Ford Mustang Turbo: Yesterday and today

Work seemed to stop at the Consumer Reports Auto Test Center when the all-new 2015 Ford Mustang arrived at the track. But the buzz in the air wasn't just because it was a Mustang—it was because of what was under the hood: a turbocharged 2.3-liter inline four cylinder.

Sure, base Mustangs have been offered with turbocharged fours in the past, but they didn't always deliver performance. In fact, we tested a four-cylinder Mustang Cobra in August 1980. The Cobra was part of a four-car shootout, and matched up against the Datsun 280-ZX, Mazda RX-7, and Triumph TR7 Coupe. The four-cylinder Cobra was an apparent attempt to take on the improving offerings from import competitors, but with a slight nod toward fuel efficiency.

Read our driving impressions from our first drive of the 2015 Ford Mustang.

Unlike the Cobra's mission—to take on an invasion of imported competitors—the '15 EcoBoost Mustang was conceived with the intent of export to Europe. They are two four-cylinder turbocharged Mustangs, but separated by 35 years—so how do the two compare?

While the cars have the same displacement and feature forced induction, the similarities end there. The Cobra made 132 horsepower, which was respectable for the a post-embargo Pony Car.

The 2015 Mustang EcoBoost is a different story. The 310 horsepower makes the 1980 Cobra seem anemic by comparison, and helps the '15 Mustang's driving dynamics. From our coming first drive: "The turbo-four felt nimble on the track, compared to the nose-heavy tendencies of the past V8 Mustangs." But in 1980, the Cobra had a nose-heavy 59/41 front/rear weight distribution.

The EPA has rated the new 2.3-liter turbo at 22 mpg city and 31 mph highway when equipped with the 6-speed manual transmission. But in 1980 the Cobra didn't really deliver on either power or fuel economy promises. From our August 1980 road test:

"The Mustang Cobra, with its turbocharged four, was disappointing. Theoretically, you get the acceleration of a V8 when the turbo is working and the economy of a four when the turbo isn't working. But things didn't pan out that way. Our Mustang turbo was only 0.1 second faster than the basic, non-turbo Mustang four that we tested last year. And the turbo delivered about 3 mpg less in our economy tests– 13.0 mpg in city driving, 26.8 mpg in expressway driving."

In fact, we had little praise for the Cobra. Almost comically, the only advantages we cited were: "Excellent bumper protection" and "effective climate control." We had plenty to complain about in the Cobra, including, "Balking engine during warm-up driving; short cruising range; stiff ride; and inconvenient and confusing horn and wiper controls."

Ford would later remedy this with the creation of the Mustang SVO. Like the '80 Cobra, it featured a 2.3-liter turbo, but Ford's Special Vehicle Operations team worked its magic. Where the Cobra barely managed to crank out 132 horses, the SVO Mustang made 175 hp in 1984 and 85. (The 1985.5 SVO made 205 hp, and finally the 1986 SVO put out 200 hp.)

But the damage had been done, and like the disappointing Mustang II, the Cobra's exploits had been immortalized in Mustang lore. Now, Ford has the opportunity to write a new chapter in the history of four-cylinder ‘Stangs, and this one just might be the four-banger to earn widespread acceptance as a true fuel-efficient performance Pony Car.