2016 Ford Mustang V6 or Ecoboost?
Isn't the ecoboost more expensive that a GT?
also why a v6
>>14162698
Neither, cuck.
>>14162698
Ecoboost. More low end power. with the V6 you have to really wring it out. Ecoboost has BOOOOOOOOOST.
>>14162703
Ecoboost is roughly 6 grand less than the GT.
5.0 GT
>>14162703
No. Price difference is $1500 more than a V6. But it comes with better tires and wheels + a few more options than the V6. I feel it's worth the extra $1500>>14162703
Here's my reasoning
1. Better gas mileage
2. Sick ass turbo sound
3. Upgraded options (wheels and tires and remote start and a few other things)
4. Sounds sick as fuck with a delete
5. Turbo = less stress on engine, lasts longer
6. Cheaper insurance since 4cyl
>>14162730
>Turbo = less stress on engine, lasts longer
lolwut
>>14162698
ecoboost
>>14162730
The ecoboost outperforms the v6, it is the Mustangs mid level engine and insurance companies know that. Engines with any sort of forced induction are always more strained than the N/A counterparts but engines can handle it these days. There is also a lot more tuning capability out of the box. That being said the V8 offers a lot more than both of these.
>>14162698
BRZ with a forced induction kit
>>14162758
I'd get a V8 but don't have the funds
>>14162730
>turbo
>last longer
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA child confirmed
>>14162790
Then wait till you do or a pre owned 2015. You won't regret it. Especially with these pony/muscle cars.
>>14162804
This.
Used V8 Mustangs are surprisingly cheap, you could probably pick one up that's a year old for the price of a new Ecoboost
>>14162698
Ecoboost, only because you can get the performance spring/brake/seating options with it, that are all intentionally unavailable on the v6.
Although honestly, I think the correct answer is used V6 + aftermarket spring kit.
>>14162864
Or a used V8
>>14162864
Did I miss out on something about V6's? Why is anyone recommending one at all?
>>14162920
>Why is anyone recommending one at all?
Because faggots love turbo 4cyls and anyone who isn't a faggot will buy the v8.
>>14162941
I'm asking why recommend the v6 at all? It's worst of both worlds.
>>14162730
The V6 is more of a cruiser car.
>>14162950
They really just can't afford the extra bucks I guess? But that's a really terrible idea since you get a huge amount of value by going up a step to the ecoboost.
The only reason why the V6 even exists is for renter fleets and so that Ford can advertise that the starting price is $25,445 to make it look cheaper than competitors. In reality you should basically assume that the Mustang is $27,000, minimum.
The only reason
>>14162698
Ecoboost
>>14162698
5.0
.
0
>>14162720
This.
turbo 4? V6? Gtfo
Ecoboost if you're going to mod it.
V6 if you wear a purse.
>>14163036
Don't forget teenage girls
All those automatic V6 convertibles littering highschool and college parking lots
V4 for boys
V6 for girls
V8 for men
It's pretty simple
>>14164265
someone still makes a v4 that isnt on a air compressor.
>>14162698
2017 Ecoboost V6.
>>14162698
Isn't the ecoboost actually slower than the v6 on most tracks?
That being said, I never saw the point of a non-v8 mustang, or a non-v8 muscle car in general. If you're not going to put real muscle in your muscle car, just buy a v6 accord or someshit
>>14164380
>>14162698
Ecoboost is easily tunable and what not
>>14164459
Only issue is the turbo manifold is cast onto the heads. No big ol' pipes allowed :<
Why is the V8 so praised here?
A mild tune and upgrades on the Ecoboost and you got more torque and horsepower. Its pretty mild in factory form.
I mean its 2016, cylinder count and displacement are being trumped by forced induction.
>>14164511
Same amount of dollars spent on upgrading the Ecoboost will get you even more horsepower out of the V8.
>>14164530
that's not exactly true though.
>>14164511
Spoken like a person who has owned not enough cars of varying cylinders, displacements, and forced induction.
Come back when you have owned more than mom and dads hand me downs and have been through a few cars.
>>14164573
not being him and having quite a few experiences with varying inductions, displacements, and cylinder counts, you're missing something.
Bigger engines have more potential to make power. This does not directly correlate to power per dollar. This does not mean one is more reliable or easier to mod than the other.
>>14164109
Why even get a mustang if you're gonna get it with a Miata engine
>>14164560
>but ecoboost
>spend tons tuning it up and raising boost
>buy v8
>put some turbos in
Wew lad
>>14164644
Also 4 cylinders sound gay as fuck
>>14164644
Yeah, and then you have to tear down the 5.0 and replace the cast pistons for any purpose in doing that. Your argument is uneducated and you're generally a big dumb head.
>>14164644
You can get pretty substantial gains on the Ecoboost with less than $2500 worth of parts and a tune.
ecoboost mustang cuz turbo tbhfam
>>14164511
Because the torque curve and throttle response you get from a turbocharged engine isn't the same as what you'd get from an N/A engine.
There's nothing wrong with boost, it's just more finicky. Turbo-lag is much improved these days, but it's still a different feel and a different sound. With boost it hits you all at once and eventually peters out, with a high output N/A engine it's like you feel this building acceleration and it just keeps going until you just about hit the redline.
