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

[ShoNuff]

Some of the dealers in my area have been posting the 2015 mustangs to their websites. One thing that I did notice was one of the dealers listed the v8 EPA to be 15 city, 25 highway. However, this is just what the dealer is posting and is by no means official.

Just thought I'd share what I've been seeing.

Sponsored

 

[DivineStrike]

Also, don't forget EPA testing includes popular options included on 33% or more vehicles. The V8 will likely be rated at PP if it accounts for 33% of expected sales. what was the percentage of track pack owners in 13-14?

Also, you guys keep failing to realize ford is not only lowering the numbers of the V6 but they intentionally botched the numbers by putting in a higher gear in the rear end. They made it lose mpg's on purpose. Also, the v6 auto was rated at 31mpg's on the highway, and people were getting that. Now it's rated at 28. That's a loss of 10%.

Another thing to note, cars get tested by the EPA every MY not every refresh or new model, it's every year. Take a look at Fords other models, did any of them lose mpg's going from 2014 to 2015. If they haven't then nothing in the EPA testing has changed. You guys need to open your eyes a bit and stop blindly defending Ford with every lackluster release of specs. The point of the EB only getting 31mpg's on the highway is that 4 years ago, they introduced the V6 with the same efficiency. They are supposed to be improving, not downgrading one product to promote another. If a product is that good, let it do the talking. Clearly the EB isn't, so they had to make it look better. We will have to wait and see what happens with the EB auto. I don't expect anything higher than 32 on the hwy, officially. If they happened to squeeze 33 out of it then I will retract my statement about the EB not holding it's own. Now what will be much better is the combined mileage, if you are easy on the gas with these turbo 4's you can really eak out the mpg's and it will be significantly better than the V8.

Now I really hope they haven't lowered the GT mpgs otherwise I very well might cancel my order.

 

[so_r_crazy]

If so, that means the V8 is most likely around:
City 17 Highway 27 for the Manual
City 18 Highway 28 for the Auto

That to me would be high.
2014 is as follows and with increase in HP and TQ should stay the saw.

City 15 Highway 26 for the Manual- Combined 19
City 18 Highway 25 for the Auto- Combined 20

All the question on EB and CAFE would more likely be due to a few reason.

1. EB is less from the beginning than GT.
2. Those the want a Mustang, but better performance, yet dont want a GT lesser mileage.
3. V-6 has taller gearing
4. Emissions standards were improved on V-6 but at cost of HP and some MPG.

 

[Old 5 Oh]

These numbers match the survey that was sent out months ago. EB auto is prob 32 auto, same city.

If so, that means the V8 is most likely around:

City 17 Highway 27 for the Manual
City 18 Highway 28 for the Auto

I hope you are right, but that's the same as the V6 numbers and I don't believe that's going to happen. What was 2014? 15/24 M and 18/25 A? Those numbers sound pretty right in the context of the new V6 numbers. The car may well be up one weight class, which might cost it an MPG here or there.

If my 6A GT comes out at 18/25 on the latest EPA test, it will likely average 22 mpg in my real world of secondary road commutes, and that will be about what I expected. Anything more is gravy.

 

[DivineStrike]

Just a heads up as well, the EPA testing cycle is no different than last year. The 2014 Fusion engines are rated the same as the 2015 engines. So again Ford actually made the v6 lose mpg's so the EB would look better.

And the 14 V8 was 15city/26hwy manual and 18city/25hwy for the auto. As for my like i said i'll be happy as long as the V8 didn't lose any efficiency, although I would expect it to get better. I was only hoping for another MPG on the hwy due to improved aerodynamics.

 

[Horse]

Thanks.

 

[tagorgia]

yeesh, the v6 went down that much?

Ford doesn't care about the V6 anyway. You can't get any good options for the V6. They don't want to sell V6's. They are pushing people towards the ecoboost.

 

[tagorgia]

Disappointed. The V6 didn't seem like good option before these numbers were released, now it's worse. For my money the fuel economy of the EB is too low, I can't imagine why I would chose an EB over a GT.

My wife opted for a 2014 Camaro V6 Auto over the Mustang basically because the Camaro rode better (IRS). She has 8000 miles on the car and has averaged 25.7 mpg in mostly city driving. (on regular fuel too!)

 

[DivineStrike]

Ford doesn't care about the V6 anyway. You can't get any good options for the V6. They don't want to sell V6's. They are pushing people towards the ecoboost.

That's the whole pretense of this issue. They shouldn't of had to lower the V6 efficiency to make the EB look good. Granted combined is a bit better but the hwy is the same as v6 2011. I hope the auto makes up for the manuals lackluster mpg's. Honestly they are still good, but they aren't much of an improvement over the V6 of previous years. Which imo, without improvement it is a downgrade in this day and age. Especially when your promoting this technology to be more efficient than the previous.

