Do we think Ford is going to make an S650 GT500/Cobra?

[Mustang1987]

Ok, "Basic 'Boost" owner here. I will likely never track my Mustang or push it to its absolute limits. But you'd have an easier time telling me my car sounds like lawn mower vomit before convincing me my EcoBoost handles like diarrhea-drizzled runs and that I should be absolutely ashamed for enjoying how my car handles for strictly daily driving purposes.

Coming from a 5.0 owner with the performance pack, magneride, active exhaust... the Ecoboost has unbelievable value. I've driven many and they handle unbelievably well and are quick. They're fun cars.

Sponsored

 

[robvas]

So you agree that the $32k ecoboost 0-60 is quicker or as quick as the $46k type r 0-60?

I'm not crapping on the type r by any means, but you were saying the Ecoboost is worthless. I'm saying it has good value. If the lowest of the low base Ecoboost is quicker or as quick as a $46k type r 0-60, then it has very good value.

The solution is to keep the wheels pointed straight in first. Get it right and you'll move all 3183 pounds of Civic to 60 in 4.9 seconds

I care very little about 0-60. Especially for magazine numbers for bone stock cars. If it makes you happy the CTR is a tick slower than the PP EB 0-60, hey it's a FWD car what can it do.

It is, however faster from a roll (3mph in the 1/4) and around a track (2:58 to 3:04 in C&D's Lightning Lap). My point was that if I was buying a 4 cylinder car, it would not be the Eco. But if I was going to spend $45k I wouldn't be buying a 4 cylinder car, period.

You have no stats for a base model

You started posting AI summaries as 'facts'

You're using magazine numbers of the wrong model and year car

 

[Mustang1987]

The solution is to keep the wheels pointed straight in first. Get it right and you'll move all 3183 pounds of Civic to 60 in 4.9 seconds

I care very little about 0-60. Especially for magazine numbers for bone stock cars. If it makes you happy the CTR is a tick slower than the PP EB 0-60, hey it's a FWD car what can it do.

It is, however faster from a roll (3mph in the 1/4) and around a track (2:58 to 3:04 in C&D's Lightning Lap). My point was that if I was buying a 4 cylinder car, it would not be the Eco. But if I was going to spend $45k I wouldn't be buying a 4 cylinder car, period.

You have no stats for a base model

You started posting AI summaries as 'facts'

You're using magazine numbers of the wrong model and year car

There are many tests out there for base Ecoboosts, but that's not my point at all. My point is that the ecoboost isn't crap like you stated it was. Its unbelievably good value for what it delivers. It's 13k cheaper than a GT. The type r is more than a base GT.

 

[robvas]

There are many tests out there for base Ecoboosts, but that's not my point at all. My point is that the ecoboost isn't crap like you stated it was. Its unbelievably good value for what it delivers. It's 13k cheaper than a GT. The type r is more than a base GT.

That is the point you're trying to make, though.

The base model isn't as good as you think it is.

The 4/6 cylinder Mustang/Camaros are lame. A mile behind the V8's in performance. Behind in modability. They sound like shit. The owners are annoying. It's a bad platform to start with.

It's only 25% cheaper than the GT. Less when you realize the discounts are bigger on the GT. For example, the AZ plan discount is $2300 on a EB and $3600 on a GT. You'll never get 10-12k off an EB like people get on a GT.

And then what's the first thing the owners do? Start dumping money into it to try to equal a GT when they should have just bought it in the first place.

I guess if you want an underpowered version of a Mustang that sounds like a lawnmower but is "fun to drive", it's a good deal.

 

[Mustang1987]

That is the point you're trying to make, though.

The base model isn't as good as you think it is.

The 4/6 cylinder Mustang/Camaros are lame. A mile behind the V8's in performance. Behind in modability. They sound like shit. The owners are annoying. It's a bad platform to start with.

It's only 25% cheaper than the GT. Less when you realize the discounts are bigger on the GT. For example, the AZ plan discount is $2300 on a EB and $3600 on a GT. You'll never get 10-12k off an EB like people get on a GT.

And then what's the first thing the owners do? Start dumping money into it to try to equal a GT when they should have just bought it in the first place.

I guess if you want an underpowered version of a Mustang that sounds like a lawnmower but is "fun to drive", it's a good deal.

They're as good as I think they are because I've driven many of them. And many GTs etc.

I don't know what model/car you have, but something tells me you've been gapped by an Ecoboost lol

 

[robvas]

Some people play pickle ball for fun some drive eco's

 

[BoostRabbitGT]

That is the point you're trying to make, though.

The base model isn't as good as you think it is.

The 4/6 cylinder Mustang/Camaros are lame. A mile behind the V8's in performance. Behind in modability. They sound like shit. The owners are annoying. It's a bad platform to start with.

It's only 25% cheaper than the GT. Less when you realize the discounts are bigger on the GT. For example, the AZ plan discount is $2300 on a EB and $3600 on a GT. You'll never get 10-12k off an EB like people get on a GT.

And then what's the first thing the owners do? Start dumping money into it to try to equal a GT when they should have just bought it in the first place.

I guess if you want an underpowered version of a Mustang that sounds like a lawnmower but is "fun to drive", it's a good deal.

