21 Passenger Church Bus 7.3l Diesel Front Rear A/c Camp Van Shuttle Runs Great on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost Review

"It's just a V6 Mustang." That phrase, so often spoken with derision and disdain, has haunted owners of Ford's more affordable and economical pony car since roughly April of 1964. Even after Dearborn finally paid some attention to its entry-level muscle car by eliminating telltale V6 features – the company fit dual exhausts in place of the single-exit pipe in 2011, negating the budget offering's biggest visual giveaway – the car was still hard pressed to shake its reputation as a hairdresser's car and rental fleet queen. For the Mustang's 50th year in service, Ford went back to the drawing board, we think with the distinct goal of eliminating the stigma of the non-V8 Mustang. While the V6 is still being offered (your local Avis and Enterprise lots wouldn't be the same without them), it's best to think of the new, four-cylinder, turbocharged Mustang EcoBoost as the entry-level model. But will the addition of forced induction – from an engine that will see action in the upcoming, enthusiast-centric Focus RS, no less – be enough to appease those pony car fans that believe that only Mustangs with eight cylinders are worthy of the galloping stallion badge? After a week at the helm, we certainly think it is. The new Mustang's looks have been covered ad nauseam. Chances are good that you either love the fastback styling, or you think the original pony car now looks a lot like a Fusion Coupe. We'll ignore the bigger styling remarks for the 2015 Mustang, and instead, focus on what's done right with the EcoBoost model. Like the V6 before it, certain boxes are correctly ticked. Dual exhausts? Check. 18-inch alloys? Check. (Our EcoBoost Premium model even shares its wheels with the base GT). HID headlamps? Check. Up front, there's a surprisingly meaty chin spoiler while the muscular lines of the 'Stang's long hood tie in nicely with the fastback shape, which terminates in a neat rear spoiler. There's even a body-colored diffuser at the back, between the chromed exhaust tips. The bottom line is, unless you're a true Mustang aficionado, you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference between the turbocharged car and its 435-horsepower brother. Simply sitting in the redesigned cabin isn't enough to give the EcoBoost away, either. The leather-trimmed seats (standard on the Premium trim) are cozy and supportive, with plenty of bolstering to help keep both driver and passenger in place while the 'Stang exhibits its newly enhanced cornering abilities.

2015 Ford Edge debuts with fresh tech inside and out

Edge will be the first Ford-badged product to come standard with EcoBoost power.
Ford officially unveiled the all-new, third-generation Edge today at its Dearborn home, announcing that the latest version of the popular crossover will ride on the same CD4 architecture that underpins the Ford Fusion and Lincoln MKZ. The Edge will also be the first Ford-badged product to come standard with EcoBoost power.

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.