'15 Mustang Fuel Economy Leaked

[StevenCaylor]

IIRC, the official standard of "premium" gas is 91 octane, as 87 is for regular. If Ford bases their ratings on 93 octane, then it would be false advertising where that fuel Is unavailable.

[Hydro]

^ That's what I was wondering. If half the country can't get 93, then why advertise numbers on it? I'm pretty sure the ( * ) gets them out of any lawsuits, but i'd like to see power numbers that everybody can achieve.

[akirby]

The advertised power ratings for the 2.3L and 5.0 say 93 octane, but the owner's manual recommends 87 and says you can get better performance with premium.

 

It's not an asterisk - it's right with the power numbers.

 

Horsepower 300 hp @ 6500 rpm (3.7L V6) 310 hp @ 5500 rpm (2.3L EcoBoost®, 93-octane fuel) 435 @ 6500 rpm (5.0L V8, 93 octane fuel) Torque 280 lb.-ft. @ 4000 rpm (3.7L V6) 320 lb.-ft. @ 3000 rpm (2.3L EcoBoost®, 93-octane fuel) 400 lb.-ft. @ 4250 rpm (5.0L V8, 93-octane fuel)

[silvrsvt]

IIRC, the official standard of "premium" gas is 91 octane, as 87 is for regular. If Ford bases their ratings on 93 octane, then it would be false advertising where that fuel Is unavailable.

 

 

All depends? Why is only 91 Octane in CA only? MD and NJ use CA emissions also, and I can get 93 Octane at Suncono no problem. The one thing I did discover is that even though some pumps are marked 93 Octane...they only have 92 Octane gas in them and my tuned SHO doesn't like that.

 

I just stick with Suncono now and have a gas card so I get 5 cents off a gallon when I use it.

[Tico]

I think the only reason for the controversy here is, based on expectations largely built up on the internet and not by Ford, some of us thought this generation of Mustang would be smaller and lighter than the competition with of course better MPG numbers. Based on wild rumor (at one point it was rumored the care would be SN95 size or smaller?!) some thought Ford would take this redesign as an opportunity to make the car smaller especially with the possible CAFE changes coming into effect toward the end of this decade. Ford never said this I admit. But you know the threads about a smaller car were everywhere.

 

So instead we have pretty much the same weight, horse power, performance and MPG as the competition. What we did get was better handling and a nicer interior, more refined car over all, and a turbo 4 options a few years before the competition. So should we be disappointed? That is a personal judgement. Yes its a nice car. Yes it is better than the competition. At least for now. But it is evolutionary not revolutionary as some speculated on the internet.

 

It would have been nice to see a smaller car with better MPG, and the same better handling and refinements of the S550. It could have still had the same performance or better than the competition as it would be lighter, and maybe required less horse power. After all its 0-60 and 1/4 mile and track performance that matter NOT just having the most horse power. Yes I want an SN95 sized S550! Go ahead and flame. It would have put Mustang miles ahead of the competition. Maybe in Gen 7 in 2024? Maybe new engines and trannies with the next MCE will help things a little.

 

$40,000 nicely equipped and 15 MPG is hard to swallow. At least it is nothing special over what Chevy and Dodge are selling. Yes it matters. I have been driving my New Edge GT for 11 years daily to work. Even in the snow. On the coldest Wisconsin weeks in January I still get better than 15 MPG. Not every one who buys a GT spends 34 or 40 K for a garage queen third car. Many of these are daily drivers. We hoped for better. Yes based on rumors. Oh well....

 

If Chevy can put up significantly better city and combined MPG numbers and hold the line on performance and price while refining the car, the next Camaro might be something for Mustang to worry about it. Although it now seems the next generation Chevy might not be much smaller either. Who knows what Dodge is doing in 3 or 4 years. They don't even seem to know!

[RichardJensen]

Yes I want an SN95 sized S550!

 

On the coldest Wisconsin weeks in January I still get better than 15 MPG.

 

1 - If you want a smaller, lighter vehicle that has all the capability of the current vehicle, then you are going to pay a hefty premium for it. With people already kvetching about the cost of a GT, what would they say if they had to pay an extra 10% on top of it to get the same thing in an "SN95" size package.

 

2 -

 

Your 2004 Mustang GT was rated at 16/21 or 15/21 (manual).

 

The 2015 Mustang GT is rated at 16/25 or 15/25 (manual).

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern that your mileage is unlikely to be WORSE with the new Mustang.

[RichardJensen]

And here, again, we're talking about people who wanted the Mustang to be lighter, more fuel efficient, more powerful, more refined, and no more expensive than the outgoing model.

 

Ford is not running the Mustang as a charity program for people who want things.

