1963 Country Sedan, Excellent Condition Only 2 Owners on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Ford Mustang gets pricing, configurator and less weight than expected

It's here; it's finally here. No more speculating or looking at dealer order guides, the configurator for the 2015 Ford Mustang is finally online. That means you should put down whatever you're doing and build your new 'Stang. Weight data for the new model has also leaked out, and while there is an increase, it's less than previously rumored.
The basic V6 coupe carries a base price of $23,600, plus an additional $825 destination charge for all models. Upgrading to the 2.3-liter Ecoboost costs $25,170, and the Ecoboost Premium is $29,170. If you need a V8 in your life, the Mustang GT is $32,100 or $36,100 with the Premium package. That puts the starting price up about $1,000 over the previous generation for the V6, but the turbocharged four-cylinder starts about $1,400 less than the V6 Premium, which is no longer available. Prices for both V8 models jumped about $1,000, as well.
If you need the convertible Mustang, the V6 starts at $29,100, excluding destination, $1,590 more than last year. The Ecoboost Premium 'vert is $34,670, and the GT droptop is $41,600.

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.

Project Ugly Horse: Part IX

One Step at a Time
Nearly every flavor of exotic driveline has been shoved into the ubiquitous Ford at some point or another.
Chuck Schwynoch had been patiently listening to my ramblings on the other end of the phone for a solid half hour. I'm not too big of a man to know when to ask for help, and at this point, I desperately needed some assistance. The truth is, working on a machine like a Fox Body Mustang is as easy as breathing thanks to the wealth of information available on the web. Nearly every flavor of exotic driveline has been shoved into the ubiquitous Ford at some point or another, and odds are the sorry souls behind those builds shared the highs and lows of their torment with the internet community.