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

[Seabee1973]

Why is anyone bickering? The numbers have NOT been released on the gt yet. Stickers I saw earlier says a 2014 mustang

Sponsored

 

[2wheels4me]

I have an S4 with the 7speed DSG and feel the EXACT same way!

So it's not just me...

 

[cbrookre]

Why is anyone bickering? The numbers have NOT been released on the gt yet. Stickers I saw earlier says a 2014 mustang

look at the updated first post in this thread, it has a 2015 V8 auto that shows 16/25/19

 

[tbonez3858]

I would have preferred to have Stingray like MPG numbers but meh...Its a V8 so ya gotta pay to play. If the middle east kicks off and we are paying $5-6 a gallon Im sure I will feel differently...

 

[Wildcat]

So, based on those window stickers, now including the V8 auto, the difference in annual fuel costs between the Eco manual and V8 auto is 750 per year (we still need the EB auto data).

If that's the case, if someone can swing a GT finance-wise, they should just go for the GT. I was considering the Ecoboost, but the HP/TQ numbers were a bit less than I was hoping for, and it doesn't look like the fuel savings difference is so great that I would choose the smaller engine just for that. I think I will wait a couple years and look at a GT, maybe a new mid cycle refresh model or a lightly used 15-16 model

 

[Clink]

Should have been a pony. ;)

BAHAHA

 

[tbonez3858]

So, based on those window stickers, now including the V8 auto, the difference in annual fuel costs between the Eco manual and V8 auto is 750 per year (we still need the EB auto data).

If that's the case, if someone can swing a GT finance-wise, they should just go for the GT. I was considering the Ecoboost, but the HP/TQ numbers were a bit less than I was hoping for, and it doesn't look like the fuel savings difference is so great that I would choose the smaller engine just for that. I think I will wait a couple years and look at a GT, maybe a new mid cycle refresh model or a lightly used 15-16 model

Im not considering the EB but the $750 for gas obviously wont come close to the cost differentiation between the two models. There will be difference in original purchase price, insurance, maintenance and gas. Im betting the difference when you calculate it all up will be substantial.

 

[Seabee1973]

look at the updated first post in this thread, it has a 2015 V8 auto that shows 16/25/19

Bah.... automatic... they already said auto would have less mpg than the manual. But for the power boost and some weight gain, I would say the mpg is virtually the same but at the same time more efficient

 

[cbrookre]

Bah.... automatic... they already said auto would have less mpg than the manual. But for the power boost and some weight gain, I would say the mpg is virtually the same but at the same time more efficient

I missed that statement and was not true in the past at least for city. But efficiency (power per consumption) you are probably right or, at worst, it is in the noise.

 

[Spartan]

Im not considering the EB but the $750 for gas obviously wont come close to the cost differentiation between the two models. There will be difference in original purchase price, insurance, maintenance and gas. Im betting the difference when you calculate it all up will be substantial.

There's a whole thread for this in the EB forums.

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php/check-my-math-2991p4.html

 

[wjones14]

This gives Chevy even more incentive to one up Ford and embarrass them. Ford's already taken multiple media hits on the weight gain. Now the fuel loss is starting to show up in various news outlets like USA Today with disappointing headlines.

People expect PROGRESS.

Chevy, particularly the Camaro, has a long way to go before it "embarrasses" the Mustang. Since the topic here is the EPA numbers, I can't see the upcoming 2016 Camaro SS being more efficient than the 2015 Mustang GT. If they match the GT's EPA numbers I'd be impressed, given the 300 lb weight difference and the 6.2 liter V8. Anything's possible, since no details other than the use of the ATS platform have been released for the Camaro yet, but to do better than the Mustang's EPA numbers, I think the Camaro would have to lose 300 lbs or so, and have that economy mode (4 cylinders like the Corvette) working on the 6.2 L.

I personally am keeping a close eye on the 2016 Camaro - I think chances are 75% or so that I will buy my 4th consecutive Mustang, but I owned 3 Z28s prior to switching to Ford, so I am keeping an open mind on my next purchase. Chances of my next car being a Mustang GT or Camaro SS are about 95%.

 

[wjones14]

It's not a stupid list, he has a good point & no one knows if the mileage really got worse or if it was just overstated on the '11-'14

+1

I don't see how it's a stupid list. His point is that the Mustang is giving you MUCH more performance, and not sacrificing fuel economy to do it. Why can't we compare the Mustang to other cars, instead of just comparing it to itself?

 

[Feeshta]

Im not considering the EB but the $750 for gas obviously wont come close to the cost differentiation between the two models. There will be difference in original purchase price, insurance, maintenance and gas. Im betting the difference when you calculate it all up will be substantial.

For a 12,000 mile per year driver like myself, and a current fuel price of $3.80 per gallon, the difference in fuel and insurance($38 difference quoted by USAA) is about $1030 per year. That's about $86 per month extra in pure running costs.

If you were to split up the difference in purchase cost ($7,400 as I would option the car) across five years for example, the difference in cost comes out to somewhere around $2512 per year, or in the vicinity of $210 per month additional costs for the GT over the Ecoboost. Of course a lot also depends on how much you finance and what loan terms you get, and an increase in fuel cost would obviously affect this.

In any case, It's a pretty big difference in cost.

 

[fionic]

In any case, It's a pretty big difference in cost.

Which is totally worth it.

 

[Barrel]

Which is totally worth it.

Pay to play; totally agree. I understand that for some MPG is a big deal. For them the EB was created. For the rest of us...

Give me a break about 25MPG for a 435HP V8 in a 3800lb car being not good enough. Yeesh you people are unreasonable. The car doesn't have the aero or the weight of a Vette. Why would it get similar fuel economy? And further, they don't even compete against one another anyway. Completely different sports car categories - and prices.

If Ford would only charge $60k for the Mustang, then you could have carbon fiber panels, aluminum frame, carbon fiber reinforced plastics, etc. that would bring the weight down considerably and improve the fuel economy. But they offer you 435hp for a little over half that to make it accessible to the masses and all the negative nancys jump out of the woodwork.

Please cancel your orders so I can get my car faster. What a dissappointment Ford, for shame...:doh:

Sponsored