silvrsvt Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I wouldn't get too hung up on MPG ratings for the most part since everyone is different, I can get 21 MPG all day out of my Mustang driving local 4 lane road with stop lights along the way and even got 26 MPG driving down I95 to DC from Jersey one time...both well over the MPG ratings. I'm sure if I got a Ecoboost Mustang, my MPG numbers would be in the high 20's with my current work commute of about 16 miles. I get 20ish miles to the gallon with a 4300 lb AWD SHO now doing the same route described above, but the SHO also has quite a bit more HP and Torque then my 4.6L V8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 My '04 GT 4.6L window sticker says 18 and 23. I just lookes. Have a pic if you want. I get 20. Bought it new. Still drive it evry day. Thats 11 years every day rain shine or snow going to work 11 Years. Only bottom number mattes to me. City that is. After 11 years and sounds like I would average 20 in '15 5.0 if I am lucky. Ik all the improvements. Just wish they coulda sqeezed 2 or 3 mpg more out in 11 years! Disappointed. I held off on new S197 hoping s550 would be smaller and get better mpg with same HP. 400 or 425 does it really matter? Maybe new camaro will do better. Or new tranny and V8 in '17 or '18 mustang GT. Yes yes I know my crappy sn95. Best car I ever owned. 100k and naught a problem but normal maintenance. No rust. 11 Wisconsin winters. I will never own such a great car again. Anyway is 2 or 3 mpg so much to ask? Really? Disappointed! No I don't want a cmax. I will buy a pony car again soon. Just maybe not a mustang. The revised fuel economy on your 04 is 16/21 using the current formula. That's a big increase in fuel economy for the 2015 with way more power, better suspension and far more features. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted August 27, 2014 Author Share Posted August 27, 2014 My LS's have always gotten 11-13MPG, and the MKX is getting me 13-15MPG, so eh, gave up on trying. Actually driving up from Miami to the U.S., well back home to Orlando in a few hours in the LS so I'll probably be getting be hitting 21MPG. Woohooo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil1336 Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 My LS's have always gotten 11-13MPG, and the MKX is getting me 13-15MPG, so eh, gave up on trying. Actually driving up from Miami to the U.S., well back home to Orlando in a few hours in the LS so I'll probably be getting be hitting 21MPG. Woohooo... I agree with you, obsessing over MPG for some is a "fetish" but sometimes a legitimate gripe. I had a 2011 Ford Fiesta SE hatchback with the 1.6 ltr. I4 and 6 speed A/T and it got constant 33-35 MPG City and 41-43 MPG Highway from day one until I traded it in 3 years later for my Ford C-Max Hybrid. Another Vehicle I own, a 2012 Kia Rio5 hatchback, similar in size, weight, 1.6 ltr. I4 engine with 6 speed A/T gets 20-23 MPG City and 30-32 MPG Highway. Similar Cars, polar opposites in Fuel Economy! Had I known that before purchase, I would have opted for the Full Size Optima and got the same or (better) fuel economy. I call that simple "deception", period! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 To clarify, I ride a bicycle. i knew that Curtis....lol.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Just to be technical here: '04 GTs were 260 hp and 302 lb.-ft. Okay, thanks, so it's more like 30% more HP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tico Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 (edited) OK but.... I said I get 20 real world when I fill up. Very consistantly. If I get '15 5.0. (I only want the v8) I will get 30% better so 26? I doubt it. I am talking real world here guys. OK. Also I only care about city rating. So mine is 16 by the new system. If '15 is 18 then I guess i got my two mpg. If I actually get 22 driving my normal drive the first few weeks I own my new '15 I would be happy. But we have not seen the numbers yet for the V8. IDC about the hwy number. I drive very mixed and won't get near that number most fill ups. Edited August 28, 2014 by Tico Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 (I only want the v8) So, if I understand you correctly, you would be happier if the Mustang had a 4.6L V8 with 260hp and over 20mpg combined? If so, your tastes are not representative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmalonehunter Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 435HP. Or did you miss that part? