"It's Not You, It's Us-And That EcoBoost:" C/D Reviews '15 Mustang Auto Droptop

[El Kabong]

"Every EcoBoost-powered Ford that we’ve tested, Mustang or otherwise, has either delivered decent fuel economy or served up great power-but never both simultaneously. The EcoBoost installed in the droptop Mustang delivers neither, being both the slowest 2015 Mustang we’ve tested while also not being particularly efficient."

"A last-generation Mustang V-6 convertible we rented outran this EcoBoost... the Mustang driver will need the turbo’s racket to mask his or her whimpering shame when Volkswagen GTIs and Honda Accord V-6s display their taillights in stoplight drag races."

"You could forgo the EcoBoost for the V-6, but Ford rigs that ballot: The cheaper V-6 Mustangs are restricted to but a handful of options—no navigation, no heated and cooled seats, and none of the performance-enhancing goodies available on EcoBoost and V-8 models. That has the effect of forcing many buyers up to the EcoBoost, which starts at $35,700. With options, our turbocharged convertible rang in at an as-tested price of $43,365."

"This is particularly frustrating in light of the rest of the convertible package’s general excellence... It would be a treat to pair the Mustang’s full dynamic potential with the least-expensive engine, particularly since that engine is actually good, but that doesn’t fit Ford’s marketing scheme... for now, if you want a topless Mustang with lots of stuff and a nice engine, you’ll need to pony up a minimum of $42,700 to get into a V-8–powered GT droptop."

Basically, the EB marketing guys sabotage a pretty good car. Read more at

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-convertible-test-review

Edited July 28, 2015 by El Kabong

[ocnblu]

EcoBust then?

[David]

Yea another FORD Failure, they just do not get it and my gut tells me FORD will be looking long term at a market decline over the next few years due to the piss poor marketing driven cheapness of the auto's.

 

I know things rust, but when you see a new Mustang and the bulk of the engine is rusty while being new with less than 10 miles on the showroom floor it smells of cut corners.

[El Kabong]

It lends credence to TAF's claims that Ford is trying to force EB engines on the buying public, that's for sure. It sounds like C/D is getting seriously fed up with it as well.

[ccap41]

"Highs: Quicker than it needs to be, A+ visibility, remarkable fuel mileage."

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/full-review-of-the-2015-ford-transit-xlt-van-review

[El Kabong]

Great. You cherry-picked one example. Appropriate that it was a fleet vehicle, but never mind that.

Seriously now: why does Ford feel compelled to alienate private customers? Surely they must realize that last month's sales figures mean something.

Edited July 28, 2015 by El Kabong

[cp-the-nerd]

Yea another FORD Failure, they just do not get it and my gut tells me FORD will be looking long term at a market decline over the next few years due to the piss poor marketing driven cheapness of the auto's.

 

I know things rust, but when you see a new Mustang and the bulk of the engine is rusty while being new with less than 10 miles on the showroom floor it smells of cut corners.

 

I think at worst they'll remain steady. American cars are poised to take market share from the Japanese brands, particularly Toyota, as the default reputation of reliability and quality wears out. People are steadily becoming less enamored with the old engineering and poor driving qualities of Toyota's volume models. The Camry and Corolla remain near the top of their segments relying heavily on fleet sales and ignorant consumers.

 

Ford's Ecoboost engines will only improve, the handling and driving dynamics of cars like the Focus, Fusion, and Escape are already some of the best out there.

[ccap41]

Great. You cherry-picked one example. Appropriate that it was a fleet vehicle, but never mind that.

Seriously now: why does Ford feel compelled to alienate private customers? Surely they must realize that last month's sales figures mean something.

Only needed one example because your opening line was "Every EcoBoost-powered Ford that we’ve tested, Mustang or otherwise, has either delivered decent fuel economy or served up great power-but never both simultaneously." And it was a C/D review, in July of this year.

[ccap41]

 

Great. You cherry-picked one example. Appropriate that it was a fleet vehicle, but never mind that.

Seriously now: why does Ford feel compelled to alienate private customers? Surely they must realize that last month's sales figures mean something.

Only needed one example because your opening line was "Every EcoBoost-powered Ford that we’ve tested, Mustang or otherwise, has either delivered decent fuel economy or served up great power-but never both simultaneously." And it was a C/D review, in July of this year.

 

Well I missed the edit window.. So I'll just post everything seperate..

 

Only needed one example because your opening line was "Every EcoBoost-powered Ford that we’ve tested, Mustang or otherwise, has either delivered decent fuel economy or served up great power-but never both simultaneously."

 

And my example was a C/D review, in July of this year. Their staff should get on the same page.

