values of dyno wheel horsepower to crankshaft BHP is meaningless). Notice the large difference in the HP curve after 4000RPM all the way to redline, and think about what RPM the vehicle operates at during a 0-60 run (about 4500-6500RPM depending on transmission).

Snrub
Snrub HalfDork
8/19/20 8:54 a.m.

^ I wonder if that dyno and engiekev's sensible suggestion of dealers using 87 octane is why I hated the 2.3L ecoboost when I drove it. I didn't like the way the power rapidly fell off as the revs climbed. Edit: Sounds like the PP variant has a broader power curve as well.

I definitely see a place for the smaller engined mustang (although I didn't like it :) ), I don't see it being V8 or nothing. A lot of crossover driving members of the general public have that perspective. It's certainly no where near slow in a straight line and there are many other desirable attributes. Maybe it makes the most sense in a near-base trim?

The next gen mustang is coming out pretty soon. It'll be interesting if they can keep the weight down while platform sharing with the exploder. It sounds like the Camaro may be going away, which may help prop up Mustang sales in the wake of gloomy sales trends.

Knerrpool
Knerrpool New Reader
8/19/20 11:46 a.m.

In reply to engiekev :

Interesting stuff.  So, it would appear 6.5 is what you would expect with 87 octane.  Based on what I'm seeing, even with higher octane and ideal conditions it seems a little hard to believe you could even get to 4.5 as Ford claims. 

Knerrpool
Knerrpool New Reader
8/19/20 1:54 p.m.

Thanks for all of the replies.  I guess my big hang up is this:

All things considered, I would have expected a car named Mustang 2.3L Turbo with High Performance Package to be, straight off the lot with a normal driver, faster to 0-60 than a base Altima or Optima.  At 6.5 seconds, not only is it not faster, its probably slower - it's definitely slower than my Fusion.

It seems you've got to really try (including using only the most expensive gasoline) in order to get this car close to its advertised performance.   What I actually really like about this car is that it is NOT a GT (nothing against GTs, I just like to be "different"). But, I'm not sure its worth it.  

 

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) MegaDork
8/19/20 2:11 p.m.

In reply to Knerrpool :

Surface also matters in traction limited applications.  Don't even bother trying on asphalt...

MrFancypants
MrFancypants Reader
8/19/20 2:16 p.m.
Knerrpool said:

(including using only the most expensive gasoline)

 

It's a turbocharged car. That's just how it works. To get more power you need more boost, to get more boost you need more knock resistance, and to get more knock reisistance you need higher octane fuel.

DirtyBird222
DirtyBird222 UberDork
8/19/20 3:52 p.m.
Snowdoggie said:
Dave M (Forum Supporter) said:

The boostang wins the speed for money argument, particularly once you factor in the discounts.  It makes the wrong noises, and personally I think the it's too darn big, 

Not if you drive to work on the freeways of Dallas surrounded by full sized pickups and SUVs pushing 80. My Miata was just too small for that. A Mustang or Camaro is as small as you want to go. 

Pfff I drove an S2000 around in Texas for a year and felt fine. 

DirtyBird222
DirtyBird222 UberDork
8/19/20 3:57 p.m.

I've also had 6AT Ecoboost Mustangs for rentals and absolutely loved them. I even almost considered one over a Camaro SS once; however, I was in Vegas and my co-worker had just gotten a 5.0 rental. We deemed ourselves scientists that week and had to do some testing on our hypothesis of Ford vs. Chevy V8s in the desert. 

Anyways, for a daily driver/autox/trackday car the EB all day. It sounds like a bobcat screeching (look it up) but that's something I could get over if I was in the market for something like this. 

z31maniac
z31maniac MegaDork
8/19/20 4:44 p.m.
DirtyBird222 said:
Snowdoggie said:
Dave M (Forum Supporter) said:

The boostang wins the speed for money argument, particularly once you factor in the discounts.  It makes the wrong noises, and personally I think the it's too darn big, 

Not if you drive to work on the freeways of Dallas surrounded by full sized pickups and SUVs pushing 80. My Miata was just too small for that. A Mustang or Camaro is as small as you want to go. 

