Topic: Test Drive: 2015 Ford Mustang Convertible EcoBoost Premium

[Autos_Editor]

Refining the formula.
Read More...

[pcsp]

The Mustang re-design has made it, in my opinion, a fantastic looking car. The convertible version, however, detracts from the lines. Not unexpected, as most convertibles lose something in the process of eliminating the roof. Would I put an extra $10,000 in to get the Shelby GT350 over this highly optioned Ecoboost? In a heartbeat.

[Noto]

Yup, standard (base) V6 convertible is still the winner here.  I'm excited to rent one soon

[Cord]

The Mustang re-design has made it, in my opinion, a fantastic looking car. The convertible version, however, detracts from the lines. Not unexpected, as most convertibles lose something in the process of eliminating the roof. Would I put an extra $10,000 in to get the Shelby GT350 over this highly optioned Ecoboost? In a heartbeat.

You'll never get a GT350 for only $10K more than this car. It's $15000 between MSRPs. But I doubt a GT350 can be had for MSRP let alone found in base form. And why would someone compare a convertible automatic with a coupe manual anyway? 

BTW, these cars can be found used with 10,000 km for under $39,000.

[Fobroader]

Big fan of the new Mustang look except when you saw the top off, do not get the point of the Ecoboost engine, either make it a lot more powerful or a lot less powerful.

[Noto]

Big fan of the new Mustang look except when you saw the top off, do not get the point of the Ecoboost engine, either make it a lot more powerful or a lot less powerful.

I you, Fob!

Fob says:

[Fobroader]

No no....do not get the point of it as it makes as much power as the V6....if it made 200hp, got great mileage and was a hell of a lot cheaper, yes, totally would make sense, the way it sits now, don't get it. Also yes, only milk should come in 2L 

[OliverD]

Let's face it, the V6 likely exists primarily for fleet buyers. I wouldn't be surprised to see it go away completely in a couple of years.

[mixmanmash]

No no....do not get the point of it as it makes as much power as the V6....if it made 200hp, got great mileage and was a hell of a lot cheaper, yes, totally would make sense, the way it sits now, don't get it. Also yes, only milk should come in 2L 

A 2.7 V6 TT would be nice in a Mustang.

Although, the lower weight on the front nose should make it a lot nicer on a tight road course versus the V8.

[OliverD]

No no....do not get the point of it as it makes as much power as the V6....if it made 200hp, got great mileage and was a hell of a lot cheaper, yes, totally would make sense, the way it sits now, don't get it. Also yes, only milk should come in 2L 

A 2.7 V6 TT would be nice in a Mustang.

Although, the lower weight on the front nose should make it a lot nicer on a tight road course versus the V8.

Is a TT V6 really any lighter than an aluminum block NA V8?

[Fobroader]

No no....do not get the point of it as it makes as much power as the V6....if it made 200hp, got great mileage and was a hell of a lot cheaper, yes, totally would make sense, the way it sits now, don't get it. Also yes, only milk should come in 2L 

A 2.7 V6 TT would be nice in a Mustang.

Although, the lower weight on the front nose should make it a lot nicer on a tight road course versus the V8.

The problem is there isn't that much power difference between the base engines and the V8. If they had the 2.7, it would easily be faster than the V8. It was like when the Buick GNX was way faster than the Corvette, you cannot have a cheaper car steal your topend cars dinner. In my opinion, the V8 should be making well over 500 hp, the V6TT over 400 hp and the V6 NA they should leave for the rental/over 60 convertible crowd.

[Cord]

No no....do not get the point of it as it makes as much power as the V6....if it made 200hp, got great mileage and was a hell of a lot cheaper, yes, totally would make sense, the way it sits now, don't get it. Also yes, only milk should come in 2L 

A 2.7 V6 TT would be nice in a Mustang.

Although, the lower weight on the front nose should make it a lot nicer on a tight road course versus the V8.

The problem is there isn't that much power difference between the base engines and the V8. If they had the 2.7, it would easily be faster than the V8. It was like when the Buick GNX was way faster than the Corvette, you cannot have a cheaper car steal your topend cars dinner. In my opinion, the V8 should be making well over 500 hp, the V6TT over 400 hp and the V6 NA they should leave for the rental/over 60 convertible crowd.

