is ecoboost really a meme or is this one of the best mustangs

>>17080122
Not great, but better than foxbodies

Evo boost is shitposted to death on this board but it's nice to have a factory turbo mustang. What sucks is the exhaust manifold is integrated into the block. One of the best mustangs ever made? Maybe not, but it's not bad at all.

Idk I'd own one. They're pretty fast. If Ford offered the mustang with the 3.5 EcoBoost I would cum.

If it's not a Roush it's a sloosh

File: taeyeon 1.jpg (42KB, 386x400px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 386x400px

>>17080144
>mfw Ford didnt take the 3.5l from the Taurus SHO and put it into the mustang

V6 is better in every way. Only reason to get the i4 would be to tune it but that'll void the warranty and make it even more unreliable than it already is.

>>17080522
>N/A rental car engine vs tarbo
>v6 is better
Wot

>Ford puts all its effort into the turbo
>GM put all its effort into the V6
Why?

>>17080555
So ford can get btfo

>>17080555
Offering the track pack on an engine really isn't "putting all of their effort into it".

pro-tip: when any car goes to a smaller turbo engine and doesn't make significantly more power it's meme shit that exists solely because of fuel economy regulations

The EBM can make like 400+ whp with the FPP, FMIC, and upgraded piping, all for like $2000. Reliability is a big concern, though.

File: 1492049799027.jpg (10KB, 171x176px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 171x176px

>>17080122
>4 cylinder mustang
>One of the best

>>17080122
Ask suburaruwrx fan or what ever the fuck his name is. After all you people bought him one

>>17080635
Well the v6 is still the mid tier engine on the chebby and the EcoBoost for the ferd.

Chevy bet on N/A, Ford on boost for their mid range engine.

>>17080122
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYRTWgqvIaw

>>17080136
Also, while this is stupid to me, if someone is looking to get great mpg but they want a sporty car, the ecoboost mustang is great.

>>17080894
everytime this guy fucking ruins my ears

>>17080122
no

V8 or bust

>>17080122
The V6 makes the same power, weighs less, and has an identical drivetrain to the I4. There's no reason to buy the I4 when you can supercharge the V6 for the same price.

>>17080122
lol no

>>17080122
>Is ecoboost worth it?
Time will tell. We'll find out when someone test the limit of the internals.

>>17080136
>>17080158
>Mustang SVO 3.5 when

>>17081052
http://www.autoblog.com/2017/01/17/2018-ford-mustang-refresh/

V6 is kill m8.

>>17081052
This is all so wrong. V6 makes LESS power, weighs MORE, and good luck boosting it for $1000. Meanwhile, the ecoboost can make GT power for a couple grand.

I like mine. 300 hp is plenty for a DD, looks nice, super comfy and good fuel economy. I took it on a 3000 mile road trip last summer, did 140+ a couple times and still averaged 33 mpg.

>>17082394
>2017 ecoboost
3,532
>2017 V6
3,469

>>17080531
Actually I worked for Enterprise and most of the rentals were ecoboost mustangs, we had maybe 1 that was a v6.

>>17082566
reked

>>17082394
>GT power for a couple of grand

LOL that little babby motor is gonna blow a fucking rod if you even attempt to boost it that much.

If you look at mustangs currently on sale, the ecoboost is plentiful and going for dirt cheap. People know that engine won't go far past 100k before failing.

>>17082566
not the same guy you replied to but the 2015-2017 v6 mustangs were only offered as a base model, meaning manual cloth seats, etc. The ecoboost premium has all the options so I would suspect that is where the weight difference comes from. I'd imagine the engine itself from the ecoboost weighs less than the v6.

It has the same engine than the Focus RS right? That opens up a ton of tuning potential. It's like a "muscle car" for people who doesn't like muscle cars.

>>17082605
You can get 400hp easy without even voiding the warranty.

File: IMG_4307.jpg (25KB, 268x284px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 268x284px

>>17082826
no that's not how it works pal

>>17081052
V6 doesn't come with the option of a track pack. It's also discontinued

>>17082394
>>17082605
The Mustang GT is decent, but if you want bang for the buck, get a Chevrolet Camaro.
It's faster.
It handles better.
It's more comfortable.

I want to like the Mustang since the 5.0L Coyote engine, and 5.2L Voodoo engines are fantastic, but I know where Ford cut the corners on it. On the GT, the cost cutting is the manual transmission. Said manual is the same as the previous 2011-2014 Mustang GT. So it's the same problematic Chinese-built 6 speed.

If you step up to the Shelby, the mechanical cost cutting continues. The GT350 transmission is the SAME Tremec TR3160 used in base model 4 cylinder and V6 Camaros. Go up to the V8 Camaro SS, or ZL1 and the manual transmission on offer is a bulletproof Tremec TR6060, a beloved transmission you can't get in the Mustang.

Yes the Mustang has better visibility, barely.
Yes the Mustang has a better interior, barely.
Yes the Mustang has a larger trunk opening.

But honestly, I'll take the GM compromises in exchange for rock-solid mechanicals over Ford cost-cutting the mechanicals for better subjective elements.

>>17082909
This fucking copy pasta again

>>17082909
>GM
>Rock-solid
2/10, made me reply

>>17080122
It's on par with the turbo's others were making in the 80s

File: 20170425_015300.jpg (374KB, 2896x2896px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 2896x2896px

V6 is better.

>>17084713
>V6
>Faster than a Lancer evolution MR

>>17082942
>Engine is a basic pushrod v8 that just fucking works
>trans is an updated T56, that, suprise, just works and works well since it's not hampered bya shitty ford clutch

Source, every ford i've driven has a terrible clutch feel. Long throw with shit sudden jerky engagement near the bottom.
I dd'ed a Mustang GT for a while. Shifter throw was long and vague at times and the clutch sucked. Luckily i learned stick on that car so literally everything else is ezpz compared to that bear of a clutch.

>>17084713
Just buy a Golf