Ask and you shall receive. Remember that previous report suggesting that the 2015 Ford Mustang getting a four-cylinder EcoBoost engine, and that it would be sold in Europe only and not the United States? Well, according to Road & Track, the rumor is only partially true – The Mustang will get the engine, but it is indeed coming to America.

Additionally, according to RT, the 3.7-liter V6 will continue to serve as the base engine, and since it offers up a stout 305 horsepower in its current form, it's likely that the 2.3-liter four-cylinder EcoBoost will produce a bit more than that. At the top of the range, the Mustang GT will continue to soldier on with a V8 engine, which should continue to send over 400 horsepower to the rear wheels.

Finally, while we agree 100 percent with RT's heartfelt request for a paddle-shift automatic, we certainly expect that the EcoBoost 'Stang will be offered with a manual transmission as standard equipment. This is a Mustang, after all...



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 221 Comments
      Grilk
      • 1 Year Ago
      Woo Hoo, it's 1984, everything old is new again.
      MZR2.3
      • 1 Year Ago
      well, Ford's ECOBOOST is an oxymoron. I can guarantee the 4 cylinder won't get better mileage than the v6. The 6 is rated 19/29, How many large turbo 4 cylinders get better than that. The WRX and Mazdaspeed 3 are both rated 18/25 I guess my point is what's the point. Ford seems convinced that there is some amazing efficiency advantage with this "nefound" turbo 4 revolution.
        hans wee
        • 1 Year Ago
        @MZR2.3
        the bmw 528i has a 2.0 turbo and gets 22/34 and its way heavier than a mustang.
          chemist
          • 1 Year Ago
          @hans wee
          The N20 engine you refer to is pretty bad ass. I had a current gen BMW Z4 with the 4-pot along with a manual transmission and it got to 60MPH in the low 5's. And I was averaging 33MPG but still having a blast chirping and having fun. I understand the new 3-series fighting small Caddy is doing the 2 liter 4-pot and although it has the same power as the BMW it has nowhere near the fuel efficiency in real world tests. Don't know how Ford's Ecoboost engine is on HP/actualMPG...as high as the BMW? Likely not.
          Dave
          • 1 Year Ago
          @hans wee
          It's worth noting that the BMW 2.0 turbo requires premium fuel while the Caddy 2.0 turbo specifies regular unleaded. Its also interesting that the same 2.0 auto trans combo is rated lower mpg in the 3 series than it is in the 5 series.
        oRenj9
        • 1 Year Ago
        @MZR2.3
        All Mazdas get terrible gas mileage. I've owned several and none of the ever impressed me with their frugality. The 'Speed3 runs extremely rich and pretty much just dumps fuel into the engine at the first sign of boost.
          Gorgenapper
          • 1 Year Ago
          @oRenj9
          This is true in stock form, the exhaust tips on my 2010 MS3 used to be completely black from the soot resulting from the over rich factory tune. Since the tune, it has gotten better and the engine no longer dumps excessive fuel, but the economy is still horrible in the city until the car warms up completely. I blame it on the MZR design - joint Mazda and Ford engineering. I'd like to see a SkyActiv turbo engine and what it can do in the next MS3.....
          Gorgenapper
          • 1 Year Ago
          @oRenj9
          So, I just came back from roughly ~1hr of just 'driving' my 2010 MS3 (stage 2 custom tune) around town, local highways and back roads. Where the speed limit allowed, and where the limited grip on my 205/60/16 hankook winter tires permitted (dry roads), I used every opportunity I could to test out 2nd and 3rd gear pulls. I must have done upwards of 10 - 15 of them here and there. I also waited until the car was fully warmed up before doing all of this, of course. After a couple minutes of cooldown by driving around and idling at the gas station, I filled up. Calculated at the pump - 25MPG, including the errand I ran earlier in the morning, where I also did some 2nd and 3rd gear WOT pulls onto the highway. I was actually surprised at the numbers. My observation is that the car gets phenomenally horrible fuel economy when it is cold and you take it on short trips - even more so than most other cars. If you let the car warm up completely before letting 'er rip (at least 5 mins of driving even after the coolant reads 190F), the fuel economy becomes surprisingly good for a turbo vehicle. (As an aside, I thoroughly enjoyed driving my car around for that one hour. I didn't care about fuel economy, I turned the radio off and just drove for the pure pleasure of getting to know my car again, to feel the crazy thrust of 2nd and 3rd gear with DSC off, and to row the gears with my short shifter in conjunction with the heavy clutch, rev matching on downshifts while getting satisfaction out of making each gear snick into place perfectly. It was for the above reasons - along with its practicality - that I bought the speed 3. It also made me realize one thing above all - the numbers on paper are important, but the true test of how much you love your car is whether or not you'll go out for a coffee and just drive around for an hour for no apparent reason before returning home :)
      bouljf
      • 1 Year Ago
      A turbo four is a great alternative to the v6. It’ll most likely be lighter in the nose so the steering will be improved and I’m also guessing the Mustang will gain 2 or 3 mpg with this setup. If it produces around 300/300 it will probably be faster as well and be opened to an onslaught of aftermarket kits. Aside from an increased cost I see no down side.
