Search results

It's gone. So you can't get a "good" EcoBoost anymore. The ones all the magazines test. You get basic brakes, all season tires, no performance rear end blah blah so negating all the things they EB owners brag about being great handling blah blah

No it does not. The 32k non performance version is a sad sack of shit. imagine if you just put the 5.0 in the ecoboost, it'd be better than the 2.3 with mods. Oh wait they already make that Good day.

Durango is AWD it's like the WRX guys would talk 0-60 and then wonder why got left like they were standing still after that

The 2025 isn't even being made yet so what we we even be comparing it to? the eco is going to suck even more without it. No PP wheels and summer tires, brembos, 3.55's, paddle shifters, torsen...good luck getting your 0-60's with the base model on all seasons thank you ford for getting rid of...

It's not a bad guide. 285/35-20 would be 3.3% and you'd still be fine

3% is nothing if you're going to do 275 all around get the same size wheel around so you can at least rotate them

It'd be okay but why not go 285

They don't? You sure about that? Where did I get that screenshot of the "2.3l High Performance Package" then? Certainly not from the "build an EcoBoost fastback" on Fords website Enjoy talking about 0-60's kid...

Another solid data point... Car and Driver tested both the Dark Horse and the 392 Durango to both run a 4.1 second 0-60 but we all know the Dark Horse is a way faster car (it will put a bus length on it after 60)

"high performance package", sorry. And without it the EcoBoost loses all of its handling and braking which is what those dorks seem to love so much. So it would get destroyed even more around a track. don't use 0-60 because it doesn't jack, gets measured differently by every source, relies too...

We're going to need the performance package on the EcoBoost so the price is closer to 37k Please don't use 0-60 for anything. Use a full quarter mile or laptime. Which the CTR beats the ecoboost in either. Costs a little more but it's by far the better car.

^^ and there are some good sounding four cylinders, they are all hi revving engines though.

This is the dumbest argument people can throw out there. A 60' Mustang would get smoked by a minivan. Who cares? Besides, plenty of the 420-something cubic inch mustangs from the 60's ran 13's in the 1/4 mile back then in the magazine tests, so with a modern tire on them they'd easily beat...

Great performance? Compared to? A Civic Type R will kick its ass if you want to compare to four cylinder sports cars. And they run the 1/4 mile like a 3V Mustang GT from 2005 I fail to see the appeal. An engine with the nickname "Ecoboom" is reliable?

What's so good about them? Crappy 4 cylinder in too big of a chassis that fits an amazing V8 engine.

Fish one of these down there

You said it was a 5/16th on reddit!

Kind of funny how That1320Chick talks about them sounding like boats here

You don't hear the squeaking and chirping? Definitely not just a tick. Sounds like a belt or idler.

Way more people than are "real drivers" and doing track days.