Skip to main content

2016 Mustang EcoBoost Track Review

Photography by: Graham MacNeil

Ford really wants to sell you a Mustang with a turbo four cylinder. They started by derating the V6 engine in the 2015 S550 compared to the 2011-2014 S197 V6 to make the EcoBoost 2.3 litre more differentiated. Then, they offered a performance pack on the EcoBoost but not on the V6. Now, they killed the V6 all together for 2018 and will only sell you a V8 or this EcoBoost. I love a good V8, everyone who knows me knows that. This is a Mustang, which means it needs a V8. If those aren't enough reasons, I always prefer natural aspiration over forced induction. That's three strikes against the EcoBoost-powered Mustang. But I'd be lying if I said the idea never intrigued me.

It's the lightest (if you account for features). It has the best weight distribution. It has the same great chassis as the GT. It's very affordable and it has a lot of potential to make more power. Aftermarket? Endless support. There's plenty of good about it. The question is this: if you stop thinking about it as a cut-rate Mustang with the wrong engine and start thinking about it as an entry-level sports car, is it any good? .. I'd like to pull off a Top Gear moment and tell you "To find out, the producers gave me [insert amount of money] to go and buy one." But I have no producer.. and I can't go and buy one. Fortunately, though, one of my HPDE "students" showed up in a 2016 Mustang EcoBoost so I had a chance to find out what it's like on track. First, let's address the elephant in the room; the power. Comparing best tests from Car and Driver, the results are not that bad:

2011 Mustang V6      2015 Mustang EcoBoost
0-60 mph 5.4 s 5.5 s
0-100 mph 13.0 s 13.3
1/4 mile 14.0 s @ 104 mph 13.9 s @ 102
rolling 5-60 mph      5.8 s 6.8 s
Is it worth it? 18 mpg 22 mpg

I would say traction is a wash, but the V6 has a clear advantage in top end power, judging by the 0-100 mph number and trap speed. The whopping 1 second difference in the rolling 5-60 mph test would make a very good advertisement for naturally aspirated power and the troubles of turbo lag. A later test of a 2013 V6 was 2 tenths quicker to 60 mph (5.2 s) but slower to 100 mph (13.4) and tied the EcoBoost in 1/4 mile ET & trap so I'm assuming better launch at the expense of trap speed which isn't unusual. Some may consider that a better test but it shows the V6 to launch better and tie the EcoBoost in top end power, so take your pick. Either way, they're very close and to give credit where credit is due, the new Mustang is much more refined and feature-rich, and therefore heavier, yet the performance is very close and it is much more efficient, where the EcoBoost returned 22 mpg in Car and Driver's hands during the test vs the V6's only 18 mpg. The sound is nowhere near as good. That's saying a lot since a V6 Mustang is not one of the best sounding V6's in the first place, but objectively, the only downside to the EcoBoost is the turbo lag. So let's say you keep it on boil as you would on a track, are you on to something?

It turns out, yes, very much so. But let's establish something first. This is NOT meant to be a track car from the factory. Sure, you can get the performance pack and improve it but that is by no means a comprehensive makeover for track duty. Once you get that out of the way and set your expectations straight, disappointment will be a lot less likely. Basically, don't expect this to be either a Shelby GT350R or Camaro ZL1 1LE - minus the power - and you'll be happy.

For starters, it's a little soft for a serious track car, although it's perfectly fine for a few track days and HPDE's a year (and for what it's worth, my Boss 302 is also relatively soft, especially compared to cars in its performance bracket). That said, it's not ponderous or sloppy, not by a long shot. It's composed and body motions are nicely controlled. The softer suspension made it deal with our old track's asphalt and bumps beautifully. It's not a light car, weighing approximately 3,600 lb, plus or minus. Nor is it small either, being about as large in exterior dimensions as Ford's midsize Fusion. Driving around the paddock onto pit lane, it feels like a large GT car. But once pushed, it shrinks around you and feels like there's a bonafide sports car chassis underneath the "business suit" and layer of comfort/isolation.

