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

[Feeshta]

Which is totally worth it.

For some I'm sure it is, others not so much. For me personally, I would be rather upset if I actually averaged 19 mpg. I average over 20 in my 14 year old, 3800 lb 540i.

Sponsored

 

[Grimace427]

For some I'm sure it is, others not so much. For me personally, I would be rather upset if I actually averaged 19 mpg. I average over 20 in my 14 year old, 3800 lb 540i.

You think your 14 year old 540i will be nearly as exciting to drive as a 2015 Mustang GT?

 

[Feeshta]

You think your 14 year old 540i will be nearly as exciting to drive as a 2015 Mustang GT?

Not quite of course, but it would be a bit surprising if the GT can be significantly faster down a PA back road than the 540i is on coil-overs. That's the kind of performance driving that really matters to me.

 

[fionic]

For some I'm sure it is, others not so much. For me personally, I would be rather upset if I actually averaged 19 mpg. I average over 20 in my 14 year old, 3800 lb 540i.

if you can't afford the extra gas $$$ don't buy the GT, easy as that

plus, remember, EPA estimates are always off. Almost 100% guaranteed you will get higher than 19 combo if you don't drive hard (which is impossible).

 

[souprmage]

if you can't afford the extra gas $$$ don't buy the GT, easy as that

plus, remember, EPA estimates are always off. Almost 100% guaranteed you will get higher than 19 combo if you don't drive hard (which is impossible).

Oh, I'm certain it's very possible.....



Once I'm dead.

 

[Seabee1973]

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:

+1. Totally agree on all counts

 

[Wildcat]

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.

I was thinking about just fuel costs only in my post, but yes you are correct that additional factors make the GT more costly. I really didn't want to stray off topic so I didn't discuss other costs.

 

[Robinson02]

:lol: That's what we hear foe' captin'

 

[usa1]

Not quite of course, but it would be a bit surprising if the GT can be significantly faster down a PA back road than the 540i is on coil-overs. That's the kind of performance driving that really matters to me.

Some perspective.

2001 BMW 5 series
Weight: 3924 lbs
2001 Price: $52,295 ($70,351 in 2014 dollars)
Power: 282 hp
0-60: 5.7 sec
MPG: 15/21


Stats from: http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...-audi-a6-42-quattro-bmw-540i-comparison-tests

The Mustang GT would smack the 540i around all day long.

 

[Sal JC]

:lol: That's what we hear foe' captin'

of course! i've been part of it..

 

[Feeshta]

Some perspective.

2001 BMW 5 series
Weight: 3924 lbs
2001 Price: $52,295 ($70,351 in 2014 dollars)
Power: 282 hp
0-60: 5.7 sec
MPG: 15/21


Stats from: http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...-audi-a6-42-quattro-bmw-540i-comparison-tests

The Mustang GT would smack the 540i around all day long.

Quite possibly not when it comes to handling, which is the primary deciding factor for me when it comes to a "performance" car.

Oh, and original sticker on my 2000 model year was 58K, although I didn't pay it, I bought it used.(the original window sticker was in the glove box when I got it) Also I have averaged 20.8 mpg overall in the last 50k miles, and average 26 mpg on the highway with the AC on and 28 mpg without AC, so the original mileage estimates are pretty far off the mark.

 

[souprmage]

My wife's Highlander is lucky to top 20 mpg in combined driving. I think it's lucky to see 23 on highway trips. It's quite peppy though, for what it is. Until I put my kart trailer on the back. Drops to about 10mpg and it's a small 6'x10' single axle.

I briefly though of getting a used M3. You can pick up a good used one for about $25k. But 1) its a Bimmer 2) its well less than 20mpg.

Now if only those reviews start showing up. I think they'll be out just about the time my car gets built. Kids are going back to school next week too, one step closer. I'm afraid, the wait is only going to get harder the closer it gets.

 

[Barrel]

Quite possibly not when it comes to handling, which is the primary deciding factor for me when it comes to a "performance" car

Every category, including handling, will be dominated by the S550 GT over your old Bimmer. Every category. This should be the case anyway...it's 14 years later.

 

[Tim Hilliard]

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.

So for $210 a month buy a Fiesta stick and enjoy your 435HP Mustang. If you can't justify the expense don't buy a GT or an EcoBoost for that matter because many of the "savings" you are quoting are near impossible in the real world. Do you think the turbocharged Eco is going to cheaper to maintain?

To quote my Wife: "Good don't buy a GT, mine will be built sooner"

 

[ShoNuff]

... Do you think the turbocharged Eco is going to cheaper to maintain?

Do turbo's generally have higher maintenance costs? I read that the ecoboost engines typically have carbon build up issues - is this what you were talking about?

Sponsored