Sponsored

Autoexpress UK Review (EcoBoost)

Helios1234

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Threads
12
Messages
242
Reaction score
43
Location
England
Vehicle(s)
Ford Mondeo/Porsche Cayman S
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/ford/mustang/88696/new-ford-mustang-2015-review

It's taken a while – over fifty years to be precise – but just after the iconic Ford Mustang has celebrated its half-century, it’ll go on sale in the UK as a right-hand-drive model and across the world for the very first time.

This is the ninth-generation Mustang – more advanced and sleeker than ever, but still aiming to provide plenty of bang for your buck, or for your Pound as of autumn next year. When the car eventually arrives in the UK you’ll be able to buy a right-hand drive Mustang from around £30,000 for the fastback version or £34,000 for the convertible.

That seems like good value for a car that looks as good as this latest model – designed by Brit and new Ford design chief Moray Callum – with over 300bhp and 407Nm of torque from its 2.3-litre four-cylinder engine.

Hang on, did we say four-cylinder engine? Yes, this all-American muscle car has downsized its engine to a new unit from Ford’s acclaimed EcoBoost family. Sure, you can still get a brawny 5.0-litre V8 with 420bhp for an extra £4,000, but Ford reckons that once the purists have got used to this new breed of Mustang, they’ll lap up the twin-turbo EcoBoost-powered car.

It’s a big car – at 4784mm, it’s 158mm longer than an Audi A5 coupe and 146mm longer than a BMW 4 Series. It’s wider, too, but although our test drive was in the Mustang’s homeland of Los Angeles, it shouldn’t feel too big for British streets.

It hides its size well, too, with sharp creases along the flanks, a neatly sloping coupé roofline and raked rear end with tri-bar tail lamps, muscular haunches and that familiar Mustang shark bite grille at the front. As Callum told us, “We didn’t want any excess on the bodywork.”

It is a heavy car, though, weighing 94kg more than a similarly priced BMW 420i, but then the BMW gets a miserly 182bhp engine with 270NM of torque. The extra power the Ford has should mean it’ll get from 0-60mph in around 5.4 seconds – the best part of two seconds ahead of the BMW.

The new EcoBoost makes a good fist of replacing the more usual six- or eight-cylinder units under the Mustang’s bonnet. It doesn’t sound as exciting as the V8, obviously, but it does have an appealing rawness under full acceleration. It’s just a shame that doesn’t disappear when you’re driving in a less spirited fashion – at times it sounds a bit rough. The power delivery is a bit peaky, too, although the short-shift six-speed box is fun to use – an auto option with automatic rev matching on downshifts (blipping the throttle to you and me) and paddle shifters costs an extra £1500.

Don’t expect much in the way of economy, either – there are no UK mpg figures yet, but by way of comparison, a 2.3-litre Mustang does 33mpg in the American highway test, while a 2.0-litre 238bhp BMW 428i does 42mpg in the same US test. Company car drivers will wince at CO2 figures we’d expect to be around the 200g/km mark, too, and there won’t be a diesel Mustang, either – that’s simply a step too far.

As is the vogue these days, there are electronically controlled driving modes to choose from: Normal, Sport, Track and Wet/Snow. These adjust the steering, stability control and throttle settings (and shift pattern in auto cars), but in reality only slightly heavier steering made a difference between Normal, Sport and Track modes.

And although Ford says owners will take their Mustangs on track days, this is a GT first and sports car second – hence the steering. It’s meaty enough, but the amount of movement away from the straight ahead before the wheels begin to react clearly nods towards relaxed motorway cruising – where the car is nicely refined and rides okay, too.

When you push, there’s more weight than feel through the wheel, although the amount of grip on offer gives you plenty of confidence when you power hard through bends. There’s a nice balance to the chassis, too – it feels far more playful than the car’s size and weight might suggest. Not BMW playful, but great fun nonetheless. So it’s a shame the seats don’t hold you better while you’re enjoying yourself.

All UK cars will come with the Mustang Performance Pack fitted as standard, with stiffer suspension and bigger brakes. However, this is a mixed bag: the low-speed ride is just plain poor – never settling and becoming tiresome after a while. It does, however, tie the car down better – a non Performance Pack car we tried felt a bit bouncy at the rear end.

The cosy cabin (the rear seats are best described as occasional) features traditional Mustang styling cues like eyeball vents and a high-set, squared-off dash. There’s Ford’s very latest SYNC touchscreen infotainment, too, complete with standard nav and a bass-heavy audio system.

Quality is a mixed bag, though – good in most places, but cheap and a bit nasty in others. And that just about sums up the new Mustang – in certain respects, it’s brilliant: the chassis, the style and the value. But there are still areas like the rowdy engine, iffy interior quality and tiresome low speed ride that lack the sophistication of some rivals.

Verdict

The new Mustang will deliver fun in right-hand-drive form by the bucket load with a surprisingly capable chassis, great style and tremendous value. But it’s far from perfect with an annoying ride and noisy engine, plus some horrible plastics inside. That said, we’re delighted it’s coming to the UK at last – but what a shame it’s still a year away.

Read more: http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/ford/mustang/88696/new-ford-mustang-2015-review#ixzz3EFNReReq
Bit of a mixed review this but includes a quick comparison between the PP and non-PP car.
Sponsored

 

petraman

Now with more MPGs!
Joined
Jul 23, 2014
Threads
17
Messages
539
Reaction score
41
Location
Columbus, OH
First Name
Peter
Vehicle(s)
2018 VW Golf
First complaint about the base seats I've seen yet. I've sat in them and they have plenty of bolstering.
 

