silvrsvt Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 well....kinda suck...but then again who buys a car like this for its gas milage..but its rated lower than a Viper or the 2005 GT Gen. 11MPG City/18 Highway MPG and a combined 14MPG http://autoweek.com/article/supercars/guess-fuel-milage-fords-gt-supercar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Didn't the rating methods change in '08, so you can't really compare to the '05. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Didn't the rating methods change in '08, so you can't really compare to the '05. I don't remember if it was '08, but yes, they did change some time around then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Didn't the rating methods change in '08, so you can't really compare to the '05. Yes you can because fueleconomy.gov translated the old ratings to the current ratings. So using the current formula the 05 is 12/19. By comparison the Lamborghini Huracan is 14/21. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Not that it matters, but I wonder why it's so low? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share Posted January 12, 2017 Not that it matters, but I wonder why it's so low? I'm sure those fuel injectors are "dumping" alot of fuel to make that power Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
30 OTT 6 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 That's quite disappointing for such a light car with that aerodynamic body. EPA testing doesn't exactly include performance driving runs either. Shoulda had a V8. A de-bored Coyote (4.5L to 4.8L) with a flat-plane crankshaft supplying even exhaust pulses to a hot vee twin-turbo setup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Yes you can because fueleconomy.gov translated the old ratings to the current ratings. So using the current formula the 05 is 12/19. By comparison the Lamborghini Huracan is 14/21. Well, I meant you can't compare the original ratings to the current ratings without using the fueleconomy.gov translation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Can't we get some software to get around the EPA fuel regs...I mean, really. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Well, I meant you can't compare the original ratings to the current ratings without using the fueleconomy.gov translation. Silly me - my mistake! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) Shoulda had a V8. A de-bored Coyote (4.5L to 4.8L) with a flat-plane crankshaft supplying even exhaust pulses to a hot vee twin-turbo setup. 1 - That's illegal for IMSA/LeMans 2 - FPCs don't work as well with forced induction 3 - That setup would probably be even less fuel efficient Edited January 12, 2017 by akirby 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Shoulda had a V8. A de-bored Coyote (4.5L to 4.8L) with a flat-plane crankshaft supplying even exhaust pulses to a hot vee twin-turbo setup. It wouldn't fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 So, 7 speed DCT, right? And a top speed of over 200MPH, right? Wonder what the engine's doing at highway speeds. Also, I suspect the Lambo ratings are--------generous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share Posted January 12, 2017 Not to mention that Viper, Hurcane and others will eat even more gas being driven spiritedly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 And probably the biggest reason of all is - because nobody really cares! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Ford GT powertrain is obsolete already. Electrification and hybrid technology will be increasingly necessary for carmakers to deliver supercars while also meeting goals about reducing fuel consumption. Honda NSX, BMW i8, McLaren P1, LaFerrari, Tesla Model S P100D have already gone this route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 The GT was built specifically for LeMans and hybrids aren't allowed in that class yet. But Ford has been testing the same type of hybrids for a few years now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 $hit...that's it, Im cancelling my order and buying a Prius. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Ford GT powertrain is obsolete already. Electrification and hybrid technology will be increasingly necessary for carmakers to deliver supercars while also meeting goals about reducing fuel consumption. Honda NSX, BMW i8, McLaren P1, LaFerrari, Tesla Model S P100D have already gone this route. Do you ever post anything positive? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 goals about reducing fuel consumption Yes. Because it is *so* *important* to reduce fuel consumption in exotic cars whose cumulative annual output was outsold by the F150 on, probably, the first two business days of the year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Do you ever post anything positive? Only about other mfrs. Honestly, you could replace all his posts with "Ford bad, [insert other mfr here] good" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 If you get to own a Ford GT, you won't give a crap about fuel economy..... 4 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.