Ford Mustang v Ford Mustang 2016 Comparison

Ford Mustang EcoBoost Fastback v Ford Mustang GT Fastback
Comparison Test

For all its attention-grabbing looks, generous specification and keen pricing, it remains hard to visualise just how Ford's new turbocharged four-cylinder Mustang EcoBoost variants fit within the headspace of those who've lusted after an Australian-delivered Pony car. Its 233kW/432Nm outputs from a similar engine to the Focus RS offer a strong counter, but for most the Mustang has and always will be about raw V8 muscle. Let's see what works better in the real world.

Sibling Feud
The premise of this comparison is summed up in one event: Our multimedia production editor, John Wilson, is driving a new Mustang Fastback. As if that wasn't magnetic enough, the latest pony car is finished in a Triple Yellow hue.

Between the stares and thumbs up, a bloke in his XR8 pulls alongside for a closer look. “I could tell he wanted to hear how the Mustang sounded, so I gave it some throttle away from the lights,” John recalls.

“He later pulled alongside me, and his facial expression was of disgust.” Yep, John's ostentatious 'Stang moment was obliterated by the turbo-four under the bonnet… but should we be so hasty to judge?

Horses for courses
For this comparison we've saddled up with a six-speed automatic EcoBoost Fastback; the one that makes most sense as an everyday proposition, but with enough stomp and agility to keep things interesting. At the other end, we've nabbed a menacing Magnetic (grey) GT Fastback manual as the enthusiast's choice.

Priced at $48,490 (plus ORCs) in automatic form, the EcoBoost generates 233kW at 5600-5700rpm, but it's the torque output that better explains the turbocharged 2.3-litre four-pot's delivery: 432Nm at 3000rpm.

There's a limited-slip differential feeding that power to the rear wheels, shod with 255/40-series Pirelli P Zero rubber over 19-inch alloys.

Fuel use is its party piece (at least, in this context), with a claimed 9.3L/100km on the combined cycle.

The rest of its specification is high for the price, as we've covered previously and extensively; there's even heated and cooled seats, but they fail to mask the sometimes patchy interior quality… including the faux aluminium inserts.

Opt for the 5.0-litre naturally-aspirated V8, from $57,490 (plus ORCs) in GT manual Fastback form as here, and your numbers swell to 306kW at 6500rpm and 530Nm at 4250rpm. Like the turbo's swollen mid-range, this hints at the 'little' (at least, in American terms) V8's appetite for revs.

Fuel? Try 13.1L/100km combined.

In hardware terms the 'five-point-o' gains an extra 20mm of rear tyre width (275/40), a thicker rear anti-roll bar, monotube rear dampers and 'heavy-duty' front springs.

There's also a substantially larger Brembo front brake package to offset its extra urge and weight (1664kg v 1739kg), with six-piston front brake calipers clamping 380mm front discs on the V8, four-pot fronts with 352mm discs on the EcoBoost.

Both, incidentally, use the same single-piston 330mm rear brake setup.

Also the same is the electrically-assisted power steering which offers a 16:1 ratio and gives either variant a 12.2m turning circle.

Show Pony
Aesthetically there's not much between the two, but that's not necessarily a bad thing: both look tremendous, especially for the outlay, though the V8 owners might bristle at the similarity…

The most obvious differences are the GT badge in place of the Mustang on the rear of the V8 variant, the 5.0 badge on the side, the bigger Brembo brakes and different wheels.

The honeycomb-look grille has a tighter weave on the V8 and its front spoiler looks better integrated. There's also a chrome finish to the exhaust system.

If the gorgeous body creases and curves make differentiation difficult, the interior is even harder to split, down to the same tachometer and speedometer markings and similar overall equipment levels.

Hit the starter button, and all thoughts of similarity go out the window.

The atmo V8 just sounds so right, throaty yet grumbly in the best American small-block tradition. Select a gear in the nicely weighted, relatively short-throw six-speed manual gearbox, feed the clutch in comfortably and it immediately proves it can play docile when required. Even though torque peaks at over 4000rpm, there's plenty on tap from off-idle and the gearing is nicely stacked through to a direct-drive fifth.

Find somewhere appropriate to give the 5.0-litre its head and it comes alive inside, the engine note giving away its appetite for revs. You feel the rear sit down as you look out over that gorgeously-creased bonnet, relishing the top-end rush before you grab the next gear and do it all again.

How can the four-pot live with that?

There's a disappointing blandness to the turbocharged 2.3-litre's first strokes. The exhaust emits a blare, while inside there's a sense that what you're hearing is contrived, and what you do hear is less inspiring than something like the Fiesta ST's 2.0-litre EcoBoost donk. If you like a bit of turbo whistle, however, then the EcoBoost can deliver.

Without a clutch and stick to modulate, the six-speed auto (which features the same 3.55:1 final drive as the V8, though the gear ratio spread is wider) doesn't offer a sequential manual shift mode, meaning if you want control, you have to use the wheel-mounted paddles.

