Mustang 2.3L ecoboost review. 2018 w/10 sp auto

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I have an idea, how about connecting the throttle plate to the gas pedal? That way drivers get what they ask for. Doesn’t have to be a cable, but it does have to be “correct”



AMEN!
 
Originally Posted By: Danno
5.0 or nothing


I agree. A V8 is the ONLY engine a Mustang should come with.
 
The majority of buyers who buy Mustangs only care about the horse symbol, name and the image conjured of car. Let be honest every I4(88HP in 1980's) and V6 is well ho hum but the GT and above is the only real sports car.

Ford has done well not surprised with your findings.
 
Originally Posted By: 123Saab
So if they could fix the throttle Issues and loose 500lbs it would be fine.


And the horrible groaning sound coming from the exhaust. A UPS truck sounds more sporty.
 
I did some math (not my strongest subject) and the actual cost to run the Ecoboost vs. the GT is very close. The Eco doesn't run right unless you use premium unleaded, which around here is $.60 more per gallon. This explains why people are experiencing driveability issues and the car doesn't feel like it has the power it's supposed to. I figured to run 1,000 miles it costs about $4 more with the GT using 87 octane. I just bought a 2018 GT for my wife and it is getting 22 city/highway mpg according to the computer. I will check the accuracy on paper once I run this tank down.
 
Last edited:
I guess the next question could be:

Are there any other 4cyl 300hp Turbo's out there that run on 87 gas?
 
I took a quick video of the intake manifold pressure gauge. I was unable to video the crazy "steps" that occur when slowly increasing throttle position. But you can clearly see the intake manifold pressure and by definition, throttle plate position is ALL OVER THE PLACE with a steady foot.

It's no wonder the car feels awful.

Note: It seems tuners have addressed some of these drivability issues and the car gains 96 RWHP (to 380RWHP) with a tune, cold air intake and downpipe. Also, 87 octane reduces stock HP to 275.
 
the 4 cyl ecoboost falcon got pretty good reviews in Oz...not overly recently as it's discontinued.

Focus RS...seeing a hatch in a car yard with $56k+ on the window...I nearly died laughing.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
the 4 cyl ecoboost falcon got pretty good reviews in Oz...not overly recently as it's discontinued.

Focus RS...seeing a hatch in a car yard with $56k+ on the window...I nearly died laughing.


Just looked up the Falcon. Cool RWD car. I'll bet that inline six was sweet.

The $40K (here in the states) 2.3 Ecoboost Focus RS received a "Flash" update from Ford, which as I understand it, solved 100% of the drivability issues. A friend owns one and it's quite an impressive car. 350HP and 3400 pounds. Drives nothing like the Mustang EB.
 
Originally Posted By: SatinSilver
Originally Posted By: 123Saab
I guess the next question could be:

Are there any other 4cyl 300hp Turbo's out there that run on 87 gas?


Premium is what Ford recommends for this engine along with the 2L ecoboost. No wonder it ran like donkey.

https://www.cars.com/research/ford-mustang-2018/


I put premium in it. That did help a little. However, it most certainly did not change the bizarre nature of this little engine.
 
Makes you wonder how this 2.3 will do in the new ford ranger. I will wait to see what the specs say then do a test drive
when they come out. I am just not a fan of small turbine motors but I do have to keep an open mind because it is getting to the point eventually I won't have a choice.
.
 
After looking at the video I'm wondering if there wasn't something wrong with that car. That does seem like bizarre behavior and monitoring my EB 3.5's with Torque they don't do that dance at all.

I don't remember any issues when I drove the 2.3 earlier in the year on the street. The wife also drove the 2.3 in a small parking lot course and it wasn't jerky either.
 
Originally Posted By: itguy08
After looking at the video I'm wondering if there wasn't something wrong with that car. That does seem like bizarre behavior and monitoring my EB 3.5's with Torque they don't do that dance at all.

I don't remember any issues when I drove the 2.3 earlier in the year on the street. The wife also drove the 2.3 in a small parking lot course and it wasn't jerky either.


Nothing wrong with the car. This is not the first one I've driven. They do behave like this. There is a lot to dislike with Ford's programming.

As I mentioned above, the Focus RS was updated with a new tune, done at the same time as the head gasket. This new tune gets rave reviews for smoothness.

EDIT: My 2011 3.5L Ecoboost F150 drives perfectly. And pulls wonderfully, even at part throttle. It does prefer premium fuel, just like the Mustang.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Cujet

Nothing wrong with the car. This is not the first one I've driven. They do behave like this. There is a lot to dislike with Ford's programming.


That is odd since as you note Ford nailed the programming on the Ecoboost 3.5 and IMHO it's good on the EB 2.0 and new 1.5. Shame as the car has the potential to get good MPG and performance. I'm averaging 21.5 in mixed driving in my 6MT 5.0 which is not much worse than you got in the EB and it's a blast to drive.

Has it been this way since the introduction of the EB 2.5?
 
As others here have said, my wife's 2.3 eb 6 speed auto mustang runs much better on 93 octane. Running on 87 if feels like it pulls a lot of ignition timing out. It also always got a few mpg less when on 87. Other than that I have no complaints about it as a daily driver. She averages 28 mpg and she has a pretty heavy foot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
200k report 2018 Tiguan
2 3
Replies
52
Views
1K
SOUNDMAN5000
M
Rental Review - 2025 Sienna
Replies
13
Views
827
MCompact
F
'23 Camry rental car review
Replies
7
Views
787
oilboy123
OVERKILL
10-day review - 2025 Ford Bronco Sport
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
6K
MCompact
rstcso
Out with the Audi & In with a Pilot
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
CKN
Back
Top Bottom