Edited September 23, 2014 by RichardJensen

[bzcat]

 

 

All depends? Why is only 91 Octane in CA only? MD and NJ use CA emissions also, and I can get 93 Octane at Suncono no problem. The one thing I did discover is that even though some pumps are marked 93 Octane...they only have 92 Octane gas in them and my tuned SHO doesn't like that.

 

I just stick with Suncono now and have a gas card so I get 5 cents off a gallon when I use it.

 

91 Octane is not just CA only. Most Western States are 91.

 

Also has nothing to do with emission. It has to do with the refinery that produces the gasoline - refineries that sources oil from certain area with higher sulfur content result in lower octanes. So they formulate their gasoline output to adopt to the raw oil. Going from 91 to 93 could end up being too expensive to justify the process. Also 93 is more common in corn-States that mandate ethanol content, which boosts octane rating.

[akirby]

We've always had 93 in Georgia even before ethanol.

[Lanson]

 

 

All depends? Why is only 91 Octane in CA only? MD and NJ use CA emissions also, and I can get 93 Octane at Suncono no problem. The one thing I did discover is that even though some pumps are marked 93 Octane...they only have 92 Octane gas in them and my tuned SHO doesn't like that.

 

I just stick with Suncono now and have a gas card so I get 5 cents off a gallon when I use it.

 

Small point but 91 is the best you can do in Las Vegas, NV as well (and all of NV that I've driven thus far.)

 

Not sure why.

 

 

Other note, these EB engines love a tune. They get better mpg and have more power when they are tuned on 91/93 octane. I'm more liking the idea of the big bad V8 just for fun and emotion that comes with the sound and feel, but by all means, I bet that EB 2.3 will get a lot of love from the aftermarket and will be very quick while potentially returning good MPG when your foot isn't in it. That last part is your responsibility, GL!

[jpd80]

I wonder how long it will be until someone comes out with a tune kit for the 2.3 EB and offers something like 80-100 lb ft increase at the wheels.

 

Try doing that with an atmo V6......I'm predicting that some Camaro owners are going to learn the hard way.

[silvrsvt]

 

91 Octane is not just CA only. Most Western States are 91.

 

Also has nothing to do with emission. It has to do with the refinery that produces the gasoline - refineries that sources oil from certain area with higher sulfur content result in lower octanes. So they formulate their gasoline output to adopt to the raw oil. Going from 91 to 93 could end up being too expensive to justify the process. Also 93 is more common in corn-States that mandate ethanol content, which boosts octane rating.

 

 

91 Octane is not just CA only. Most Western States are 91.

 

Also has nothing to do with emission. It has to do with the refinery that produces the gasoline - refineries that sources oil from certain area with higher sulfur content result in lower octanes. So they formulate their gasoline output to adopt to the raw oil. Going from 91 to 93 could end up being too expensive to justify the process. Also 93 is more common in corn-States that mandate ethanol content, which boosts octane rating.

 

 

91 Octane is not just CA only. Most Western States are 91.

 

Also has nothing to do with emission. It has to do with the refinery that produces the gasoline - refineries that sources oil from certain area with higher sulfur content result in lower octanes. So they formulate their gasoline output to adopt to the raw oil. Going from 91 to 93 could end up being too expensive to justify the process. Also 93 is more common in corn-States that mandate ethanol content, which boosts octane rating.

 

 

I found this...

 

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/ccrp_1101_305_small_block_build/93_octane_fuel_in_the_west.html

 

Interesting...gotta blame CA again...amazing they screw up the "good stuff"

[Lanson]

I wonder how long it will be until someone comes out with a tune kit for the 2.3 EB and offers something like 80-100 lb ft increase at the wheels.

 

Try doing that with an atmo V6......I'm predicting that some Camaro owners are going to learn the hard way.

 

Regarding the 2.3EB, I think Unleashed Tuning is working on one right now. I would suspect it will be as responsive if not more responsive than the turbo Fiesta in power gain.

[Chevys1]

 

So. Ford has "quite a history" of "fudging and outright lying about" fuel economy.

 

Can you cite any examples that occurred before 2012?

 

 

Nope, but I have plenty after that and they are numerous and you know it. Dont try to spin it. I had to re register after I was banned and could not figure out why I was reading your posts again so now you are on ignore again. My old email was not valid and this is why I had to re-register. Jenson, you are now on my ignore list. Quit being such a cheerleader for Ford and join reality.

 

I seldom visit this forum anymore anyway. It appears I am not the only one with the lousy rankings. I probably deserved the vacation I had but Im not taking any of your BS and spin today.

[Chevys1]

2.3 turbo is going to drink gas and you heard it here first. Just wait and see the real world results. Who is brave enough to bet a cup of coffee on this? 6 mpg different on the sticker and I bet in the real world it will be 3 at max. Who wants to bet on this???