The balance is surprisingly nice for what is ultimately very much a street car, especially considering that this is the volume engine Ford expects (and tries) to sell the most of. It will obviously default to limit understeer unless provoked, but like I mentioned, if you set your expectations straight, it's nothing you wouldn't expect in a car like this. It's actually better than I thought it would be. The lighter front end is noticeable compared to my Boss 302, even if ultimate grip and handling balance is in favour of the Boss. And perhaps now would be a good time to mention that this car isn't entirely stock. It has wider wheels and tires. The tires were BF Goodrich G-force Sport Comp 2's, measuring 275/40/18 all around (picture above was before the wheel and tire upgrade), which is a couple of sizes up from even the performance pack's 255/40/19 (in width, of course, not diameter). Despite all stock suspension otherwise - base, not even performance pack - grip was very good with the bigger tires.

Turn in was also good and response was prompt. There is also a decent amount of steering feel, combined with good heft. It is not razor sharp, but it is a very stable and confidence inspiring car to drive fast so it's hard to complain. The first day of the weekend was actually quite wet, but the car seems to have been built for those conditions. I and my "student" quickly picked up pace and speed despite the wet conditions. I think it is an absolutely fantastic car to learn high performance driving in. Like the tires, brakes weren't stock, although they were OEM - takeoffs from a Mustang GT (a side note, buddy that owned the car said they were $400 or $450 for a full set of brakes, including discs, calipers, and pads, and it's what Shelby America does with stock Mustang parts on cars they build. It's a fantastic deal if you're upgrading from a V6 or EcoBoost).

Back to the brakes, they were very strong and bite at top of the pedal was top notch. In fact, I felt it might have been a little too sensitive sometimes, but you got used to it after a while and the strong bite was confidence inspiring. Fade? Not a hint of it. Now, we didn't push the car very hard and only stayed on track for about 25 mins at a time, so keep that in mind. But if you are buying this car to learn high performance driving in, you likely won't run into fade issues for a long time with those brakes. I can't comment on the stock, base brakes but I suspect that at least the performance pack brakes are nearly as good as the GT takeoffs that were on this one.

Now here's where it gets interesting.. as you'd expect, when it comes to what's under the hood, things get complicated with a 4-cyl turbo Mustang. I'll start with the good. It is a very torquey engine. It is also very tunable and there are a lot of options for getting more power out of it. He had the Ford Performance ProCal tune, which comes with hugely substantial claims:

  • Peak gains of 25 hp at 5500 rpm and 70 lb.ft. torque at 2200 rpm
  • 40 hp and 60 lb.ft. torque average gain from 2500-5000 rpm
  • 75 hp and 64 lb.ft. average gain from 5500-6800 rpm
  • 100 hp maximum gain at 6000 rpm 
In other words, it makes the car a decent amount more powerful at peak, much more powerful midrange, and gets rid of the power drop after peak. The torque hits like a freight train with boost and pulls really strong after that. If you aren't one of those people that likes to wring out an engine, I think you'll LOVE this one. The bad? This incredibly strong torque surge comes with a price.. it's not an easy engine to modulate. Remember how much I loved the grip and stability in the rain? The engine threatens to ruin it all if you aren't careful. A couple of times, boost hit unexpectedly as we were trying to find the car's limits in the rain and the back end quickly came out. This also makes it difficult to smoothly induce rear end slip to correct understeer/increase yaw. Despite the long rear end (3.31 without the performance pack) and wider tires, the car still was easy to brake traction if you don't modulate the throttle well and boost hits too soon.

If you're a fan of old turbo cars, you'll love this. Porsche actually said (according to Car & Driver article) that they did not try to hide the boost/turbo nature of the new 700 hp 911 GT2 RS. Instead, they left it feel like a turbo engine does. But I love an engine with linear power delivery and easy-to-control power output so that was disappointing for me. At least the engine didn't feel like it lost power as the day went along, although as was the case with the brakes, we weren't pushing to the limit, and it wasn't a very hot day so I can't completely rule that out. It doesn't sound half bad either, if a bit muted (although probably for the best..). And while the torque means you don't have to shift a lot, the shifter was pretty good and we never missed a shift. The pedals are arranged well for heel and toe downshifts. And it's really hard to complain with 380 lb-ft torque at 2,500 rpm..

