2011 Ford F-250 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost already hitting 12-second quarters

The arrival of a new Ford Mustang means many things to many people, but not least of them is drag racers. The pony car has always been a mainstay of the drag strip, and the Ford Racing team aims to carry that reputation forward with this latest generation. So it cooked up a few basic modifications on three new 'Stangs and headed to the strips at US 131 and Milan Dragway to see what they could coax out of 'em.
Impressively, the 5.0-liter V8 Mustang GT with a few modifications (but no forced induction) managed to clock a quarter-mile time of 11.77 seconds. Another Mustang GT fitted with a supercharger clocked a blistering 10.97 seconds. But just as intriguing was the modified EcoBoost model that, with only four cylinders and 2.3 liters of displacement, still passed the gates in just 12.56 seconds - nearly half a second better than expected. This with modification limited to a new subframe, half-shaft, drive shaft loops, exhaust, engine calibration, slicks, roll cage and bucket seat. Well done, boys.

Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy

With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.

BMW M4 versus Audi RS5 | Autoblog Podcast #546

On this week's Autoblog Podcast, Editor-in-Chief Greg Migliore is joined by Associate Editor Reese Counts. We debate the merits of the BMW M4 and the new Audi RS5 and our hopes for the refreshed Mercedes-AMG C63. We also discuss the state of Cadillac, the future of the Ford Fusion and the rumored Mercedes-AMG competitor to the Porsche 718 Boxster and Cayman. Autoblog Podcast #546 Get The Podcast iTunes – Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast in iTunes RSS – Add the Autoblog Podcast feed to your RSS aggregator MP3 – Download the MP3 directly Rundown 2018 BMW M4 versus 2018 Audi RS5 Cadillac and Mercedes-AMG sport coupes The state of the luxury car industry The future of the Ford Fusion Replacement for the Mercedes-Benz SLC Feedback Email – Podcast@Autoblog.com Review the show on iTunes Related Video: Design/Style Podcasts Audi BMW Cadillac Ford Lexus Lincoln Mercedes-Benz Convertible Coupe Crossover SUV Luxury Performance bmw m4 mercedes-amg c63