Quote from: Fobroader on October 27, 2015, 01:50:39 pmQuote from: Cord on October 27, 2015, 01:07:51 pmQuote from: Fobroader on October 27, 2015, 12:11:26 pmQuote from: mixmanmash on October 27, 2015, 12:08:45 pmQuote from: Fobroader on October 27, 2015, 11:54:34 amNo 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 cashSent from my SM-G900W8 using TapatalkWell sure, but can't the same be said for the V8 itself? How easy would it be to get it to 550hp?
Quote from: Cord on October 27, 2015, 01:07:51 pmQuote from: Fobroader on October 27, 2015, 12:11:26 pmQuote from: mixmanmash on October 27, 2015, 12:08:45 pmQuote from: Fobroader on October 27, 2015, 11:54:34 amNo 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 cashSent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Fobroader on October 27, 2015, 12:11:26 pmQuote from: mixmanmash on October 27, 2015, 12:08:45 pmQuote from: Fobroader on October 27, 2015, 11:54:34 amNo 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?
Quote from: mixmanmash on October 27, 2015, 12:08:45 pmQuote from: Fobroader on October 27, 2015, 11:54:34 amNo 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.
Quote from: Fobroader on October 27, 2015, 11:54:34 amNo 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.
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
Cord: "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."2016 Mustang GT350: $62,5992015 Ford Mustang Convertible EcoBoost Premium (as tested): $52,649Step 1: visit your local Ford dealerStep 2: place order for "base" 2016 Mustang GT350Step 3: wait the agonizing number of weeks for car to arriveThe comparison is valid because both are Mustangs.
Quote from: pcsp on October 27, 2015, 04:46:08 pmCord: "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."2016 Mustang GT350: $62,5992015 Ford Mustang Convertible EcoBoost Premium (as tested): $52,649Step 1: visit your local Ford dealerStep 2: place order for "base" 2016 Mustang GT350Step 3: wait the agonizing number of weeks for car to arriveThe comparison is valid because both are Mustangs.A couple things. That 52649 is MSRP. There is a $3500 Delivery Allowance so it is well below $50,000 on Ford's web site. Plus it can be negotiated lower.That $62599 does not include $1750 in freight and excise tax (which is included in the as tested price of the EcoBoost Convertible.Good luck getting a GT350 at MSRP any time soon.The comparison still makes no sense. Why not compare to an EcoBoost Coupe with manual and then compare the difference?
Quote from: Cord on October 27, 2015, 05:00:48 pmQuote from: pcsp on October 27, 2015, 04:46:08 pmCord: "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."2016 Mustang GT350: $62,5992015 Ford Mustang Convertible EcoBoost Premium (as tested): $52,649Step 1: visit your local Ford dealerStep 2: place order for "base" 2016 Mustang GT350Step 3: wait the agonizing number of weeks for car to arriveThe comparison is valid because both are Mustangs.A couple things. That 52649 is MSRP. There is a $3500 Delivery Allowance so it is well below $50,000 on Ford's web site. Plus it can be negotiated lower.That $62599 does not include $1750 in freight and excise tax (which is included in the as tested price of the EcoBoost Convertible.Good luck getting a GT350 at MSRP any time soon.The comparison still makes no sense. Why not compare to an EcoBoost Coupe with manual and then compare the difference?Because the math works out to his advantage this way.....
Quote from: Fobroader on October 27, 2015, 05:02:44 pmQuote from: Cord on October 27, 2015, 05:00:48 pmQuote from: pcsp on October 27, 2015, 04:46:08 pmCord: "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."2016 Mustang GT350: $62,5992015 Ford Mustang Convertible EcoBoost Premium (as tested): $52,649Step 1: visit your local Ford dealerStep 2: place order for "base" 2016 Mustang GT350Step 3: wait the agonizing number of weeks for car to arriveThe comparison is valid because both are Mustangs.A couple things. That 52649 is MSRP. There is a $3500 Delivery Allowance so it is well below $50,000 on Ford's web site. Plus it can be negotiated lower.That $62599 does not include $1750 in freight and excise tax (which is included in the as tested price of the EcoBoost Convertible.Good luck getting a GT350 at MSRP any time soon.The comparison still makes no sense. Why not compare to an EcoBoost Coupe with manual and then compare the difference?Because the math works out to his advantage this way..... I'll give you the $15000 price difference. I don't think I'm alone, however, in saying that if I walked into a Ford showroom considering the purchase of a Mustang, I would gladly pay the extra for the GT350 over an optioned-up Ecoboost sitting on the floor. Both great cars, but one is on its way to becoming a legend. Extra $15000 - small price to pay for the best Mustang money can buy (for now, and excluding the ultra pricey GT350R).
When Dad bought Mum a Mustang convertible in 2008, he wasn't about to spend money on more power. Features yes, but not power. I think a lot of convertibles are bought on that basis.
For me a convertible isn't about power and handling, its about throwing luggage in the trunkback seat and taking your wife for a long vacation down the coast of Oregon to wine country in Napa, California. If it has enough power to pass beige Toyota on winding roads, thats good enough for me. A V8 would be nice, but in a convertible, not mandatory.
Quote from: Fobroader on October 27, 2015, 05:20:42 pmFor me a convertible isn't about power and handling, its about throwing luggage in the trunkback seat and taking your wife for a long vacation down the coast of Oregon to wine country in Napa, California. If it has enough power to pass beige Toyota on winding roads, thats good enough for me. A V8 would be nice, but in a convertible, not mandatory.^^ fixed
Just for reference, an EcoBoost Coupe Manual with Perf Pkg and every other available option is on ford.ca at $35849. The step up to a GT350 from there is $28500.
And just for reference, the rental car base convertible (V6) with an auto tranny that I'll be getting in January is $31,899 ($33,649 with freight/PDI)....shockingly absurd lease rates bring it to $702/month :\ - so despite being nearly $4,000 cheaper than the Forester, the payments would be $125 more per month than we paid.
No no...trunk...I want to be able to stop and leave the car without luggage being swiped.
I might be in California for a couple of weeks in February, looking at renting one
Quote from: Fobroader on October 27, 2015, 06:12:20 pmNo no...trunk...I want to be able to stop and leave the car without luggage being swiped.Poking at the small trunk/opening on the Mustang - not specifically noting that luggage SHOULD be in the back seat - I hate luggage being anywhere BUT the trunk.Quote from: Airbalancer on October 27, 2015, 06:15:58 pmI might be in California for a couple of weeks in February, looking at renting one $213 for 8 days, but prices have skyrocketed with the dollar...I made mine months ago.check costcotravel.com (note: USD)
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.
Quote from: No-san on October 27, 2015, 02:17:05 pmI 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 completely disagree...the 2.7 is a gem of an engine, it is almost as fast as the 3.5TT but as efficient as the 2.3TT. The 2.7 is a perfect fit for the Mustang and I bet it would blow away the V8 in performance.The 2.7TT will make its way into the new Lincoln Continental and a Ford Taurus - if we ever get a replacement.