Flexing the throttle through the mid-range in pursuit of the V8, it's actually easy to sit on its bumper, particularly when you see the V8 shift momentary weight off its rear wheels as the next manual shift is completed. In contrast the auto in the four-pot allows you to keep the turbocharger on the boil: There's not much in it in terms of real-world response.

From 4000rpm onwards, the V8's surprising appetite for revs coincides with a feeling that the turbo-four is becoming breathless, but this is rare on the road. In pace terms, it's closer than you may think.

One area where the EcoBoost comfortably eclipses the V8 is in tested fuel consumption, though the figures were closer than the claims suggest. After a week including the road loops, a long country drive out to Heathcote raceway and a few 'quarter mile' passes the GT showed 17.5L/100km against the EcoBoost's 15.1L/100km.

A little horseplay
Swapping straight roads for twisty, the yellow beast's lighter nose is expected to show improved agility over its weightier sibling.

After stretching both variants over the same road in the same conditions, it's fair to say that the expectation is realised… but with surprising reservations.

In essence, the EcoBoost is more agile. Turn towards an apex with the accurate steering (which can be altered for response between normal, sport and comfort, as in the 5.0-litre) and the nose is keener to lock onto the line. It also gives you more room for added steering angle, should you want to further finesse your line… but that's where its dynamic advantage ends.

Thanks to the bespoke suspension tuning wrought on the 5.0-litre, it is in better control of its mass. On a particularly nasty bump taken at around 100km/h, my head hits the roof in the four-pot. Switch to the V8, and the jolt is still stiff but my head goes nowhere near the roof lining. You also feel it in how the V8 settles with more confidence over smaller oscillations.

Sure, in the mid-corner phase there's less outright agility, the nose leaning towards understeer more, but there's also more opportunity to use the throttle to balance this out, relying on the larger rear rubber to hook into the tarmac and burst the Mustang out on corner exit.

Back-tracking to braking, the V8 remains superior. It has a firmer pedal that requires a heftier shove in traffic and at slow speeds, but real – and lasting – stopping power on your favourite back road. The four-pot's four-pots are more obviously biased towards the day-to-day, offering better pedal progression but less ultimate control.

Charge!
Shifting from twisty tarmac to the unlimited nature of a dragstrip bears out many of the points discovered on the road.

The EcoBoost's strong mid-range is realised in the 50-70km/h rolling acceleration test, where it actually bests the V8 with a 1.26sec marker (V8: 1.39sec). But that is the only highlight for the turbo-four…

Put simply, the V8 is on another planet under brakes, stopping from 60km/h in a remarkable 13.20m compared with 15.77m.

Hammer down, the V8 spins the wheels on the 1-2 and 2-3 shifts, on its way to 100km/h in 5.54sec and a 13.79sec 'quarter mile' (400m) at 171.3km/h. We also tried launch control, which was around 0.2sec slower.

Oddly, Sport Plus mode in the EcoBoost's automatic transmission produces a pronounced delay on the 1-2 shift, similar to the Holden Insignia VXR; it's like the turbo wastegate can't keep up. As a result, the mid-ground Sport mode produces the best times: zero to 100km/h in 6.38sec, the 400m dash in 14.56sec at a 158.1km/h terminal speed (see full 'as tested' performance figure below).

Stallion and the Pony
I'll admit it: I went into this comparison thinking the EcoBoost would show up the heavyweight V8 in handling and real-world pace.

In reality, it failed on the former and only gets close on the latter. The rest?

The four-cylinder leads on price and fuel consumption, and it does have the softer edge in the day-to-day. But is that what you buy an ostentatious coupe for?

The V8-powered GT, if you can forgive the built-to-a-price materials that also exist on the EcoBoost, offers a sense of occasion rarely unravelled in modern cars, with a character that speaks to the proud 'Mustang: Since 1964' badge emblazoned in its cockpit.

The EcoBoost fails to really deliver on those looks and that heritage. But the GT really nails its muscular mission statement.

2016 Ford Mustang EcoBoost Fastback pricing and specifications:
Price: $48,490 (auto, plus on-road costs)
Engine: 2.3-litre turbocharged four-cylinder petrol
Output: 233kW/432Nm
Transmission: Six-speed automatic
Fuel: 9.3L/100km (ADR Combined)
CO2: 214g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety Rating: N/A

2016 Ford Mustang GT Fastback pricing and specifications:
Price: $57,490 (plus on-road costs)
Engine: 5.0-litre V8 petrol
Output: 306kW/530Nm
Transmission: Six-speed manual
Fuel: 13.1L/100km (ADR Combined)
CO2: 305g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety Rating: N/A

Performance:
2016 Ford Mustang EcoBoost Fastback:
0-60km/h: 3.26sec
0-100km/h: 6.38sec
50-70km/h: 1.26sec
80-100km/h: 1.79sec
60-0 (m): 15.77
0-400m: 14.56sec @ 158.1km/h

2016 Ford Mustang GT Fastback:
0-60km/h: 2.76sec
0-100km/h: 5.54sec
50-70km/h: 1.39sec
80-100km/h: 1.31sec
60-0 (m): 13.20
0-400m: 13.79sec @ 400m: 171.3km/h