Mriley

Guest
This is why I have a hard time trusting reviews even on the basic facts. I've sat in them as well and they hold you like a glove. I find it hard to believe that anyone could complain about them not being supportive enough.
 

petraman

Now with more MPGs!
Joined
Jul 23, 2014
Threads
17
Messages
539
Reaction score
41
Location
Columbus, OH
First Name
Peter
Vehicle(s)
2018 VW Golf
If he's comparing the Mustang to the A5 and BMWs, he should compare the seats as well. The base BMW seats are the worst seats I've ever sat in for a performance car. It felt like sitting on a park bench.
 
OP
OP
Helios1234

Helios1234

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Threads
12
Messages
242
Reaction score
43
Location
England
Vehicle(s)
Ford Mondeo/Porsche Cayman S
They do seem to pick and choose comparisons to the detriment of the Mustang. Comparing the price of the Mustang to the 420i should be a point towards the former but instead they talk about the weight. Surely the 435i's would be a better comparison which is 80kg more than the 420i and thus not far off the Mustang.

Same with the fuel consumption. Shouldn't the 435i figure be mentioned rather than the 428i which is far less powerful?

It does seem strange that they are finding the ride to be terrible when most other reviews have suggested it's comfortable.
 

Sponsored

Wildcat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2013
Threads
18
Messages
655
Reaction score
20
Location
Tampa, FL
Vehicle(s)
2015 Focus
It's always had some cheap plastics to keep costs down, but calling them "nasty" is a bit strong
 

Devon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2013
Threads
22
Messages
269
Reaction score
5
Location
43.700° N, 79.400° W
Vehicle(s)
TBD
Well that was a bit of a cold shower. Still it provides a list to things to check when test driving.

I do agree with the review that a few aspects of the interior are low-rent - specifically the tacky spray-on bright metallic finish on the dials and toggles. Even in the best marketing shots these look like they come from a 90s Korean import.

As to the seats not being secure enough when hot-shoeing - a lot is going to depend on the size of the driver obviously. If the reviewer was more Euro-sized than porked-out American, his point may be valid. A lot of Americans find the Recaros in the Focus and Fiesta STs too tight but they are generally praised in the UK.
 

Chlocli

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Threads
4
Messages
77
Reaction score
7
Location
Austin, TX
First Name
Steve
Vehicle(s)
1999.5 Audi A4 1.8qtms
Don’t expect much in the way of economy, either – there are no UK mpg figures yet, but by way of comparison, a 2.3-litre Mustang does 33mpg in the American highway test, while a 2.0-litre 238bhp BMW 428i does 42mpg in the same US test.
42mpg for a 428i, yeah right. The actual EPA numbers are 35mpg for the 428 and 32mpg for the 435. Good numbers for sure thanks to the 8speed auto but 42mpg is still turbo diesel territory.
 

petraman

Now with more MPGs!
Joined
Jul 23, 2014
Threads
17
Messages
539
Reaction score
41
Location
Columbus, OH
First Name
Peter
Vehicle(s)
2018 VW Golf
Well that was a bit of a cold shower. Still it provides a list to things to check when test driving.
This guy obviously has a negative bias against this car. I'm taking it with a grain of salt.

A lot of Americans find the Recaros in the Focus and Fiesta STs too tight.
*raises hand*
I'm not too fat, either... just really tall.
 

Chlocli

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Threads
4
Messages
77
Reaction score
7
Location
Austin, TX
First Name
Steve
Vehicle(s)
1999.5 Audi A4 1.8qtms
As to the seats not being secure enough when hot-shoeing - a lot is going to depend on the size of the driver obviously. If the reviewer was more Euro-sized than porked-out American, his point may be valid. A lot of Americans find the Recaros in the Focus and Fiesta STs too tight but they are generally praised in the UK.
You are completely correct. I sat in a Hellcat last weekend and the seats were too wide for me (6 1" and 200 lbs) despite being a transplanted fatted up European. BMW/Audi seats hug me nicely though.
 

Sponsored

Devon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2013
Threads
22
Messages
269
Reaction score
5
Location
43.700° N, 79.400° W
Vehicle(s)
TBD
42mpg for a 428i, yeah right. The actual EPA numbers are 35mpg for the 428 and 32mpg for the 435. Good numbers for sure thanks to the 8speed auto but 42mpg is still turbo diesel territory.
This being a British review, he's probably converted the figures to imperial gallons, which are larger than US gallons - hence the better MPG.
 

Chlocli

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Threads
4
Messages
77
Reaction score
7
Location
Austin, TX
First Name
Steve
Vehicle(s)
1999.5 Audi A4 1.8qtms
This being a British review, he's probably converted the figures to imperial gallons, which are larger than US gallons - hence the better MPG.
35 US mpg = 42 imp mpg for the 428 but the reviewer conveniently omitted to adjust the Ecoboost mileage accordingly. The imperial rating for the Ecoboost auto is about 38.5 mpg. Not that big of a big difference (9%) considering the BMW has a 8-speed and a smaller less powerful engine. And certainly not a reason to bash the Ecoboost.
 

nametoshowothers

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Threads
7
Messages
549
Reaction score
111
Location
north america
Vehicle(s)
description of cars
35 US mpg = 42 imp mpg for the 428 but the reviewer conveniently omitted to adjust the Ecoboost mileage accordingly. The imperial rating for the Ecoboost auto is about 38.5 mpg. Not that big of a big difference (9%) considering the BMW has a 8-speed and a smaller less powerful engine. And certainly not a reason to bash the Ecoboost.

He is just a journalist, inherently implies that what he writes is devoid of facts and just meant to convey his desired message. As well he can't do math
 

mikeyw

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Threads
2
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
Location
England
Vehicle(s)
Merc C Class
The mentions of interior quality are a bit worrying. There's obviously still a bit of a gulf in expectations.
Sponsored

 
 




Top