Not anymore. In 2018, the V8 surpassed the Ecoboost in marketshare, 52% to 48%. If fleet sales were removed, then the V8 market share would probably climb a bit further.
The small engine Mustangs have always been derided as non-Mustangs. It shouldn't be surprising that, as coupes become less mainstream, the share of the smaller engine declines. The bulk of Mustang buyers anymore are old men.
Plus, there's the issue that, speccing a ecoboost Mustang with some performance goodies puts it within spitting distance of a 5.0. The Ecoboost HPP is like $32k and the "performance" upgrades for systems like the brakes are essentially base GT take-offs. This makes the $37k GT a really good deal in comparison.
Factoring in depreciation, the GT is a better deal. Fuel costs are marginal since you can run the GT on 87 with almost no power loss while the Eco is a dog without 93 octane. And, for me at least, the GT is cheaper to insure (by like $3) than an Eco. Add in low-interest, long-term loans and the monthly cost difference is minimal as well.
Sure, also V8s are basically obsolete tech by now. Even more so than ICEs in general. It just feels right to have one in certain cars. And yes, I know it doesn't make any sense. Electric, supplemented by bio fuels, is the way to go.
That for sure. I have a 40 year old V8, no muscle car, with an excessive 125 hp. Any modern 4 cylinder beats that in tes of torque, power and mpg. But some parts deserve certain engines.
The small engine Mustangs have always been derided as non-Mustangs. It shouldn't be surprising that, as coupes become less mainstream, the share of the smaller engine declines. The bulk of Mustang buyers anymore are old men.
Plus, there's the issue that, speccing a ecoboost Mustang with some performance goodies puts it within spitting distance of a 5.0. The Ecoboost HPP is like $32k and the "performance" upgrades for systems like the brakes are essentially base GT take-offs. This makes the $37k GT a really good deal in comparison.
Factoring in depreciation, the GT is a better deal. Fuel costs are marginal since you can run the GT on 87 with almost no power loss while the Eco is a dog without 93 octane. And, for me at least, the GT is cheaper to insure (by like $3) than an Eco. Add in low-interest, long-term loans and the monthly cost difference is minimal as well.