[akirby]

Nope, but I have plenty after that and they are numerous and you know it. Dont try to spin it.

 

Numerous? History? They used the wrong value for Fusion/MKZ hybrid formula and they used the fusion numbers for C-Max (perfectly legal).

 

I don't call that numerous or a history. You say things that aren't accurate then you get upset when you get challenged.

 

If you can't stick to discussing facts without resorting to name calling then maybe you shouldn't have come back.

[RichardJensen]

 

Im not taking any of your BS and spin today.

 

It's not spin when you refer to ~24 months of FE misstatements on four vehicles out of 20+ as "quite a history"?

[jpd80]

2.3 turbo is going to drink gas and you heard it here first. Just wait and see the real world results. Who is brave enough to bet a cup of coffee on this? 6 mpg different on the sticker and I bet in the real world it will be 3 at max. Who wants to bet on this???

Who wants to bet that people will see the 2.3 s having similar power and torque to a 4.6 3V and drive it similar

while to the government, it's a much more fuel efficient engine with much higher fuel economy.

How is that not a good thing for performance enthusiasts and getting around CAFE?

 

Drive for performance or fuel economy, the choice is yours.

Edited October 5, 2014 by jpd80

[akirby]

I really think these new EB engines will yield better mpg for average drivers due to advances in design and software.

[Edstock]

 

I seldom visit this forum anymore anyway. It appears I am not the only one with the lousy rankings. I probably deserved the vacation I had but Im not taking any of your BS and spin today.

 

There's always the GM forums, have a good time.

[phil1336]

While it seems to in Vogue to constantly "bash" Ford over its EPA Fuel Economy sticker ratings mostly due to its C-Max 47 MPG overstatement, I`m getting an average of over 38 to 39 MPG combined City and Highway with (my) C-Max. Not to shabby considering constant stop and go Urban driving and 75 to 80 MPH Highway speeds for a comfortable 5 passenger Utility Vehicle that has plenty of power and zip. How come the "bashers" have said nothing about the 2011 Ford Fiesta that actually (exceeded) EPA estimates. I got 33-35 MPG City and 41-43 MPG Highway from day one until I traded it in 3 years later for the C-Max!

[fordtech1]

While it seems to in Vogue to constantly "bash" Ford over its EPA Fuel Economy sticker ratings mostly due to its C-Max 47 MPG overstatement, I`m getting an average of over 38 to 39 MPG combined City and Highway with (my) C-Max. Not to shabby considering constant stop and go Urban driving and 75 to 80 MPH Highway speeds for a comfortable 5 passenger Utility Vehicle that has plenty of power and zip. How come the "bashers" have said nothing about the 2011 Ford Fiesta that actually (exceeded) EPA estimates. I got 33-35 MPG City and 41-43 MPG Highway from day one until I traded it in 3 years later for the C-Max!

Same reason with the media everything is the worst of all time. Worst drought, worst flood etc... People thrive on negative news.

Plus,

Haters gonna hate.

[351cid]

2.3 turbo is going to drink gas and you heard it here first. Just wait and see the real world results. Who is brave enough to bet a cup of coffee on this? 6 mpg different on the sticker and I bet in the real world it will be 3 at max. Who wants to bet on this???

I own a 2013 Fusion with a 2.0L EB. Lifetime fuel mileage for the car is 26.1 mpg at 27,000 miles (wife drives it 90% of the time). When I am spirited, it gets 17 city. When I'm conservative it rings in 22-23. EB's will drink fuel when the turbo is spooled up...this is not new to Ford's new engines. I drive a commercial truck for a living. When the turbo is spooled, that baby is drinking some fuel big time. I've seen mpg drop from 6.7 to as low as 5.1 by setting the cruise on 75 mph vs 68mph.

[351cid]

And....it ain't just turbo motors. When I drive my V-10 SuperDuty; I get 11.5-12.5 mpg consistently. When my son drives it; he barely will break 10.0...most of the time it's more like 9.5. I tell him to pretend there is an egg between his foot and the throttle.

[Deanh]

While it seems to in Vogue to constantly "bash" Ford over its EPA Fuel Economy sticker ratings mostly due to its C-Max 47 MPG overstatement, I`m getting an average of over 38 to 39 MPG combined City and Highway with (my) C-Max. Not to shabby considering constant stop and go Urban driving and 75 to 80 MPH Highway speeds for a comfortable 5 passenger Utility Vehicle that has plenty of power and zip. How come the "bashers" have said nothing about the 2011 Ford Fiesta that actually (exceeded) EPA estimates. I got 33-35 MPG City and 41-43 MPG Highway from day one until I traded it in 3 years later for the C-Max!

Fiesta ST, trip back from Las Vegas, cruise set at 75mph....33.1....my older SES manual trans, 40 all day long...