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

[e30og]

I'm surprised the GT is actually LESS efficient than the outgoing model... Is it because of new EPA standards?

Also, the OP lists "regular" gasoline. Does that mean we no longer are required to use premium to achieve either Ford's power figures or these EPA estimates? If so, that certainly lessens the sting of the slightly disappointing numbers here.

the GT gained 100lbs, cut it some slack 1mpg on the EPA is not gonna break the bank and is negligible considering the weight gain

Sponsored

 

[RocketGuy3]

the GT gained 100lbs, cut it some slack 1mpg on the EPA is not gonna break the bank and is negligible considering the weight gain

Like I said, I'll reserve real judgment until we know premium gas MPG numbers, but going by these current numbers, it lost two mpg city, which is about 11-12%. It only gained 87 lbs, which is like 2-3%. And there isn't even supposed to be all that direct of an inverse relationship between those two numbers, anyways. Plus, the engine was supposedly tuned for both improved power AND efficiency, which I'd hope would more than make up for a relatively small weight gain.

But again, between the fact that this is regular gas and (I think?) some people have said EPA testing has changed, it's still doubtful that these numbers are really any "worse" than the outgoing model. So I'll wait until we know more.

 

[Spartan]

On another website, someone posted this...any clue if it's true since members here said that each model's MPG is based on the options that they think will be on most of that model.

The V6 HP drop is due to a redesigned intake manifold in order to fit the new lowered hood. As for the MPG drops, these are due to the ratings being taken with each engines/transmission upgraded gear ratios. The GT manual is now rated with its 3.73 gears and the automatic is rated with its 3.55 option instead of the original 3.31 and 3.15. Same thing for the V6 as well with the 3.55 and 3.15.

​

So basically what he's saying is the EPA tested all GT Autos with 3.55 gears and all manuals with 3.73 gears since they think that is what is going to be the main % of sales in those models.

If this is true then obviously those that have 3.31 manuals and 3.15 autos are going to get slightly better MPG.

 

[DivineStrike]

I also believe from what I have read in this thread the EPA data is based on 87. Every vehicle I have ever driven has gotten much better mileage with 93 whether it was an Escort, Mark 8 or a new Jeep. Everyone jumped down my throat saying that octane doesn't effect mileage but this is calculated with a calculator using the same pump.

Again, in my personal experience with today's crappy gasoline that is very inconsistent I always run 93 and I plan on running a good fuel octane booster because I have no faith in what is coming out of the pump.

This has also been my experience with 93 vs 87. At least in my 02 Focus, but the gain was never enough to outweigh the cost; so I only did it on occasion. The GTI i never ran on 87 enough to have a good comparison because the car didn't run very well on 87 so I never used it again. With the truck, I never got a direct comparison because I would be WOT a bit when using 93 (w/ tune and w/o) because I was comparing how the engine felt and not worrying about MPG's. If Gas is super cheap when I get back and not almost 4 a gal w/ 93 I'll do a comparison. I've gotten over 20 staying below 70 on a road trip to Erie PA. I'll use 93 this next time and see if it's any better.


As for shitty 93 gas, I've never run into the issue. I normally always fill up using Shell gasoline. If I can't find Shell on a road trip it's Exxon/Mobil. Then in a pinch i'll use Sunoco if i'm in a hurry on the way to work as it's the most convenient. My best gas mileage has been from Mobil/Exxon stations, next being Shell. I consider Sunoco average. Worst MPG's i've gotten were from BP stations. I have always gotten worse MPG's from BP.

On another website, someone posted this...any clue if it's true since members here said that each model's MPG is based on the options that they think will be on most of that model.

The V6 HP drop is due to a redesigned intake manifold in order to fit the new lowered hood. As for the MPG drops, these are due to the ratings being taken with each engines/transmission upgraded gear ratios. The GT manual is now rated with its 3.73 gears and the automatic is rated with its 3.55 option instead of the original 3.31 and 3.15. Same thing for the V6 as well with the 3.55 and 3.15.

​

So basically what he's saying is the EPA tested all GT Autos with 3.55 gears and all manuals with 3.73 gears since they think that is what is going to be the main % of sales in those models.

If this is true then obviously those that have 3.31 manuals and 3.15 autos are going to get slightly better MPG.

If true, this is very exciting news. But I can only see that being the case for the Manual. I just don't see any reason for over 33% of the Auto's to be 3.55s.

 

[Spartan]

If true, this is very exciting news. But I can only see that being the case for the Manual. I just don't see any reason for over 33% of the Auto's to be 3.55s.

It's definitely possible when you think about it they probably feel the people who are getting the GT are getting it to be fast and the 3.55 gears give the more acceleration it's highly possible they feel that 3.55 gears are going to be on every GT automatic.

 

[Swoope]

Exactly.... the case with my truck, I can run higher octane but to gain the benefits you will actually have to run it a couple tanks to allow the ecu to adjust to the fuel... many people think that just switching the fuel it will be better this they complain that they got even worse mpg... even my truck it got worse but I only put one tank of it in but 89 octane then the fuel prices jumped again... even then though, the 5.4 recommended fuel is 87 if I remember correctly... it would not make that much diffe re nce using the higher octane except for the cleaner running aspect of it. It takes as much as 500 miles for the ecu to make adjustments to a change of fuel, fuel ratios, maf sensors... so actually, some days might be shitty, other days good ... an ambient temperature year round would be best but that will never happen around here

you can just pull the bat cable. or read on the truck forums and find out what fuse it is..

have been doing with my rx8 for years.. run 87 oct. the tank on the way to track. i pull the room fuse it is. resets all the fuel trims.. fill it up with 93 and fun track weekend.

beers

 

[DivineStrike]

So, the negative press begins...

 

[Clink]

So, the negative press begins...

My thoughts on the whole MPG stuff - there is no measurable way to figure out the amount of f*cks I do not give...

 

[DivineStrike]

My thoughts on the whole MPG stuff - there is no measurable way to figure out the amount of f*cks I do not give...

Good for you. Then why are you in this thread?

 

[Clink]

Good for you. Then why are you in this thread?

Sorry I have to click on last page to make the thread show "read"

My comment was not directed at you at all, but towards the haters.

You're right I didn't park here, :bolt:

 

[DivineStrike]

Sorry I have to click on last page to make the thread show "read"

My comment was not directed at you at all, but towards the haters.

You're right I didn't park here, :bolt:

Lol a little OCD are ya?

and also, my bad. I see that now sorry I took ya all wrong.

 

[Patrick S]

I am kinda with clink... MPG numbers are for people who are buying a car for gas mileage, and generally, Mustang buyers are not in the market for the MPG of it.

 

[Spartan]

As we've said before, wouldn't even be talking about this if Dave P didn't open his mouth and Ford also about how there would be MPG gains with the 2015.

 

[DivineStrike]

I am kinda with clink... MPG numbers are for people who are buying a car for gas mileage, and generally, Mustang buyers are not in the market for the MPG of it.

I kind of agree with the general point behind this statement. But it is also very untrue that Mustang buyers don't consider MPG's. If that were the case, mpg's would still be abysmal and wouldn't be anywhere near what they are now. If mpg's in the mustang never improved, it would have died off. I would say a more accurate statement is some mustang buyers don't consider it, but as a Majority of mustang's sold were V6's and soon to be EB's, most Mustang consumers do care. Granted the biggest factor in those sales is price.

 

[souprmage]

I think the key reason is because the numbers went backward from last year. Had they stayed the same, it would have been a non issue.

But yeah, I couldn't care less what they are. I got a V8 sports car to drive a sports car, not stare at my MPG meter.

Sponsored