Pfff I drove an S2000 around in Texas for a year and felt fine. 

With my NA Miata I my eye level was equal with the bottom of the door of most full-sized trucks. Lifted ones I could easily see under. Never worried about it. Don't worry about it now in my NC either. 

I'll never own another motorcycle again however. 

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) MegaDork
8/19/20 6:34 p.m.
MrFancypants said:
Knerrpool said:

(including using only the most expensive gasoline)

 

It's a turbocharged car. That's just how it works. To get more power you need more boost, to get more boost you need more knock resistance, and to get more knock reisistance you need higher octane fuel.

Not going to spend $40k on a car with the handling and power it has, then be bitter about having to spend $3 per gallon for 93 instead of $2 for 87.  (Prices pulled from the pumps I was at today, YMMV.  And yes, my 17mpg pig is really happy on 93...)

alfadriver (Forum Supporter)
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
8/19/20 6:57 p.m.

Can I say it's amusing that many here want to modify the Mustang to make it more like a smaller, sportier, car.  

The Mustang outsells each of those cars in one quarter.  Why in the world would any company be interested in selling less of a product?  Especially one that would not be cheaper to make- so it would end up less profitable.

I don't know this, but I suspect that the 2.3 already barely makes any money, but if not for it, the high value specials would cost many times as much to make, and then not make them profitable.

Bear in mind, the Mustang only exists because both the 2.3 and the 5.0 are used in other vehicles.  So the plants they are made at are running full out (especially the 2.3, which is in a lot of vehicles).

But it does also make me really mad that we don't sell cars anymore.  I want a Focus, and can't get one, for no logical reason- since we make them all over the world.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) MegaDork
8/19/20 7:02 p.m.

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

What else is the 2.3 used in?

 

I mean, academically I know it's a generic engine.  But the only four cylinder Ecoboosts that I ever see are 1.5s, 1.6s, and the occasional 2.0.

z31maniac
z31maniac MegaDork
8/19/20 8:25 p.m.
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

Can I say it's amusing that many here want to modify the Mustang to make it more like a smaller, sportier, car.  

The Mustang outsells each of those cars in one quarter.  Why in the world would any company be interested in selling less of a product?  Especially one that would not be cheaper to make- so it would end up less profitable.

I don't know this, but I suspect that the 2.3 already barely makes any money, but if not for it, the high value specials would cost many times as much to make, and then not make them profitable.

Bear in mind, the Mustang only exists because both the 2.3 and the 5.0 are used in other vehicles.  So the plants they are made at are running full out (especially the 2.3, which is in a lot of vehicles).

But it does also make me really mad that we don't sell cars anymore.  I want a Focus, and can't get one, for no logical reason- since we make them all over the world.

It's the same GRM stuff as always. 

Refuse to buy new cars, then bitch that manufacturers don't make anything they want. Then claim they don't buy new because manufacturers don't make anything they want.

 

And the circular logic continues ad nauseum.

Strizzo
Strizzo PowerDork
8/19/20 9:06 p.m.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Ranger, it will be the base engine in the new bronco, I think it comes in the explorer as base engine as well

STM317
STM317 UberDork
8/20/20 4:33 a.m.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

What else is the 2.3 used in?

Ranger, Edge, Explorer, Lincoln MKC/Corsair (Escape platform), new Bronco

Globally, I think the new Focus ST and Everest get it as well

alfadriver (Forum Supporter)
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
8/20/20 6:38 a.m.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

The big one is the Explorer.  It remains to be seen how popular the Ranger and Bronco will be long term, and everyone knows Lincoln isn't exactly on every corner.

And the 2,0l is also huge- Escape, Edge, Explorer (too)- as well as the Mondeo in the rest of the world.  But it was the high end engine in the Fusion for many years.

The 1.6 is gone.  And the 1.5l "base" engine will be 3 cyl.

