2013 Ford Focus ST Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.com

2013 Ford Focus ST Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds conducts a Long-Term Test of the 2013 Ford Focus ST and shares details on the 2015 Ford Mustang Ecoboost.

Read the full story here

duck87

Hyundai already uses the integrated manifold technique for its turbocharged engines. However, this is only the first step- in the future, the turbo turbine housing will probably also end up being part of the casting as well.

I can't really get behind the idea of a 4-banger Mustang- I also thought this version was initially slated to be for Europeans only... frankly they can keep it.

fordson1

I disagree, duck87. With IRS and a four-cylinder with real power, this is the car the FR-S/BRZ could have been. Yes, it will be larger and heavier than the Toyobaru, but with a reputed 200-lb. weight loss across the lineup, better weight distribution with the four than the Coyote, RWD dynamics, a modern IRS and updated front suspension, it will provide a real cross-shopping challenge. And I bet Ford doesn't put half-assed drift tires and wimpy brake pad material on it.

wdrauch

I would be very surprised if the ride and handling of the new Mustang isn't drastically improved. For one, Ford wants to take the car global and customers in Europe will not forgive clumsy chassis dynamics. Also, Ford has shown with the Focus ST that they have engineers within the company that really know how to set up a car to make it truly fun-to-drive. My biggest question with a 4-cyl Ecoboost in a 'Stang is: how would it sound?

fallenheavens

I'm not sure how I feel about a 4-cylinder in a Mustang, regardless of what kind of specs it's pushing out. It's just not in the Mustang breed. Not only that, but it's a pretty large vehicle. Why not build something that directly competes with the BRZ, a smaller rear wheel drive 4-cylinder sporty car? That seems to make more sense to me than to just throw an engine like that into a Mustang.

fallenheavens

I'm not sure how I feel about a 4-cylinder in a Mustang, regardless of what kind of specs it's pushing out. It's just not in the Mustang breed. Not only that, but it's a pretty large vehicle. Why not build something that directly competes with the BRZ, a smaller rear wheel drive 4-cylinder sporty car? That seems to make more sense to me than to just throw an engine like that into a Mustang.

greenpony

I don't believe I would ever buy a 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder Mustang. It's not that the engines are poor, nor that I'm opposed to driving cars with 4-6 cylinders. The problem is that my mental image of a proper Mustang has a V8 under the hood. Anything less than that, and I may as well drive something else.

greenpony

I don't believe I would ever buy a 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder Mustang. It's not that the engines are poor, nor that I'm opposed to driving cars with 4-6 cylinders. The problem is that my mental image of a proper Mustang has a V8 under the hood. Anything less than that, and I may as well drive something else.

wdrauch

fallenheavens, I believe the rumors say the new Mustang will be slightly smaller than the current one, which I think would be a good thing.
I agree with the comments about only being interested in a V8 Mustang. I love the 2.0L Ecoboost in my ST, but if I'm buying a 'Stang I want that rumbly exhaust of a V8!

wdrauch

fallenheavens, I believe the rumors say the new Mustang will be slightly smaller than the current one, which I think would be a good thing.
I agree with the comments about only being interested in a V8 Mustang. I love the 2.0L Ecoboost in my ST, but if I'm buying a 'Stang I want that rumbly exhaust of a V8!

hybris

The Mustang's current Solid rear axle is posting handling figures approaching a M3 for a fraction of the cost so I don't see why Ford needs to muck with something that is already working well especially with the target market of the Mustang. IE American drivers who want to go fast in a straight line and only on occasion need to make a turn.

hybris

The Mustang's current Solid rear axle is posting handling figures approaching a M3 for a fraction of the cost so I don't see why Ford needs to muck with something that is already working well especially with the target market of the Mustang. IE American drivers who want to go fast in a straight line and only on occasion need to make a turn.

bankerdanny

Ford already produced an excellent turbo 4 Mustang, the Fox body SVO of the early 80's. It was never as popular as the 5.0GT, but it is a well regarded car and its existence didn't cause the Earth to fly into the sun. I think styling is going to make or break the next Mustang. It doesn't have to be retro like every version since 1994, but it can't drift into swoopy FR-S styling either. Part of the reason the Mustang has survived without a break (unlike the Camaro) is that it stayed true to itself. If Ford feels the need to compete with the FR-S, don't do it with the Mustang. Re-introduce the Capri name for that if you like. Make the Mustang suspension modern, but make sure the styling is the muscular coupe that is quitessential American.

bankerdanny

Ford already produced an excellent turbo 4 Mustang, the Fox body SVO of the early 80's. It was never as popular as the 5.0GT, but it is a well regarded car and its existence didn't cause the Earth to fly into the sun. I think styling is going to make or break the next Mustang. It doesn't have to be retro like every version since 1994, but it can't drift into swoopy FR-S styling either. Part of the reason the Mustang has survived without a break (unlike the Camaro) is that it stayed true to itself. If Ford feels the need to compete with the FR-S, don't do it with the Mustang. Re-introduce the Capri name for that if you like. Make the Mustang suspension modern, but make sure the styling is the muscular coupe that is quitessential American.

bankerdanny

I only hit send once, so I don't see why my comment doubled up. And can we end the amature hour on the comments and allow for paragraphs? Aren't you guys a big time company? Why can't you afford a proper comment system?

bankerdanny

I only hit send once, so I don't see why my comment doubled up. And can we end the amature hour on the comments and allow for paragraphs? Aren't you guys a big time company? Why can't you afford a proper comment system?

legacygt

@fordson1: I don't see this comparison at all. In fact, I'd say the Focus ST will remain a better comparison to the Toyobarus than the Mustang. I would also say there's a better than even chance we see a Toyobaru with a turbo before we see the Mustang wit

greenpony

True to the V6 being real world efficient. I rented a 6-cyl Mustang a few months back for a 1,000-mile trip. Three fill-ups were each at or above 30 mpg. Color me impressed.

misterfusion

@bankerdanny, I was going to chime-in about the Mustang SVO too. I always thought that car was pretty cool, so obviously it did not destroy the image of Mustang for me. Also agree about the commenting system: I got a ForSee survey after visiting Edmund

jkavanagh

@duck87, nope. Hyundai integrates the manifold with the turbine housing. With the 2.3 Ecoboost, Ford integrates the manifold into the head.

socal_eric

The 2.0L already has the exhaust manifold integrated into the head which is why turbo upgrades have been so slow to come for the ST as owners wait for an aftermarket company to cast a replacement elbow/turbine housing. If Ford sticks with BorgWarner and goes with something like a larger K04 turbo, getting the passages to mate up with a twin-scroll exhaust housing shouldn’t be extremely difficult but would complicate the casting. Even with a separate cooling path for coolant in the head and the block it might present some durability challenges for cracking. A twin-scroll compatible integral exhaust manifold off the exhaust ports would help aid turbine response but they’d also have to make sure it doesn’t increase overall backpressure dramatically which would drive up exhaust gas temps (EGTs).