My EcoBoost is completely stock and will stay that way until I get into a GT. But until I get a GT (if I ever do, priorities/circumstances change and all that), I'm going to keep enjoying my EcoBoost as much as I can, lawn mower sounds and all.

That said, I apologize if I'm annoying. I do try to be civil and courteous in the landmine infested fields that are comments sections and forums.

 

[DeluxeStang]

I will say we as enthusiasts are at least partially to blame for the drastically rising cost of new sports cars.

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 the current EB.

And, not sound like a rototiller doing so...

If it's stupid to compare a modern car to a classic one, then don't try to compare them in the first place. Don't bitch about how mustangs have gotten more expensive, yet ignore the fact that they're much better performance cars than they used to be. You get what you pay for. People want mustang to get faster, and faster, better and more exotic looking, more advanced. Nothing wrong with any of that, but it comes at a cost.

This old is gold, new is poo shit is getting really tiring to a lot of younger car enthusiasts such as myself. I don't deny mustangs are getting more expensive, but good God guys, they're 50k cars offering similar levels of power and handling you only got with high end exotics a few decades ago.

 

[DeluxeStang]

My EcoBoost is completely stock and will stay that way until I get into a GT. But until I get a GT (if I ever do, priorities/circumstances change and all that), I'm going to keep enjoying my EcoBoost as much as I can, lawn mower sounds and all.

That said, I apologize if I'm annoying. I do try to be civil and courteous in the landmine infested fields that are comments sections and forums.

Nah, you're not annoying man. You love cars, and sports cars at that. You're one of us. The Ecoboost is a real monster in its own way, enjoy it for as long as you want. I look forward to seeing pictures of you gt once you get it. I'm probably about two years from getting a 5.0 myself, maybe we can get ours around the same time and compare mods.

 

[NegativeMultiplier]

For all we know, a Ford employee could be reading this thread, thinking about the irony in the way this conversation redirected itself.

Unless they've forgotten that MPG is the name of the game for ICE engines, I personally doubt Ford is stupid enough to leave Ecoboost owners out in the dust. Maybe they're changing something and haven't announced it yet.

Nothing more than speculation of course, but maybe next year we'll see a repeat of 2019 with an announcement of both a Cobra-adjacent variant and an Ecoboost upgrade. Who knows what'll happen?

 

[robvas]

For all we know, a Ford employee could be reading this thread, thinking about the irony in the way this conversation redirected itself.

Unless they've forgotten that MPG is the name of the game for ICE engines, I personally doubt Ford is stupid enough to leave Ecoboost owners out in the dust. Maybe they're changing something and haven't announced it yet.

Nothing more than speculation of course, but maybe next year we'll see a repeat of 2019 with an announcement of both a Cobra-adjacent variant and an Ecoboost upgrade. Who knows what'll happen?

I don't know where the timestamp is but this interview has a good section where she talks about how clueless ford is to what people want with the Mustang etc

Edit: This the part

 

[snakeyes]

As the title states - do we think Ford is going to make an "affordable" supercharged Mustang in the 80-100k range like a GT500 or new gen Cobra? Not an astronomically priced GTD. Considering trading in my GT for a Hellcat, but preferably I'd wait and save up some more coin for a GT500/Cobra if that's in the pipeline.

Don’t make the Hellcat mistake whatever you do. They are loaded with issues and with Stellantis looking to sell off Dodge you could REALLY be screwed

 

[JimC]

I had an EcoBoost with the performance package and really enjoyed the car. It was "quick and nimble" and I found in the turns on the track I had no problems staying with the GT's and even pulling away. But on the straights of course I had to give them the point-by because they simply over powered me.

At the end of summer 2023 my wife said, "get the GT" and asked me if the 2024 had hit the showroom yet.

With my GT I find it is a different car in the turns, and it takes some getting used to the weight difference. This summer was my first time on the track with it so still learning with it, but no problem on the straights with it coming out of the turn the power is there now! The difference is the GT is fast, rather than quick like the EcoBoost was.

 

[MAGS1]

Curious why some in this thread think 0-60 is some great indicator of a car’s performance. All it really says is if something is quick off the line or it’s fast in a red light to red light race (don’t do that stuff btw, it’s dumb and immature).

If drag racing is your thing, use 1/4 mile times and trap speeds. If road racing is your thing, use lap times. 0-60 may tell a part of the story but it can be misleading. GT500’s can have mediocre 0-60 times on unprepped surfaces due to traction issues. But we all know how well they do in 1/4 mile and on a track. So that 0-60 doesn’t really tell the full story (or the real story really).

 

[robvas]

0-60 may tell a part of the story but it can be misleading. GT500’s can have mediocre 0-60 times on unprepped surfaces due to traction issues. But we all know how well they do in 1/4 mile and on a track. So that 0-60 doesn’t really tell the full story (or the real story really).

And then you have the 13-14 GT500 where Ford put just the right gear ratios in it so the car could hit 60mph in 1st gear and have a slightly faster 0-60 (since you didn't have to shift to 2nd gear) but it ended up making the car slower everywhere else

0-100 is a much better measure. Or 60-130

Sponsored