Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for your input guys. Just to clarify a couple points:
In my OP, I did state that I'm not turned off to the idea of finding a great condition, low mileage, GT that's even as far back as '06 or '07. I had an '06 GT that was stock, and I enjoyed driving that car.
Also, I understand that the performance and experience in an EcoBoost, and especially the V6, would not compare to the GT. Especially, the newer GTs with that 5.0 liter engine. Even though the numbers are basically the same (in terms of HP and torque) when you compare an Eco to an '06 GT, you're still comparing a 2.3 liter 4-cylinder, albeit turbo charged, to a 4.6 liter V8 engine. I would assume comparing both at stock, there is still going to be greater performance with an older GT? If so, the question would be, would any difference in experience and performance really be THAT big of a deal? Yes, I'll be driving fast from time to time, but I'm not going to be street racing - well - not a regular basis!
There's a lot I like about the newer Mustangs. There's some things I don't like. Mainly the price. I can't really afford a brand new GT, which is why I was interested about the Eco and the V6. I do like the idea of having a warranty and newer tech. Although, I can always install aftermarket tech in an older Mustang if I wanted to. I may wind up going that route first anyway. At least I'm giving myself about a year to plan, pay off some debt, and save first. Who knows? Maybe next year I'll be able to afford the GT!
I would treat the current 2.3 EcoBoost in the Mustang like it had AIDS- you don't want it even for free, if you intend to keep the car for any length of time. Research the direct injected engines. You'll find the technology is not new and it's considered a design flaw. The issue is the exhaust gases carry a lot of debris and carbon from the rich environment created by the direct injection. Due to cam overlap and the PCV system, the intake manifold gets coated with these deposits. The only way to remove them is via removal and manually removing them. You'll find most car makers are now using multiple injection on all of their engines. The new 2017 3.5 EcoBoost that will be in the F150 is Fords first multiple injected engine. That engine uses the sequential injection which is in the manifold for normal running. When the power is needed, the engine switches over to direct injection. The advantages are the gasoline with it's detergents now have an opportunity to remove the deposits as you drive, just like the old sequential injected engines. The current 2.3 EB engine does not have this feature. You also need to know that YOU will be the one that has to reach in the wallet when the engine is no longer in warranty to fix all of the sensors, plumbing, turbos, etc required just to make the thing run. While a new 2.3 is in the making, it's not in a car yet. If you just want the 2.3, I'd wait until the new engines are out with the multiple injection but it's likely to be a couple of years. You might also want to know, unless you're pulling a trailer, you won't know the difference between the bulletproof 3.7 or the 2.3 EB engine except the 3.7 will pull longer thru the gears as the redline on it is much higher at 7 grand. Like you've probably heard at one time in your life- Keep It Simple Stupid. It applies here more than ever. The 3.7 is a great, long life engine that makes more power than you can imagine and it does it without all of the technology you will have to maintain. If you think putting a chip in it or a programmer is something you'd want, there are several available for the 3.7 with 5 Star being the most user friendly.
Thanks, TrapperL. A lot of good information on these boards! I might just wind up looking for an older model GT and have it for a little while until Ford is able to solidify the EcoBoost.
5.0 is 435 HP these days? It hits 0-60 in 4.5 seconds or so.......I would put that in the quick category and sounds good doing it!
No, I mean that the Eco-Boost & the V6 isn't the same as the 5.0. I don't like the sound of the 5.0 Coyote myself sounds a bit too quiet, the Camaro on the other hand sounds SWEET & this coming from a Ford fan. Same with the Hellcat I think it sounds better then the Chevy or the Ford.
No, I mean that the Eco-Boost & the V6 isn't the same as the 5.0. I don't like the sound of the 5.0 Coyote myself sounds a bit too quiet, the Camaro on the other hand sounds SWEET & this coming from a Ford fan. Same with the Hellcat I think it sounds better then the Chevy or the Ford.
Oh yeah, I have to agree. Eco and V6 is definitely not on the same level as the 5.0.
So question Mustang guys: Do you always run 93 octane? When I had my '06, I never put 87 in it. It was always 93 Octane, with an occasion of putting mid grade in when the gas prices were through the roof.