Now, with all of that in mind, moment of truth: would I buy one? I'm afraid.. yes, yes, I would. But the problem I mentioned I first is still there.. I still think of it as a cut-rate Mustang. Every time I try to think of this car, I always ask myself if I would get it over the Mustang GT (that's a no, if you're curious) and that is the wrong question to ask and the wrong way to look at the car. Looked at independently, the picture comes into focus. It's spacious for a 2 door coupe, comfortable, and well priced - you can build one with just the performance pack for $29k (in the US, $34k in Canada). It has a great chassis, very tunable engine, and fantastic after market AND OEM support from Ford Performance. It was good fun to drive and quick. In fact, I really, really want to go out and buy one with no options, just the performance pack. I previously thought no PP to save some money since I want the Track Handling Pack, but the larger radiator, unique ABS tuning, and Torsen diff are well worth it. Then, this will follow (after a few of track days stock to see what it's like, perhaps some lap times):
  1. Ford Performance ProCal tune
  2. Ford Performance EcoBoost Track Handling Pack
  3. Camber plates
  4. Fit the widest wheels and tires I can. According to American Muscle, that's 305-section wide up front and 315-section wide in the back. I have already tried square 305/35/19 tires on my 2012 Boss 302 and love the setup. You can read about it here.

I would love to find out what a simple, mostly OEM bolt-on setup like that would do to the attitude/grip levels and certainly lap times. I bet it would surprise a lot of people. The wheels, tires, and diff, would solve most of the traction-busting torque surge when boost hits too.


  1. Great review!!! I am the "student", so I can tell you that the car is doing 0-60 in 5.2 seconds with the tune. There is quite a lot of the well-known "wheel hop" issue on launch due to IRS deflection, so I think this time would improve with any of the aftermarket kits to minimize deflection (or, maybe just add a better driver).

    After doing much research, I have decided to add such an IRS kit, along with Ford Performance track-pack shocks & dampers, linear springs, and a few other items to improve the suspension. We should be able to find out how attitude/grip and lap times change with a much-improved suspension when I get back to the AMP in 2018!

    1. Thanks!! I'm glad you like the review! How are you timing the 5.2 s 0-60 run? If it's just a stop watch or phone GPS app, it's likely quicker than that when compared to the numbers from reviews. They do a 1 ft rollout like on a drag strip. If you measured after a 1 ft rollout, you could be looking at a 5 s flat 0-60 run, which would probably be a mid 13-sec 1/4 mile run. Very nice improvement for a factory-backed tune! And the car test had the performance pack too, which helps with the wheel hop issue. The 5.2 is probably a very good run.

      Nice, that'll be great! I can't wait to see what you'll be able to run with those upgrades!

  2. I used the built-in 0-60 mph timer that is part of the car's software (they call it the "track app", or something like that). I think the app starts timing as soon as the car moves; so no roll out.

    I think this link should take you to a photo of the track app after two runs...

    No time for 0-100mph time because I didn't run it all the way up.

    1. Yea, that's pretty good then. For what it's worth, Car & Driver got a 0-30 time of 2.0 s on an even slower run of 5.6 s 0-60 (comparison test between an EcoBoost Mustang and a Camaro V6). A combination of the 1 foot roll out and better launch (performance pack test car and likely more experience) results in an 0.3 s quicker 0-30 time.. This is bench racing at its best, BUT assuming no changes to your run except the launch and a roll out, you could be looking at a sub 5 second 0-60 run! Can't complain about that, especially on our crappy 91 gas.

  3. I have a 2017 PP
    I ran the car in stock trim with good fluids at VIR in 90+ degree weather.
    The only complaint I have was Heat Soak after about 6 Laps.
    Plan on going with a competition Intercooler.
    Hopefully this will fix the problem.
    Any Thoughts on this would be Welcomed.
    Thanks Ahead
    Facebook page:
    Ford Ecoboost Racing


Post a Comment

Does An Aftermarket Grille Really Increase Airflow?
I put a Saleen S281 grille to the test to answer that question.