 

From that article it seems like they are more upset about packaging rather than the engine itself. And I'll agree. I think Ford's packaging can be really $h!ty. I mean unless you want to custom order a vehicle with the "ala carte" options but then you are definitely paying full MSRP for that. I've tried building Fords online and there seems to be 1 feature I want from each equipment group that totally jacks the price up.

 

Example, I tried to build a MKC online. I wanted the 2.3, AWD. Simple start.. Then it has basically everything I always want at that point exept I wanted to add adaptive cruise control and the larger wheels. Two seperate packages.. 10k to get those two things. F that.

[cp-the-nerd]

 

 

Great. You cherry-picked one example. Appropriate that it was a fleet vehicle, but never mind that.

Seriously now: why does Ford feel compelled to alienate private customers? Surely they must realize that last month's sales figures mean something.

Only needed one example because your opening line was "Every EcoBoost-powered Ford that we’ve tested, Mustang or otherwise, has either delivered decent fuel economy or served up great power-but never both simultaneously." And it was a C/D review, in July of this year.

 

Well I missed the edit window.. So I'll just post everything seperate..

 

Only needed one example because your opening line was "Every EcoBoost-powered Ford that we’ve tested, Mustang or otherwise, has either delivered decent fuel economy or served up great power-but never both simultaneously."

 

And my example was a C/D review, in July of this year. Their staff should get on the same page.

 

From that article it seems like they are more upset about packaging rather than the engine itself. And I'll agree. I think Ford's packaging can be really $h!ty. I mean unless you want to custom order a vehicle with the "ala carte" options but then you are definitely paying full MSRP for that. I've tried building Fords online and there seems to be 1 feature I want from each equipment group that totally jacks the price up.

 

Example, I tried to build a MKC online. I wanted the 2.3, AWD. Simple start.. Then it has basically everything I always want at that point exept I wanted to add adaptive cruise control and the larger wheels. Two seperate packages.. 10k to get those two things. F that.

 

 

Most dealers will work with you on swapping wheels. It's easy money for them. Generally I agree, though. I hate nonsensical packaging.

Edited July 28, 2015 by cp-the-nerd

[El Kabong]

Great. You cherry-picked one example. Appropriate that it was a fleet vehicle, but never mind that.

Seriously now: why does Ford feel compelled to alienate private customers? Surely they must realize that last month's sales figures mean something.

Only needed one example because your opening line was "Every EcoBoost-powered Ford that we’ve tested, Mustang or otherwise, has either delivered decent fuel economy or served up great power-but never both simultaneously." And it was a C/D review, in July of this year.

Staff should get on the same page, perhaps (magazine deadlines are weird things). Be that as it may, it is the first review I've seen where they've showered praise on an EB driveline. And let's be honest, the commercial van segment in NA is currently in a pretty unsettled state. Ford, Sprinter, and GM are beginning to transition to Euro-style stuff, while Nissan (?) is sticking with being a 21st century Econoline. I'd like a bigger sample size before I change my opinion, personally. Edited July 28, 2015 by El Kabong

[David]

Over all I think the OEM's need to allow Ala-cart building of any auto. Where certain electronics can be bundled for a savings then pass it onto the buyer. Otherwise DO NOT cripple the buyers from building an auto their way.

[ccap41]

Over all I think the OEM's need to allow Ala-cart building of any auto. Where certain electronics can be bundled for a savings then pass it onto the buyer. Otherwise DO NOT cripple the buyers from building an auto their way.

I completely agree. It is too large of an investment to be either obligated to spend out of our budget for something or not get what you want or the next X amount of years.

[El Kabong]

Over all I think the OEM's need to allow Ala-cart building of any auto. Where certain electronics can be bundled for a savings then pass it onto the buyer. Otherwise DO NOT cripple the buyers from building an auto their way.

It is mind-boggling to me that a company would be so blindly tied to an engine configuration that they would sacrifice sales to keep it in a prominent place in the lineup, even as third-party reviewers continue to poke holes in said engine's ability to get the job done.

Edited July 28, 2015 by El Kabong

[Suaviloquent]

 

Over all I think the OEM's need to allow Ala-cart building of any auto. Where certain electronics can be bundled for a savings then pass it onto the buyer. Otherwise DO NOT cripple the buyers from building an auto their way.

It is mind-boggling to me that a company would be so blindly tied to an engine configuration that they would sacrifice sales to keep it in a prominent place in the lineup, even as third-party reviewers continue to poke holes in said engine's ability to get the job done.

 

 

It's not really sales that matter at the volumes carmakers are selling. It's margins. And I think today Ford posted the highest ever quarterly profits in 15 years. Someone should analyze their results but at the end of the day, Ford's making more money, while selling less units. 