Oh yeah, I have to agree. Eco and V6 is definitely not on the same level as the 5.0.
So question Mustang guys: Do you always run 93 octane? When I had my '06, I never put 87 in it. It was always 93 Octane, with an occasion of putting mid grade in when the gas prices were through the roof.
Owners manual for mine minimum 87 octane.Havent gone through the tank the dealer put in it yet, but will probably use non ethanol, which here is only 87 maybe 89 I cant really remember now, in it since its going to sit for weeks before I go through a tank. (Its not my daily driver)
Owners manual for mine minimum 87 octane.Havent gone through the tank the dealer put in it yet, but will probably use non ethanol, which here is only 87 maybe 89 I cant really remember now, in it since its going to sit for weeks before I go through a tank. (Its not my daily driver)
I just looked up an owners manual for an '06 (don't know if it was V6 or GT though) and it recommended 87 as well.
Personally I think Ford should of used the 3.7 Eco-boost engine with a twin turbo set up. It would of been a beast of a car then, even more so because of the added weight with the IRS on the new Mustangs. Would of sounded better too, Ford dropped the ball to some extent.
I'm surprised Ford didn't go with something like that as well. They were also a little sneaky in giving customers no option upgrades at all for the V6 in order to help push the sale of the Eco-Boost up. I would imagine those who wanted a new Mustang but didn't have the cash for the GT would have settled for the V6 if it had option upgrades.
I'm surprised Ford didn't go with something like that as well. They were also a little sneaky in giving customers no option upgrades at all for the V6 in order to help push the sale of the Eco-Boost up. I would imagine those who wanted a new Mustang but didn't have the cash for the GT would have settled for the V6 if it had option upgrades.
In 2011 The V6 was quicker then the Eco-Boost Mustang is now. 0-60 was 5.1 VS 5.5. It even sounded better then the Eco-boost does. Ford goofed this one up in my opinion.
In 2011 The V6 was quicker then the Eco-Boost Mustang is now. 0-60 was 5.1 VS 5.5. It even sounded better then the Eco-boost does. Ford goofed this one up in my opinion.
Ford put the 3.5L Eco-Boost in the Ford GT, which is expected to start at $400,000. So, I'm sure it wouldn't have made sense to offer a similar engine in the Mustang, probably not even the Shelby. Not unless there was no chance of a GT. Then, I'd say the Shelby probably would have been a good candidate for the 3.5L Eco. Of course, I can only imagine how much more the Shelby would be in price at that point. Heck, I can't even afford the new Mustang GT right now let alone a Shelby. All the more reason to wait another year or so. If I can be patient enough and wait two more years, then buying a couple of years older might put, at least the GT, in my price range.
Honestly though, I'm a 41 year old guy with a two year old son. I don't necessarily need a GT or Shelby. I mean, when it gets down to it, I don't need a Mustang at all. I'm not trying to pick up women or to be a Fast and Furious street racer. I just really have a deep appreciation and love for the Ford Mustang. I'm not even a Ford guy, per se, I just have always been fascinated with this particular car. I've always loved its style, well, I won't say always. There was a "dark" period of time where the Mustang didn't look so, well, "mustang" to me. But for the most part, I've always been more attracted to it than the Chevy Camaro. I've flirted around the idea of getting a Dodge Charger, because I felt I could somehow have the same experience of power in a Charger, like I did my '06 GT, yet it was four-door and could be used a family sedan. But, I think I came to my senses on that one. And yeah, whenever the wife says, "If you really want a Mustang, then get a Mustang." Her only prerequisite is that the payments are not more than what the payment on my Accord currently is. So, I promised her the first thing to do is to pay off the Accord even before I get serious with looking at Mustangs. I'm pretty much with the idea that when I am ready to purchase, I'll be looking at something that's at least two years or older, with low mileage and great condition of course. So, by that point, a 2014 or '15 would be the newest I would be looking at, but I'm definitely open-minded to older than that so as long as the car has been taken well care of, looks great, drives great, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