Stock Suspension S197 Mustang With Square 305/30/19's
What you need to fit a proper size square tire setup.

How Limited Slip Diffs Make You Faster on Track
What you need to know about how they put power down and pros and cons.

Can Telemetry Explain Schumacher's Talent?
A comparison between Schumacher's and then team mate Herbert's data.

Cayman GT4 Track Review
The first Cayman with proper (911-challenging) power.

Is an EcoBoost Mustang any good on Track?
Two days at the track in a Mustang short 4 cylinders.

2016 BMW M4 DCT Track Review
It's quick (properly quick). But is it fun?

Can a stock Golf Diesel handle a Track Day?
Not your every day track beater.

🔥 Most Visited This Week

GTR vs Evo X vs STI: which has the best AWD system?

A few weeks ago, I made a post explaining  mainstream AWD system types and how they compare , pros and cons, etc. including some simple diagrams to show where the power goes and how much. As promised, this post will focus on specific cars and what AWD systems they use, especially ones that that have more or less been defined by their AWD systems, and the best place to start may be with a bombshell; the Nissan GT-R. Nissan GT-R (R35) The GT-R has built a reputation around having monster traction and very approachable performance, thanks to its AWD system - Advanced Total Traction Engineering System for All-Terrain (ATTESA) - and what it can do for you. But the GT-R doesn't actually use the most mechanically sophisticated type of AWD systems discussed in the previous article, namely a "true" AWD with a centre differential. Instead, it uses a clutch pack to transfer power. RWD-based clutch-type AWD schematic - Rams Eye The Track Guy © The R32, R33, and R34 Sky

Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2's vs Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R's

I never thought I'd ever run Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2's on my 2012 Boss 302. The cost is astronomical and they are supposed to last the least of anything comparable. So how did I end up with (nearly) fresh Sport Cup 2's? A complete fluke. I came across a lightly used set with only a few hundred miles and no track time; 305/30/19 takeoffs from a GT Performance Pack Level 2 (GT PPL2). I knew my 71R's were getting very worn before the season started and likely wouldn't last the whole season, even this short one. The price was far better than a new set of RE-71R's, a little more than half, and local Time Attack rules (Canadian Automobile Sport Clubs) recently made 180 and 200 TW tires equivalent, meaning no PAX or PIP point penalty for going with 180 TW tire like the Pilot Sport Cup 2's. I have been very curious about how PSC2's compare to RE 71R's but I stayed away due to their being painfully expensive and, up to last year, their 180 TW rating would

Limited Slip Differential Types Compared

BMW M2 equipped with an eLSD - BMW © A few weeks ago, I posted about traditional clutch-type limited slip diffs (LSD's) and how they work. You can read about those in the previous post: How Limited Slip Diffs Make You Faster on Track . But as you might know or have learned from reading the article, they aren't without their faults, which means engineers are always working to get around those limitations. You may not be surprised to learn that something like the Ferrari 488 GTB doesn't use a traditional limited slip diff, but it's not limited to super cars, far from it. Cars like the Golf GTI, the Civic Type R, various Mustangs, Corvettes, and BMW M cars, and even the Lexus RC F and GS F, all avoid a traditional limited slip diff in favour of one of these technologies. To keep things simple, I'll focus on two wheel drive vehicles. The vast (vast) majority of principles apply to all and 4 wheel drive vehicles, but there are some subtle differences that I'll

2004 Audi TT 3.2 Quattro DSG Track Review

Before getting into this, I have to confess something... I had never driven an Audi TT before. Not until this one, anyway. But that hasn't stopped me from forming an opinion about it from the comforts of my own couch while reading and watching reviews online. After all, if you've never done that, do you even know what the point of the internet is? Now, we all interpret reviews differently. Call it confirmation bias if you will, but if you like a car, you'll read a review and look at the positives as what makes the car great and the negatives are but a few quibbles you have to live with. If you don't like a car, the positives are a few things the manufacturer got right while screwing up everything else. It's a bit harsh to put the TT in the latter category, but that's where it ended up for me... I never took the TT seriously. The problem with the TT for me isn't that it's a Golf underneath, per se. There is nothing wrong with a performance car sharing a