 

Operational efficiency could very well be what they're after. 

[El Kabong]

I do see the logic of that, especially in regards to the V6 EB engine. My question is: how aggressive are the profit margins and to what extent would sales losses have to reach to nullify them? If Ford is able to maintain solid profits by catering to fleets then good for them. In hindsight it's clear that fleet is the more logical market for many EB vehicles because fleet orders are placed based on official numbers, including paper FE ratings. Thus, there are no disgruntled customers to worry about.

[Suaviloquent]

I do see the logic of that, especially in regards to the V6 EB engine. My question is: how aggressive are the profit margins and to what extent would sales losses have to reach to nullify them? If Ford is able to maintain solid profits by catering to fleets then good for them. In hindsight it's clear that fleet is the more logical market for many EB vehicles because fleet orders are placed based on official numbers, including paper FE ratings. Thus, there are no disgruntled customers to worry about.

 

If it's going to be a dollar and cents debate, realize that sales losses aren't really losses if you make up for that and then some by selling to fat wallets.

 

In that case, one could say Ford is going upmarket and attracting wealthy clientele. I think that's the most favourable customers to get. Maybe it's something to do with the credit worthiness of their customers. Perhaps Ford has a shorter A/R turnover period. 

 

Again, so many things have to be looked at THAT have NOTHING to do with Ford's cars or the subjective experiences of Ford's EcoBoost in the hands of us or journalists. It's about crunching the numbers.

 

Someone should go to some reputed investment firm or something... especially if they are well networked and then ask about Ford from an investment standpoint. Should I buy their common shares or pref shares? Are they doing well? Is the company financially healthy? Are they sacrificing equipment, and facilities to churn - potentially incurring costs in the future? Can they pay their debts in one year? 5 years? Again, questions that would culminate in an answer that would give us everything.

 

The answers are there, but most auto enthusiasts will not go the correct route to do so; and the lame online searches are not the right answers. 

[El Kabong]

Duly noted. As a guy who loves the product end of the business I don't pay a whole lotta mind to that end of it. I recognize the need for a company to make money, but my bias towards product will probably continue to make such concerns a bit less important to me than they would be for many. After all, the endgame there leads to Toyota-and Toyota struggles mightily with making interesting cars.

Edited July 29, 2015 by El Kabong

[smk4565]

Turbo engines often don't offer fuel economy and power.  If you drive a 4-cylinder turbo with a light foot and keep the revs low, then you get good fuel economy because it is a 4 cylinder.  If you push it hard because you want V8 like power and are always on the boost, then you get V8 like fuel economy.  Not surprised at their findings, and I always thought Mustangs were way over rated on performance, other than the Shelby models of course, and the recent 5.0 V8 coupes are pretty quick.

 

I am a bit surprised it did 0-60 in 6.1 seconds, a V6 Camry can do that, probably beat it.

[Suaviloquent]

Turbo engines often don't offer fuel economy and power.  If you drive a 4-cylinder turbo with a light foot and keep the revs low, then you get good fuel economy because it is a 4 cylinder.  If you push it hard because you want V8 like power and are always on the boost, then you get V8 like fuel economy.  Not surprised at their findings, and I always thought Mustangs were way over rated on performance, other than the Shelby models of course, and the recent 5.0 V8 coupes are pretty quick.

 

I am a bit surprised it did 0-60 in 6.1 seconds, a V6 Camry can do that, probably beat it.

 

Turbo engines often don't offer fuel economy and power.  If you drive a 4-cylinder turbo with a light foot and keep the revs low, then you get good fuel economy because it is a 4 cylinder.  If you push it hard because you want V8 like power and are always on the boost, then you get V8 like fuel economy.  Not surprised at their findings, and I always thought Mustangs were way over rated on performance, other than the Shelby models of course, and the recent 5.0 V8 coupes are pretty quick.

 

I am a bit surprised it did 0-60 in 6.1 seconds, a V6 Camry can do that, probably beat it.

 

For humour...

 

I'll throw another curveball. Why are we always so fixated on 0-60? What if the Ecoboost Stang's 0-30 is faster than the 0-30 of the base V6, heck maybe even V8?

 

I'm not rooting for the EcoBoost as much as just trying to get at the heart of the debate.

 

Maybe soccer dads/mom who want a sporty coupe can't go past 60 in residential and school zones but want a quick 0-30 for a 30 mph limit. Perhaps on their test drive they tried that and BLAMO the torque dump instantly made a better impression over the V6. 

 

The vast majority of these drivers of this particular Mustang configuration will not drive the Stang as the journalists will. I think the same applies for similar competitors. Heck we obviously know that this and the Buick Cascada might overlap with buyers. So what if a person buys a Mustang but drives it like a preconceived notion of how late Buicks drive while a person drives the Cascada expecting a coupe with atleast a smidgen of performance? 

