ANTAUS Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 http://www.autoblog.com/2014/08/21/2015-ford-mustang-fuel-economy-ratings-leaked/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Haha I just posted it a tad too late! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Hmm had higher hopes for the Ecoboost motor in the highway dept...then again this is a performance car and the around town numbers aren't bad at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 (edited) I don't think those numbers are correct. The current V6 is 19/29 (manual) and 19/31 (auto). Surely it didn't go down! EDIT: Looks like the rating is with a different axle ratio for '15, but still, that's disappointing to see the numbers go down. Edited August 21, 2014 by fordmantpw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Speaking of axle ratios.... Would anyone want to drive a Camaro w/a 2.92 rear axle ratio? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Speaking of axle ratios.... Would anyone want to drive a Camaro w/a 2.92 rear axle ratio? FTFY 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Speaking of axle ratios.... Would anyone want to drive a Camaro w/a 2.92 rear axle ratio? Well, with a 7 or 8 speed transmission and the right ratios, it should work rather well, IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Well, with a 7 or 8 speed transmission and the right ratios, it should work rather well, IMHO. The 2015 8 speed auto Corvette has a 2:41 rear gear but uses a 4:56 1st gear ratio in the transmission. It gets 16/29/20mpg epa numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 The 2015 8 speed auto Corvette has a 2:41 rear gear but uses a 4:56 1st gear ratio in the transmission. It gets 16/29/20mpg epa numbers. That brings up an interesting thought. When the F150 gets the 10 speed, will we see rear gears < 3 in it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 (edited) So, they add a more technical 4 banger with a turbo, just to closely match what the current NA V6 is getting ( 2013 mpg is 19/31)? Seems like a waste of R&D money. They could have easily tweaked the V6 to get 22/33 if they really tried with way less effort. Love Ford, but this is a big ol disappointment. Edited August 21, 2014 by Hydro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlRozzi Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Perhaps there is nothing more to this than the EPA attempting to better reflect real world ratings? I would be interested to see if other newly redesigned 2015 vehicles are receiving a similar restatement of ratings as the EPA seems to have had a history of estimating optimistic numbers. Furthermore, are there any current Mustang owners here who can attest to EPA's numbers for the '14 model year cars? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 The new one is heavier so it makes sense that mileage would go down, at least some. The 2015 V6 auto is about 110 pounds heavier than the equivalent 2014 model. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 So, they add a more technical 4 banger with a turbo, just to closely match what the current NA V6 is getting ( 2013 mpg is 19/31)? Seems like a waste of R&D money. They could have easily tweaked the V6 to get 22/33 if they really tried with way less effort. Love Ford, but this is a big ol disappointment. meh, like Ive stated, last thing a Camaro,Challenger and Mustang owner will be discussing over a few beers in the local, is their gas mileage.... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traxiii Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 (edited) Ford and their stupid "we put a 2.3 Turbo in the SVO, so we HAVE to use a 2.3 again" thing. They should be using the 3.5EB or the new 2.7EB at the very least, and pushing near 400HP. Edited August 21, 2014 by traxiii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 They're not going to put a turbo 2.7 or 3.5L V6 in the *volume* model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 They could have easily tweaked the V6 to get 22/33 Do you have any evidence to support this? And you do realize that the 2.3L is going to offer better performance with better combined FE, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Ford and their stupid "we put a 2.3 Turbo in the SVO, so we HAVE to use a 2.3 again" thing. They should be using the 3.5EB or the new 2.7EB at the very least, and pushing near 400HP. That is downright stupid reasoning. The reason they used the 2.3EB is cut down on the amount of displacement taxes overseas...not to mention why would they want two engines with nearly identical HP outputs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 (edited) Do you have any evidence to support this? And you do realize that the 2.3L is going to offer better performance with better combined FE, right? Axle ratio. If they wanted to be pony car MPG king's, just put a 2.91 gear and call it the SFE model like their other vehicles. Then offer a V6 track pack and other fun V6 & V8 models people want. I have my doubts the 2.3L will offer better performance, I so badly want to see a 2014 V6 vs. 2015 2.3L shootout. My guess is that'll never happen. Better combined FE..... hell no. Our 2010 Fusion with the 3.0L V6 achieved 5 mpg better highway and 3mpg better city than our 2.0L EB. It's a mustang , I don't think people are going to be hypermilling them to get the EPA numbers. That 22 city will be closer to 17 and highway might see 26mpg going with traffic flow at 70-80 mph. I'm basing those numbers off of what we are seeing in our Fusion. Edited August 22, 2014 by Hydro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 meh, like Ive stated, last thing a Camaro,Challenger and Mustang owner will be discussing over a few beers in the local, is their gas mileage.... True, so why not make the V6 a little more nasty? Less moving parts and the 3.5L Duratechs have been pretty damn solid from personal experience. Make a stupid high gear (2.91?) version for mpg bragging rights and give the V6's 325 hp... unless she's fully tapped on power at 305? Maybe the world market isn't into V6's and they figure a boosted 4 will be more appealing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 (edited) Axle ratio. If they wanted to be pony car MPG king's, just put a 2.91 gear and call it the SFE model like their other vehicles. Two problems with that: 1 - the 2.3L is going to be the volume model. That's important for CAFE reasons (CAFE is sales weighted). It's far more important for say, 60% of all Mustangs to have this powertrain (22/31) than to have 5% ship with similar economy on a "SFE" model. 2 - matching tall gears to an engine that doesn't produce a lot of low-end torque is just mean. Especially in a Mustang. "Okay, I stepped on the gas. I'll give you a call tomorrow morning when the car starts accelerating" Edited August 22, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 As I have stated before,the entire Mustang team has dropped the ball badly. Heads should roll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 As I have stated before,the entire Mustang team has dropped the ball badly. Heads should roll. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 (edited) Too heavy,too pricey, too many engines,questionable looks,tepid fuel mileage improvements. In fact the V6 has lost 5 HP...the car has completely lost it's excitement and buzz. They have over-promised and under delivered on this car. The Mustang is not a volume car,but it is the car the press and public uses to gauge the company. I'll bet under truth serum, they wish they had a do-over with this car and roll out. I Edited August 22, 2014 by ironhorse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 "They have over-promised and under delivered on this car" — you're entitled to your opinion. Maybe, after you actually drive one, you might feel differently. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisH Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Too heavy,too pricey, too many engines,questionable looks,tepid fuel mileage improvements. In fact the V6 has lost 5 HP...the car has completely lost it's excitement and buzz. They have over-promised and under delivered on this car. The Mustang is not a volume car,but it is the car the press and public uses to gauge the company. I'll bet under truth serum, they wish they had a do-over with this car and roll out. I Weight - they added bigger brakes, IRS, additional equipment. I would have liked to see a lighter car, but I think the weight is a non-issue Looks - a lot of people complained about the 2010 models and the 2013 models. A lot of people also complained about the 1994 models and the 1999 models. Personally, I think it looks great. Power - the V6 lost 5 horses. Anyone buying the V6 for performance can easily recover that with a tune. The base model engine doesn't need to be a performance engine. The EB 4 will be a good engine. The 5.0 gets an extra 15 horses. Too many engines - really!? Wow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.