2015 Mustang EPA DATA!!!! for most models.... UPDATE 2 ALL MODELS

[Taneras]

That's pretty disappointing. Heck, my 89 LX 5.0 with the OLD 5.0 was rated at 16/24. That's 26 years of progress?

Did your 89 GT have 435hp and weigh nearly 2 tons?

I think these are respectable mpg figures considering that it both gained weight and hp.

Sponsored

 

[Millgeo5]

I am fine with the MPG, it will be the same as I get in my current 05 GT and I get an extra 100+ HP.

 

[oj5OH]

All the people that are complaining about the MHP for the V8 also complain about the ecoboost not having enough power or it being a 4cl.

Let the neigh sayers complain. It wont hurt Ford's pocketbook and it will make our orders get here faster if they cancel.

I remember me cross shopping a Audi S5 4.2 V8. It came with 350hp and only 24 mhp on the Hwy. And it would still cost more than what I am paying for my GT Premium. and it was a 2009!

Ford, keep up the good work! :hail::ford:

Damn.. That's insane. Can't please them all..

I agree.. Ford FTW and God Bless the Coyote lmao :clap2:

 

[Trevon]

Did your 89 GT have 435hp and weigh nearly 2 tons?

I think these are respectable mpg figures considering that it both gained weight and hp.

His '89 probably weighed about 600lbs less.

They're known for being light... :shrug:

 

[OppoLock]

Welp, I knew it was going to be a big step down from my 335i. Oh well, gotta pay to play!

Honestly, I'll probably enjoy cruising at a slower pace if I uncork that V8. I tend to drive my car harder than necessary on a daily simply because it's a dull experience at a lazy pace. Driving the 5.0 at a slower pace around town might cancel out the baseline hit in efficiency.

 

[Taneras]

His '89 probably weighed about 600lbs less.

They're known for being light... :shrug:

It was a bit of a rhetorical question, I know they're a good bit lighter.

Sure they're not stunning mpg numbers, but considering what the car is they're pretty solid imo.

The only thing that will disappoint me is if the new mustang cannot beat the 1LE Camaro at the track. They didn't add much of anything so far, the handling better be night and day or I'm not interested.

 

[Sal JC]

Can we be friends? I'm happy it's not just me.

Let me get this straight:
1. HP increased by 15, everyone threatened to cancel their order.
2. Torque increased by 10, everyone said it wasn't enough to overcome the apparently less efficient IRS moving the phantomly overweight new car.
3. The majority of this forum ordered the highest horsepower regular production Mustang fully contented with all the options and now everyone is shocked and disappointed that it still has MPG ratings like the previous generation, that had less content, less technology, less power.

Ummmm yeah, this is a rational group of people.

The part that I have the most trouble wrapping my head around is it's a Mustang, not a Fiesta, Focus or some other form of basic transportation. Stop claiming that mileage is a deal breaker( and no we know the car won't get 12MPG, so that argument is invalid)on a car at this level. If mileage is something that needs to be considered for you because this is your main source of transport perhaps it would be wise to revisit your priorities.

I had to search old window stickers on cars I was interested in because I have never paid any attention to them...until now.

People even pointed out other models with similar ratings but that was a stupid comparison? Really? I thought that was part of the purchase research phase of buying a vehicle.

I am surprised there is not a thread on the fact that the windshield washer bottle neck it not hidden and is in an obvious easy accessible location. I think we should start a poll to see what color the washer bottle cap should be, because hi-vis yellow clashes with my Guard Mustang so I either need to change my color to TY or cancel my order all together.

:ford: Now preparing to be called a homer once again even though I have been very clear that I'm still in love with the 1LE but 5K is 5K. - Actually that still buys a lot of gas :gossip:

What? I ordered Guard, if the washer bottle cap is yellow I'm canceling tomorrow and buying a Challenger.