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 435HP. Or did you miss that part? He did mention it, but said that he doesn't need that much power. He also said that he only wants a V8. Which means that, to please him, Ford would need to release a comparatively underpowered V8 tuned for economy. Because he only wants a V8, and his primary consideration is city fuel efficiency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 (edited) OK but.... I said I get 20 real world when I fill up. Very consistantly. If I get '15 5.0. (I only want the v8) I will get 30% better so 26? I doubt it. I am talking real world here guys. OK. Also I only care about city rating. So mine is 16 by the new system. If '15 is 18 then I guess i got my two mpg. If I actually get 22 driving my normal drive the first few weeks I own my new '15 I would be happy. But we have not seen the numbers yet for the V8. IDC about the hwy number. I drive very mixed and won't get near that number most fill ups. Your car's EPA ratings are: City 15 mpg. Hwy 23 mpg Combined: 18 mpg I think it would be safe to assume a 2 to 3 mpg improvement but I'm betting the extra 175 hp nullifies that with a big smile factor.. If you want a V8, you're going to use it like one and I bet once you feel the extra power, you won't care if gas mileage is the same. Edited August 28, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 OK but.... I said I get 20 real world when I fill up. Very consistantly. If I get '15 5.0. (I only want the v8) I will get 30% better so 26? I doubt it. I am talking real world here guys. OK. Also I only care about city rating. So mine is 16 by the new system. If '15 is 18 then I guess i got my two mpg. If I actually get 22 driving my normal drive the first few weeks I own my new '15 I would be happy. But we have not seen the numbers yet for the V8. IDC about the hwy number. I drive very mixed and won't get near that number most fill ups. ok, 435hp sports coupe for city driving? thats like using a Fiesta for towing......... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 The dual exhaust on the 3.7L V6 models is still standard. From what I read, the -5hp comes from a change in the intake design for packaging reasons. That remains to be seen. I bet it's just a paper tune to give the EB 2.3L a little more thunder. Unfortunately I think this is correct. It would be interesting to compare back to back dyno pulls for the 2.3Eco vs the standard V6 on actual production cars. Pay more for the 2.3Eco up front then pay more for premium fuel every month to get marginal real world improvement over the standard less complicated V6. It's not that the 2.3Eco is a bad engine it's just that the base V6 is so damn good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 Unfortunately I think this is correct. It would be interesting to compare back to back dyno pulls for the 2.3Eco vs the standard V6 on actual production cars. Pay more for the 2.3Eco up front then pay more for premium fuel every month to get marginal real world improvement over the standard less complicated V6. It's not that the 2.3Eco is a bad engine it's just that the base V6 is so damn good. Unless the 2.3 is different, you don't have to use premium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted September 14, 2014 Share Posted September 14, 2014 Not sure if it's been posted , but I saw this on Yahoo today. 15' MPG numbers for all models. 2015 Ford Mustang 2015 Mustang EcoBoost (manual): 22/26/31 2015 Mustang EcoBoost (automatic): 21/25/32 2015 Mustang V-6 (manual): 17/21/28 2015 Mustang V-6 (automatic): 19/22/28 2015 Mustang GT (manual): 15/19/25 2015 Mustang GT (automatic): 16/19/25 2014 Ford Mustang 2014 Mustang V-6 (manual): 19/22/29 2014 Mustang V-6 (automatic): 19/23/31 2014 Mustang GT (manual): 15/19/26 2014 Mustang GT (automatic): 18/20/25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted September 14, 2014 Share Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) Unless the 2.3 is different, you don't have to use premium. http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/specifications/engine/ To get the power and mileage that Ford is claiming they specify 93-octane premium fuel for the 2.3EcoBoost. IF you can use regular the numbers may fall even closer to the standard V6. Edited September 14, 2014 by F250 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/specifications/engine/ To get the power and mileage that Ford is claiming they specify 93-octane premium fuel for the 2.3EcoBoost. IF you can use regular the numbers may fall even closer to the standard V6. I don't think its going to lose more then 10HP...not to mention it has 40 ft-lb of torque more then the V6. Using the 3.5L Ecoboost as a guide, it only gives up 10HP on regular...not sure of the torque numbers though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chevys1 Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 me, if Im interested in fuel economy I would look at a C-max or Fusion, regular or plug in, but I enjoy driving and enjoy a fun car, so Fiesta ST it was, and economy be damned, that said she averages 29 mpgs, and thats not being treated with kid gloves, far from it, the car is WAY to much fun to pussy foot around in...and THATS the reason I dont think Fuel economy is of prime importance in certain cars, and the mustang, in any iteration fits that description. I disagree to a point. If a Mustang is your only form of transportation it matters trust me. If you can hedge your bet with a motorcyle or economy car then its not a big concern. Since I have been on vacation and the fuel