      JIM J
      • 1 Year Ago
      Perhaps the luster is coming off the turbo Ecoboost rose. On the surface the idea is great, but you still have to move the mass the engine resides (think 6,000 pound F150) and there is only so much energy in a unit of fuel. In order to prevent detonation, the ECU will call for extra fuel under load and the knock sensors will retard the spark. Think high compression, low octane (85/87) decent boost, heavy load. There are a number of Ecoboost farmers I know and everyone says the same, "They do pretty well until you tow or load them up, then the MPG is terrible." The only way these engines are going to get pretty good MPG is steady-state, low-load conditions. A family member has an Ecoboost F150 and his MPG (that is the purpose - right, economy and power?) is around 16. A good friend has a F150 with the 5.4L and on our two hour trips get around 21 with a relatively light foot. Both live in cold climates. Not saying they are good or bad, but there has been a lot of excitement surrounding these engines - not to mention the R&D Ford and others have invested - there's just no free lunch. Perhaps for light truck engines the approach Dodge has taken deserves more merit; diesels and cylinder deactivation at steady state cruise. Time and the market will tell. Still, I like the idea of these engines in small, sport hatch vehicles like the Focus ST
        James
        • 1 Year Ago
        @JIM J
        It's all just for the EPA's benefit. Forced induction systems are very sensitive to driving style, as far as fuel consumption is concerned. You can be very light footed, never enter boost, and get fine fuel economy. Or you can actually drive the car like you're not trying to be a road hazard, and you get crap fuel economy. But they get to market them as having "more power" AND "better MPGs" ... they just don't tell you you can't have both at the same time.
        carguy1701
        • 1 Year Ago
        @JIM J
        EcoBoost does its best work on premium.
        TrueDat
        • 1 Year Ago
        @JIM J
        "A family member has an Ecoboost F150 and his MPG (that is the purpose - right, economy and power?) is around 16. A good friend has a F150 with the 5.4L and on our two hour trips get around 21 with a relatively light foot. Both live in cold climates." That is a crock of **** if I've ever heard one. My dad had the 5.4L.. he would average 16-17 mpg consistently. My father-in-law has a 2010 with 5.4L. His BEST average came on a cross-country drive, barely hitting 19 mpg's. Currently, my dad drives a 2013 3.5 eb F150 and consistently averages 18 mpg. If he's super light on the throttle, 19-20 mpg on average is attainable. With ANY forced induction vehicle: if you push it hard, you're not going to get good fuel economy. But taken lightly, and forced induction motors achieve incredible numbers. both of my parents drive ecoboost Ford's, and both of them are able to surpass EPA ratings on a consistent basis.
      th0mb0ne
      • 1 Year Ago
      It's not the engine that keeps me from buying a Mustang, it's the bulky design of the thing (a problem in the entire segment really). Put it on a visual diet, and I'm there...it's pretty hard to beat the Mustang in fun factor per dollar.
      Number23
      • 1 Year Ago
      If Ford can get the 2015 Mustang curb weight below 3500lbs (I know, not likely), I think a turbo 4 would be fine.
        KaiserWilhelm
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Number23
        I'm pretty sure they are shooting for a smaller and lighter car. The current mustang is too big for Europe.
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Number23
        [blocked]
          Daniel D
          • 1 Year Ago
          Few kangaroos loose in the top paddock.
          carguy1701
          • 1 Year Ago
          Don't listen to Laser. He's an idiot.
          Number23
          • 1 Year Ago
          Well, nobody makes a v8, 4 passenger car that weights less than the current mustang. Even a Ferrari 458 weights > 3600lbs. I don't see how they'll shed a lot of weight from the next mustang.
