We Finance!! 2010 Ford Mustang Gt Convertible Premium Auto Nav Rcam Sync Shaker on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost loses big power on 87 octane

The 2015 Ford Mustang with the 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder is a pretty potent package on paper. With 310 horsepower and 320 pound-feet of torque, it boasts better performance numbers than the 3.7-liter V6, but with better fuel economy as an added benefit. However, if you're in the market for one of these boosted 'Stangs, you should probably keep in mind that it really prefers to gulp premium, 93-octane fuel. It can drink 87-octane swill in a pinch, but you're going to find significantly less power underfoot when pulling away. While it's not shocking that the ponies are dialed back with a lower grade of gasoline, an alleged page from a Ford training manual obtained by Mustang 6G purports to show just how much power is lost, though. According to this document, the 2.3-liter EcoBoost makes 275 horsepower and 300 pound-feet of torque when running on lower octane fuel. That's a substantial reduction of about 11.3 percent compared to when the engine drinks 93 octane. Interestingly, according to Mustang 6G, that finding was a bit better than expected, because a Ford engineer reportedly said power would be down about 13 percent without altering peak torque. In speaking with Autoblog, Paul Seredynski of Ford powertrain communications, objected to part of this document. While he couldn't confirm the specific losses listed for the Mustang EcoBoost, "torque remains unchanged" with lower octane gasoline, Seredynski said. He speculated this training manual page was "possibly from before the engine was certified" and therefore showed incorrect figures. Serendynski did confirm that the automaker recommends using 93 octane, and like all modern engines, the software adapts if it's lower. "Peak power would be reduced" by using a lesser grade, he confirmed. Featured Gallery 2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost: First Ride View 20 Photos News Source: Mustang 6GImage Credit: Copyright 2015 AOL, Ford, Mustang 6G Ford Technology Convertible Coupe Performance ecoboost ford mustang ecoboost

GM also sheds parts from its pickups to boost payload ratings

The row between Ford and Ram over who boasts the best-in-class tow rating for heavy duty pickups has revealed a number of things. Chief among them is a report that Ford removes items like the spare tire, jack, radio and center console from its vehicles in a bid to lower its base curb weight and therefore keep the truck's gross vehicle weight rating down.
For those that need a refresher, GVWR is the vehicle's curb weight plus its maximum payload. A lower GVWR allows Ford to station its F-450 among the so-called Class III pickups, despite the fact that internally, it has the makings of a more brutish Class IV truck.
Ford explains away these deletions, saying a customer could order their vehicle in such a manner. It has also come to light that Ford is not the only automaker to engage in such practices.

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.