[Suaviloquent]

Duly noted. As a guy who loves the product end of the business I don't pay a whole lotta mind to that end of it. I recognize the need for a company to make money, but my bias towards product will probably continue to make such concerns a bit less important to me than they would be for many. After all, the endgame there leads to Toyota-and Toyota struggles mightily with making interesting cars.

 

Duly noted. As a guy who loves the product end of the business I don't pay a whole lotta mind to that end of it. I recognize the need for a company to make money, but my bias towards product will probably continue to make such concerns a bit less important to me than they would be for many. After all, the endgame there leads to Toyota-and Toyota struggles mightily with making interesting cars.

 

Actually the end game is Volkswagen, and supposedly the giant will be broken up into 4 separate holding companies. Toyota is not the most profitable car company. 

 

Another curveball. Why should all cars have to be exciting? Where will the person who doesn't want a sporty, doesn't want flashy - just wants a barebones, basic, nondescript, outdated, reliable, reasonably efficient and very practical car go?

 

The world needs choice, and therefore Toyota needs to exist. The boring cars are a necessary evil to make the exciting cars; well exciting. If every car was exciting, then every car by default would also be boring. See what I mean?   

[El Kabong]

0-60 has been the acceleration benchmark forever. It used to be because back in the day it was an actual test of a car's all-out abilities. These days it is the most realistic measurement of acceleration most folks can legally access (although the metric 80-120 acceleration number is a good indicator of passing power). As cars with AWD have become more common there has been a bit more emphasis on 0-100 times as a way for RWD cars to measure their abilities once their tires are able to hook up and lay down the power properly. But again, 100mph on the street is a very iffy proposition.

"Why do cars need to be fun?" Strictly speaking, they don't have to be. There is a time and a place for an automobile as an appliance. Once again, back in the day having a car so reliable it could be treated like an appliance was a real challenge. The bar has been raised higher since then, though. These days you can get a vehicle in every segment that can carve up an on ramp, or drill your eyes out the back of your head when the light goes green, or set off a smog alert by lighting up the tires. The rule of thumb I use is that there should be something about your vehicle that makes you smile whenever you're in it. And that doesn't mean it has to be expensive, or even new.

[Cmicasa the Great]

So can we just close the BS and say that Ecoboost is a one or the other proposition from Ford.. and GM does "Ecoboost" better offering the best of both worlds?

[David]

0 to 60 or 0 to 100 is the same BS that people fixate on just like HP and they ignore the real important part, Torque. They all play a part in the larger real picture of how well does an auto move and then sustain that motion.

 

The over hype of DOHC engines with high HP and low Torque is a perfect BS Marketing crap that people have bought into but have failed to realize does not really give them the full satisfaction. You want an engine with a flat torque curve of full torque from beginning to end with decent HP to keep things moving be it at low speed or high speed.

 

Example of this is my Trailblazer SS AWD, This morning I dropped my daughter off at the Park N Ride to catch her bus to work. As I was getting on the freeway to take her auto's in front of me were driving slow and not paying attention to traffic flow. As such, I saw the opening, gave it a bit more gas and zoomed around onto and over into the HOV lane so I could exit 1 stop up at the Park N Ride. 

 

She asked me if I felt powerful cause I could step on it and the auto would move faster than everyone else. My answer was no, I felt confident that I could move and get going without wondering if the semi behind would hit me cause of the rest of the careless drivers. My family and their quality of life is far more important than gas mileage and I like having the right tool that allows me to get where I want to go.

[El Kabong]

That's kinda why I mentioned the 80-120 benchmark, but yeah, you're bang-on there: people talk horsepower but drive torque.

[ccap41]

You are 100% correct. Which, is why I do love my EcoBoost.. for everyday driving where the revs are kept below 3k it's perfect. They make a good amount of torque at pretty low RPMs. I think this is what the EcoBoost Challenge is all about. Parking lot test driving, correct? So they will only be using the low-mid range which is where the EcoBoost will win over people. They don't make crazy peak hp numbers but their low end(usable) tq is very sufficient.

 

Speaking of which.. I need to stop by a buddy of mine to drive his new Fiesta with the 1.0EB. I need to see how that little guy runs. So far my friend love it, but it's only a couple weeks old.

[TAF]

Yes...I was correct and accurate.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Did dfelt really just talk up the importance of flat torque curves, yet ignore the fact that turbo engines deliver that in spades?

[El Kabong]

Yes...I was correct and accurate.

Indeed you were. Good call. :/

Edited July 30, 2015 by El Kabong