        NissanGTR
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Number23
        The inline 4 should be a convertible option only. Posers and a rich girls first car seem fitting.
        Daniel D
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Number23
        Ford Falcon has a curb weight of 3700lbs and its Ecoboost posts faster times than the straight six normally in the car. I've not driven one of the fours, but every review says its the pick of the normal Falcon range, so its not hard at all to imagine a Mustang with the same engine. To put this in perspective the straight six used in Falcon (not the US 6) is a very capable performer, so its pretty impressive the Ecoboost can match it.
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Number23
        [blocked]
      lagasca142
      • 1 Year Ago
      The SVO was top Pony in it's day costing more than the GT and matching the performance of the V8 with options like 5 lug wheels and 4 disc brakes. The car was aimed at the Import buyer but to also get the V8 guys to take a closer look at performance in a smaller package , this was and still is a cool car today. The Eco 4 will fit in the lineup well
        cdwrx
        • 1 Year Ago
        @lagasca142
        If they took that same approach it would be a great car. And it would also sell about the same as the SVO, which is to say, not very well.
        wrxfrk16
        • 1 Year Ago
        @lagasca142
        Great looking car to boot. The only real negative was that price when the not quite 5.0 could easily be modified for more power. That and the few issues the turbo four was falling victim to, though I do wonder how much of it was deisgn flaw and how much was user error. Especially in those older turbos, preventative maintenance was everything, letting the motor idle after each drive to run the turbo down safely, etc.
      KO
      • 1 Year Ago
      The question isn't a technical or any other practical one. I suspect as long as the pavement-thumping V8s don't go away for those who demand it, the sort of people who've bought 4 and 6cyl Mustangs the past 58 years likely wouldn't object to a 4-pot turbo. I agree with those (including Jeremy Clarkson, of all people) who say the Europeans are being shortchanged by ONLY getting that motor. There are LOTS of people on the other side of the pond who want a Mustang as a Muscle Car with a bigass V8.
        rmt_1
        • 1 Year Ago
        @KO
        The most recent reports state that Europeans will get the 5.0L V8 along with the 2.3L EcoBoost, but they will not get the 3.7L V6.
      peteMT
      • 1 Year Ago
      I wanted an SVO in 1985. Strange that it took 30 years before they returned to the formula, just as I'm able to afford one. IRS, lightweight, ecoboost, stick, 35 mpg on the highway? Orange with and orange interior, please.
      rmt_1
      • 1 Year Ago
      It's not really surprising that Ford would use the 2.3L turbo in the Mustang and place it above the 3.7L V6. Ford has been positioning the EcoBoost engine line above their NA engines for a while now. The real question is if Ford will create a high-power version of the 2.3L EcoBoost and use it in a special SVO revival.
      spa2nky1
      • 1 Year Ago
      It'll be better than the naturally aspirated 2.5l 4 cylinder from the fox body era....I approve!
      Michael Free
      • 1 Year Ago
      Heh, could this be a return to the days when one could stand in the engine compartment next to the motor while working on a hard to reach spot? I've planted myself between the core support and engine in an '84 Tbird V6 before to work on the throttle body (fan, pulley, and shroud removed). Easy maintenance and repair has always been high on my list regardless of durability/reliability, and a small 4 in a V8 engine bay might push me in this direction, given I've been considering a base mustang for a while anyways more as a small highway cruiser than a muscle car. I like smaller cars. I like the dynamics of a RWD vehicle. 'Cozy' driver spaces are actually preferred as long as I can stay comfortable for hours. Power need only be adequate (but more is welcome, only one of my current vehicles can actually climb a decent hill without losing speed or needing a downshift). Stir in good mileage, an engine compartment I can see around, and an honest to god manual transmission at a decent price? Shut up and take my money. But I'm strange, I suppose. I'm driving a '93 shadow and an '03 sonoma, both 2.2 4cyl manuals, and wouldn't mind a bit if either stayed on for several more years, even though I could walk out the door right now and come back with... well, almost anything. Driving paid-for, reliable vehicles for a long time has it's benefits too, I haven't had a car payment to make in several years and insurance is dirt cheap. Decisions, decisions. But neither of those eats highway miles on thousand+ mile road trips very well at all, and that's sorely missed.
    • Load More Comments