economy numbers are really interesting with most being down graded. Ford has seriously screwed up fuel economy numbers in the past in a large way and I think the downgrade on the GT and V6 is to bring in line what is more realistic finally and I think they are being conservative now. . They are scared to death of another fuel economy scam like they cooked up in the past. FRom what little I have read the little Ecoboost is drinking gas at 19 mpgs. LOL Not good but Im sure they were beating on it. This is one to watch in the real world. Bet you a cup of coffee right now it wont deliver real world mpgs. 5 liter and 3.7 will. I love the new Mustang. I think they nailed it. You have to swallow hard but the 5 oh is worth what ever it costs. IN the real world I see 3-5 mpg gains with the 4 banger and you still have a 4 banger. I dont want one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 FRom what little I have read the little Ecoboost is drinking gas at 19 mpgs. LOL Not good but Im sure they were beating on it. This is one to watch in the real world. Bet you a cup of coffee right now it wont deliver real world mpgs. 5 liter and 3.7 will. In all seriousness it your driving the snot out of any engine, you won't get good gas mileage. An engine with a turbo even more so! So that is a pretty asinine assumption your making. when I got my 06 GT, I was getting 16 MPG today I get 20+...mostly because I wasn't getting on the gas all the time with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Back when I was replacing my 87 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, I was commuting 36 miles one-way to work, so I wanted a car that was both quicker and got better fuel economy. The 2000 V6 Mustang fit the bill perfectly. Using the current standards, 16/24 vs. 17/26 (the original ratings were 18/26 vs. 20/29) and 0-60 of 8.5 vs. 7.2. Both engines made 190 HP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chevys1 Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 In all seriousness it your driving the snot out of any engine, you won't get good gas mileage. An engine with a turbo even more so! So that is a pretty asinine assumption your making. when I got my 06 GT, I was getting 16 MPG today I get 20+...mostly because I wasn't getting on the gas all the time with it. Lets just sit back and watch. Fords turbocharges engines have history of sucking gas down. Im serious too. Also have a 06GT. Predicition, when its all said and done the 5 oh will be 3-4 mpg worse in the real world with tons more power. Ford has down graded it and the 3.7 while fluffing up the "ecoboost". Marketing BS and they are afraid of past mistakes. WE all know about them. Lets just see if it can really deliver in the hands of real owners in the real world. I dont think it will. Eco boost is eco fiction. Or, did Ford get to agressive on the mileage ratings to fluff up the program? I dont trust them either way. They have quite a history of fudging and outright lying about these sorts of things and it can be documented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 They have quite a history of fudging and outright lying about these sorts of things and it can be documented. So. Ford has "quite a history" of "fudging and outright lying about" fuel economy. Can you cite any examples that occurred before 2012? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 I think the 2nd gen ecoboosts will see improvements in mpg for average drivers. The first gen design had issues that made it harder for average drivers to achieve EPA ratings. I used to get 17 mpg in my 2006 fusion 3.0. That's the EPA city rating. I get 22 in my 2013 fusion 2.0. That's the EPA city rating. Fuel economy testing has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with producing window stickers. It's used for CAFE compliance. Period. And for mfrs that is what counts. As long as ecoboost returns better CAFE results then it's a success. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 (edited) We should also keep in mind that the EPA figures supplied are of more importance to Ford's CAFE scores and fuel economy / CO2 ratings internationally. So on top of the huge torque increases at lower revs compared to the V6, the new EB 2.3 offers better city and highway mileage. Also, the use of 93 is not essential to achieve the stated fuel economy ratings in normal daily commuter, the added torque probably invites more spirited driving by behaving like the earlier 4.6 3V but without such a big hit to fuel economy. Edited September 21, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 I don't think its going to lose more then 10HP...not to mention it has 40 ft-lb of torque more then the V6. Using the 3.5L Ecoboost as a guide, it only gives up 10HP on regular...not sure of the torque numbers though. It'll probably drop the power 15 or so. Our 2.0L makes 237 on 87 and 251 with premium. They didn't state 91 or 93 as premium. I've "heard" that the 3.5EB actually makes 20 more HP and 10 lb-ft with premium. 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.