 

[EXP Jawa]

Also, don't forget EPA testing includes popular options included on 33% or more vehicles. The V8 will likely be rated at PP if it accounts for 33% of expected sales. what was the percentage of track pack owners in 13-14?

I would guess, based on past history and stuff, that the volume of the PP will be something like 10-11K per year. I have no idea, however, what the planned volume of the entire lineup is, of what % of it is going to be V8 cars. OTOH, since the EB PP is available in a wider range of configurations, I'd bet that the take rate will be a bit higher than for the GT. The EB may well have the PP baked into the EPA numbers, where the V8 might not.

 

[Spartan]

That to me would be high.
2014 is as follows and with increase in HP and TQ should stay the saw.

City 15 Highway 26 for the Manual- Combined 19
City 18 Highway 25 for the Auto- Combined 20

All the question on EB and CAFE would more likely be due to a few reason.

1. EB is less from the beginning than GT.
2. Those the want a Mustang, but better performance, yet dont want a GT lesser mileage.
3. V-6 has taller gearing
4. Emissions standards were improved on V-6 but at cost of HP and some MPG.

Well Im going on the survey that was posted by Ford that say 18/28 for the GT. I think it will be close to that. Car is way more aerodynamic then before.

 

[Hashbrownn]

I'm just gonna compare my current Engine to the 5.0

2003 VW PASSAT W8 4Motion 4.0L W8 270HP 16city 22hwy combined 18mpg
2014/15 Ford Mustang GT 5.0L V8 420+HP 15city 26hwy combined 19mpg

Yes, I know that my Passat is a fat girl at 4000+lbs. and AWD but it seems like I'm getting power & mpg upgrade.

I paid little over $40k for this Passat good 11 years ago. 2015 GT premium w/ PP will cost about the same with bump in HP and better MPG. I can't wait.

 

[aardvark]

You know, I find myself agreeing with those who suspect that Ford has sabotaged the V6 (i.e., with limited options and intentionally reduced fuel economy). And, if true, this is lame. If the Ecoboost is so great, let it sell itself on its own merits.

Frankly, I seriously question the wisdom of this approach. Let's not forget that the Camaro is selling well with its v6... and rumor has it that GM will be beefing up that mill for the 2016. The scuttlebutt is that the next Camaro also have a turbo 4, but as the BASE engine... not an upgrade. To me, that makes more sense. A good (I4)- better (V6)- best (V8) approach is intuitive and consumer-friendly. Ford has ditched conventional wisdom here, though, and is pushing the turbo 4 as the 'better' option. And what's better about it? It has more power and better fuel economy! Except that it really doesn't, so let's pretend that it does?!
If Camaro comes in with a ~280 hp turbo 4 as its base and a ~330 hp V6 as the upgrade, Ford will have little choice but to go back to the drawing board... possibly making the Ecoboost 4 the base engine, and introducing an Ecoboost 6 as the midrange option.

 

[xlover]

I'm just gonna compare my current Engine to the 5.0

2003 VW PASSAT W8 4Motion 4.0L W8 270HP 16city 22hwy combined 18mpg
2014/15 Ford Mustang GT 5.0L V8 420+HP 15city 26hwy combined 19mpg

Yes, I know that my Passat is a fat girl at 4000+lbs. and AWD but it seems like I'm getting power & mpg upgrade.

I paid little over $40k for this Passat good 11 years ago. 2015 GT premium w/ PP will cost about the same with bump in HP and better MPG. I can't wait.

MY supercharged V6 audi S4 quattro is 18/28 with the 7speed DSG @ 333hp/325lbft

if i only have to give up 2-3 mpg for another 100 HP and 75lbft (ok the audi engine might be a bit underrated per german tactics)

honestly i would give up 10mpg just to get that v8 sound back

 

[xlover]

You know, I find myself agreeing with those who suspect that Ford has sabotaged the V6 (i.e., with limited options and intentionally reduced fuel economy). And, if true, this is lame. If the Ecoboost is so great, let it sell itself on its own merits.

Frankly, I seriously question the wisdom of this approach. Let's not forget that the Camaro is selling well with its v6... and rumor has it that GM will be beefing up that mill for the 2016. The scuttlebutt is that the next Camaro also have a turbo 4, but as the BASE engine... not an upgrade. To me, that makes more sense. A good (I4)- better (V6)- best (V8) approach is intuitive and consumer-friendly. Ford has ditched conventional wisdom here, though, and is pushing the turbo 4 as the 'better' option. And what's better about it? It has more power and better fuel economy! Except that it really doesn't, so let's pretend that it does?!
If Camaro comes in with a ~280 hp turbo 4 as its base and a ~330 hp V6 as the upgrade, Ford will have little choice but to go back to the drawing board... possibly making the Ecoboost 4 the base engine, and introducing an Ecoboost 6 as the midrange option.

im pretty sure ford will laugh at them for doing it ass backwards cuz the turbo 4 with the stong low end torque would be the better motor, problem is GMs turbo 4 isnt on the same level as the ecoboost

Sponsored