Your amusement doesn't negate the fact that my job requires a very high degree of physical skill and strength, as well as a very high degree of techinical knowledge and problem-solving. Moreso than 90% of any desk job, and you don't have to spend your day doing a full-body work out every day. Imagine lifting weights, on a tredmill, while doing whatever desk job it is you're scoffing at me from. Oh, and by the way, if I screw up in my job, someone could die. But hey, I'm just a dumb grease monkey.
The gist of your post also is ignoring direct injection. Not port injection. Direct injection. Which has only been on domestic engines in wide use in the last 5ish years. But just carry on in your narrowminded little world, and I'll keep upgrading my skillset yearly to keep up with ever progressing technology. And even accepting your numbers, how can you refute the fact that it produces 10hp more, out of less displacement, and produces nearly the same mileage numbers; and that that is impressive ...? "The 3.0 basically matched the 2.0 across the board and got better mileage.. " well, if your numbers are anything to credit, it makes 10hp better, and the mileage is a wash since EPA numbers rarely match up perfectly to real world conditions.
There was no 4cyl in the prevoius Mustang. There hasn't been one since the 90s. The 2.3L EB is new, it was released in 2015. According to Fuelly (which is a much better, real world number than the EPA gives), the 3.7L NA V6 in the current generation Mustang gets 19mpg average. The 2.3L EB has 2 spikes in the averages, at 23 and 25mpg. Those are real-world numbers. The 2.3L also straight up outperforms the V8, and requires nothing more than a flash-tune to romp all over it. The only reason I'm bothering to continue with the Mustang conversation is because it's a somewhat relavant comparision, and because MrWesson has chosen to use this as his arguing point.