 

[cbrookre]

I am not terribly unhappy, but I am also confused by Pericak's claim that it would be more efficient and I think that is the real beef here. Perhaps we can split hairs and say that more power with the same MPG is more efficient, but the numbers as we know them do not equate to more efficient as it is normally measured.

If they said it would be better/more powerful and just as efficient then no problem. What a company says lays the expectations and whether they are positive, negative or neutral. That is PR 101. Yes it is very efficient to how powerful it is, BUT the expectations set out by the comments made is what is causing the fuss. Those representing a company have to be very careful about what they say which is why most of the time they say nothing at all until they know for sure. That is my only complaint.

Just my 2c

Chris

 

[cbrookre]

As evidenced in his interview in Dec:

[ame]

2:40-3:00 he explicitly says that it will be "more efficient", not just as or close to as efficient. again, just my 2c.

edit: After re-watching he says "improving fuel economy" not "more efficient", but the numbers we have seen are clearly not improved if they are the correct numbers.

 

[dwaleke]

What evidence do you have that his claim is not true?

Just because Ford put a lower number on the sticker does not mean they have not made it more efficient than the previous models.

The EPA numbers are rarely achieved in the real world. The tests need to be changed to reflect how real american's drive their cars. Oh and use the same type of fuel we buy at the pump.

 

[Taneras]

As evidenced in his interview in Dec:



2:40-3:00 he explicitly says that it will be "more efficient", not just as or close to as efficient. again, just my 2c.

edit: After re-watching he says "improving fuel economy" not "more efficient", but the numbers we have seen are clearly not improved if they are the correct numbers.

I think he chose his words very carefully. He was speaking about the engine with regards to efficiency. Perhaps the engine itself is actually more efficient than the S197 5.0's, but due to other factors (including increased weight) you're still seeing similar mpg figures? Just a guess.

 

[Spartan]

What evidence do you have that his claim is not true?

Just because Ford put a lower number on the sticker does not mean they have not made it more efficient than the previous models.

The EPA numbers are rarely achieved in the real world. The tests need to be changed to reflect how real american's drive their cars. Oh and use the same type of fuel we buy at the pump.

Um the EPA #s.

If it was more efficient it still would test better and it didn't.

Are you saying the EPA numbers arent met in the real world and people's actual numbers are going to be worse or are you saying peoples numbers are actually better in the real world then the EPA.

 

[Spartan]

I think he chose his words very carefully. He was speaking about the engine with regards to efficiency. Perhaps the engine itself is actually more efficient than the S197 5.0's, but due to other factors (including increased weight) you're still seeing similar mpg figures? Just a guess.

"Improving fuel economy" only means one thing

improved
fuel
economy

That did not happen.

 

[souprmage]

You can mince words any way you like, but at the end of the day, the facts stand alone. It's just a number. Yes, it's even a number lower than in the past. But it is what it is. No amount of dissecting statements made in the past will change that fact.

Perhaps he misspoke, perhaps the new numbers are extra conservative, who knows.

It just seems odd that so many GT buyers are so bothered by a couple MPG on an EPA number, when in all likelihood, the true MPG people will see is on par with the previous models.

I think once a track key comes out, I'll get that installed, get more fuel economy and a few extra HP to top it off. Just what the doctor ordered.

 

[souprmage]

"Improving fuel economy" only means one thing

improved
fuel
economy

That did not happen.

I completely disagree.

Just like he said they shaved a couple hundred pounds. Yes, I believe he did cut a couple hundred pounds. But he wasn't referring to overall weight, he was referring to chassis weight. While he saved weight there, he added weight in IRS and other bits thus negating the loss, but imagine the weight had they not done that!

Perhaps without the 'improved fuel economy', the new EPA numbers would have been even worse. His reference wasn't last year's model, his reference was the engine without certain bits. They increased the HP, and lower the MPG, but they recovered some of that loss through other improvements.

While I'll agree he's only telling you the part of the story he thinks you want to hear, and it's marketing speak, but as I said before, at the end of the day, the numbers speak for themselves.

So, now you have the numbers.

Sponsored