Dave M (Forum Supporter)
Dave M (Forum Supporter) HalfDork
8/20/20 9:30 a.m.
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

 

But it does also make me really mad that we don't sell cars anymore.  I want a Focus, and can't get one, for no logical reason- since we make them all over the world.

Not to be facetious, but the competition put Ford cars ex-Mustang out of business.  You want a hatchback? There are better cars than the Focus, whether you wanted a cheap practical car or whether you wanted a hot hatch. OK, maybe not the Focus RS, but the rest of the Foci.  You want a sedan?  The Fusion was pure meh, although the PHEV was nifty if you wanted to get stealth mileage. Etc., etc.

alfadriver (Forum Supporter)
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
8/20/20 9:39 a.m.

In reply to Dave M (Forum Supporter) :

As far as I'm concerned, that's an excuse.  It's not as if knowing how to make a profitable, desirable CAR isn't known.  I sometimes wonder if the direction cars took since Mullaly left was a self fulfilling plan.  Take stuff out of cars, sales go down, profits go down, and "Look, cars don't make money"  well, when you do that, duh.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) MegaDork
8/20/20 9:43 a.m.

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

I tried to edit my post but the forum kept hanging.

 

I'm speaking strictly of my shop's clientele, which is primarily cars 4-10 years old.  Most Ford SUVs I see are 3.5, 2.5, or 1.6 Ecoboost.  I see about one 2.0 EB per year, and have one customer with a 3.5EB Flex.

Dave M (Forum Supporter)
Dave M (Forum Supporter) HalfDork
8/20/20 9:48 a.m.

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

That could be. Cars as a whole are a shrinking market, while CUVs/SUVs are a growth market.  So it's easier to go for a steady slice of a growing pie than a larger slice of a shrinking pie - particularly when your competitors are better at making desirable, profitable cars than you are.  So maybe Ford management is just being realistic?  Making cars is an awful, low-margin business (apparently except for the magic accountants at Tesla).

alfadriver (Forum Supporter)
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
8/20/20 10:38 a.m.

In reply to Dave M (Forum Supporter) :

But it's not non-existant.   There are car people out there, and not all of them want a cheap car.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) MegaDork
8/20/20 10:44 a.m.

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

If you want nonexistent, how about the market for a luxury compact economy car?

My S40 spoiled me for that.  Anything else as small felt like crap inside. What else like that was ever sold in the US? Infiniti G20?  Most things in that size range feel cheap and shoddy no matter what.  Mercedes tried with the C-class hatch but that wasn't much of an economy car.

z31maniac
z31maniac MegaDork
8/20/20 11:35 a.m.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

If you want nonexistent, how about the market for a luxury compact economy car?

My S40 spoiled me for that.  Anything else as small felt like crap inside. What else like that was ever sold in the US? Infiniti G20?  Most things in that size range feel cheap and shoddy no matter what.  Mercedes tried with the C-class hatch but that wasn't much of an economy car.

Lexus IS200h or whatever? Basically a taller hatchback, luxury Prius?

I considered one at one point but was like that's a lot of damn money for a tiny little car.

 

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) MegaDork
8/20/20 11:47 a.m.

In reply to z31maniac :

CT200h? Been looking at those, although they seem a bit underpowered.  And it doesn't have a trunk.  More power would help overlook the lack of trunk.

z31maniac
z31maniac MegaDork
8/20/20 11:51 a.m.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to z31maniac :

CT200h? Been looking at those, although they seem a bit underpowered.  And it doesn't have a trunk.  More power would help overlook the lack of trunk.

Ahh yes, that's it. I thought one would be neat to save money on commuting a few years back before I was divorced, but realize the small savings in fuel wasn't worth it vs something I enjoyed driving.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) MegaDork
8/20/20 1:44 p.m.

In reply to z31maniac :

The S40 could do over 40 highway.  Not as much nerd factor as watching a battery gauge go up and down per driving style, though.

Our Preferred Partners
VUF7O6u3MYLCAferW0RV8XNucxkBFram4oKgTPYaE8z5MavfuueD57c1n5YnJopT