I'm all for more power. But you don't consider 300hp-435hp to be much of a difference in power?

[mixmanmash]

No no....do not get the point of it as it makes as much power as the V6....if it made 200hp, got great mileage and was a hell of a lot cheaper, yes, totally would make sense, the way it sits now, don't get it. Also yes, only milk should come in 2L 

A 2.7 V6 TT would be nice in a Mustang.

Although, the lower weight on the front nose should make it a lot nicer on a tight road course versus the V8.

Is a TT V6 really any lighter than an aluminum block NA V8?

Even if it's the same weight, the V6 could offer more balance as it could be mounted further back in the engine bay (i.e. most of the weight of the engine would sit behind the front wheels).  Think of it like a mid-mount (Nissan calls this setup front mid-ship), but the engine in front of the driver.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I wonder how the Mustang is going over (going to go over?) in Australia and the UK? This is the first time it's been offered in RHD.

With the demise of the Falcon, this is it for quick RWD cars from Ford, supercars excepted.

[Fobroader]

No no....do not get the point of it as it makes as much power as the V6....if it made 200hp, got great mileage and was a hell of a lot cheaper, yes, totally would make sense, the way it sits now, don't get it. Also yes, only milk should come in 2L 

A 2.7 V6 TT would be nice in a Mustang.

Although, the lower weight on the front nose should make it a lot nicer on a tight road course versus the V8.

The problem is there isn't that much power difference between the base engines and the V8. If they had the 2.7, it would easily be faster than the V8. It was like when the Buick GNX was way faster than the Corvette, you cannot have a cheaper car steal your topend cars dinner. In my opinion, the V8 should be making well over 500 hp, the V6TT over 400 hp and the V6 NA they should leave for the rental/over 60 convertible crowd.

I'm all for more power. But you don't consider 300hp-435hp to be much of a difference in power?

Not when a tune and a few bolt ons will get you close to v8 power levels for a lot less cash

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[Noto]

I mentioned this a lot when the 2015 Mustang was previewed - I didn't understand keeping the base V6 when the 2.3T was so close in power.  As Oliver will be quick to point out, I understand that it's a great way to get more use out of an old engine, and certainly works wonders for fleet vehicles.

I don't think the 2.7TT is a great engine for Ford cars (Trucks, perhaps).  Its power is not up sufficiently compared to the 2.3T to warrant a second turbocharger and two more cylinders, and quite frankly, it sounds like its application is intended more for heavier vehicles where the 2.3T would be too far taxed too often.

I don't think Ford got the marketing wrong for this, but power out of the 2.3T really should have been closer to 330-340hp to differentiate it more from the base V6 rather than downrating the V6 to 300hp from 305hp.  The 3.7L V6 got that output on regular gas, whereas the 2.3T recommends premium for max performance, by the way, so if offered a 2015/2016 V6 or a 2.3T Mustang as a rental car, I'd take the V6 because it'd have moar powah by virtue of the gas it is filled with (rental agencies specifically tell you to use regular gas).

[Sir Osis of Liver]

^


 

[Fobroader]

^


 

[Noto]

I identified it as such at the outset!! 

[Cord]

No no....do not get the point of it as it makes as much power as the V6....if it made 200hp, got great mileage and was a hell of a lot cheaper, yes, totally would make sense, the way it sits now, don't get it. Also yes, only milk should come in 2L 

A 2.7 V6 TT would be nice in a Mustang.

Although, the lower weight on the front nose should make it a lot nicer on a tight road course versus the V8.

The problem is there isn't that much power difference between the base engines and the V8. If they had the 2.7, it would easily be faster than the V8. It was like when the Buick GNX was way faster than the Corvette, you cannot have a cheaper car steal your topend cars dinner. In my opinion, the V8 should be making well over 500 hp, the V6TT over 400 hp and the V6 NA they should leave for the rental/over 60 convertible crowd.

I'm all for more power. But you don't consider 300hp-435hp to be much of a difference in power?

Not when a tune and a few bolt ons will get you close to v8 power levels for a lot less cash

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Well sure, but can't the same be said for the V8 itself? How easy would it be to get it to 550hp?