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

[Allerick]

The numbers do not impress me. They aren't bad, but I was hoping for better. I'm hoping the talk of these being conservative or at least realistically attainable are correct.

Sponsored

 

[DivineStrike]

I cannot possibly imagine the Performance Pack take rate will be 33%, since it's not available with an automatic, and I'd have to imagine the automatic take rate will be above 70%.

quick note, as I haven't caught up on the rest of the thread. It would only matter in reference to manuals, since Automatics and Manuals get their own EPA MPG rating.

 

[62Telecaster]

I used to live in Europe and yes usually taxes there are based on engine displacement. That's why Ford needed the EB. A four cylinder engine will never be as smooth or refinded as a V6. When I talk to my friends in Europe and tell them that I am contemplating between a 2.3L turbo and a NA 3.7L V6, they all ask me and how much more expensive is the V6.

The EB was overpromised and underdelivered. It was supposed to be lighter, which is not, it's only 5 HP more than the old V6, which I am sure they could have tuned for additional 5, it's only around 2 mpg better on permium fuel and with a more slippery car. I am sure if they wanted they could have improved the V6 a little bit on the fuel economy front as well.

I know we are all fans of the Mustang and Ford and we all want them to be great, but the truth is the EB is not any kind of a superb racing engine. It's a Camry 4 cylinder with a turbo. In fact if I am not mistaken it is very similar to the Fusion 2L Ecoboost with additional displacement and tuning.

I think the reason why Ford introduced the EB is not because it is better than the V6, but for marketing purposes. Apperantly they are succeding, considering how many people are convinced that it is going to "blow the doors off" even the V8, just because it has great turbo "low end torque" and at the same time it is going to have the millage of a Fiesta.

yeah, I'm not drinking the Koop-Aid when it comes to this. I'm extremely dissapointed with a lot of things and am strongly leaning towards grabbing a 2014 GT at $25k vs a 2015 Ecoboost at $30k. If the auto mpg isn't something like 23/34 in the least, then I'm grabbing a leftover GT and enjoying it until Ford puts more effort into this car and at least tosses a turbo V6 at us in the S550. I'm souring on the 2.3 at the moment and think what they're doing to the Cyclone V6 is ridiculous...I would have loved to save some cash by grabbing an unmolested 3.7 premium if such a thing existed for 2015. The 2.3 isn't justifying the extra cost for me at all right now.

Hopefully as with the power numbers leaking, Ford will have to finally speak up and give us all of the mpg numbers...the way they've handled things is beyond frustrating.

 

[Old 5 Oh]

It would only matter in reference to manuals, since Automatics and Manuals get their own EPA MPG rating.

Interesting. If the rating for manuals has to account for the 3.73 gears in the PP, while the rating for the more-efficient AT includes the 3.15 gears, there may well be some air between the two, at least according to the EPA. I'd think you'd be looking at something like 14/23 for the manual and maybe 17-18/25-26 for the AT. That'd catch people's eyes.

 

[xlover]

the 3.7l is the better motor, the 2.3 just has a turbo on it. I would assume a 3.7l can reliably hold more power than the 2.3l

im talking from the factory when you get into modding and such its never apples to apples anymore

 

[62Telecaster]

Interesting. If the rating for manuals has to account for the 3.73 gears in the PP, while the rating for the more-efficient AT includes the 3.15 gears, there may well be some air between the two, at least according to the EPA. I'd think you'd be looking at something like 14/23 for the manual and maybe 17-18/25-26 for the AT. That'd catch people's eyes.

Yeah...in truth, I'm not tracking my car and it's really going to.just be a fun commuter for the most part. I'm really hinging on the auto variants to be a big improvement for me to justify owning a 2015. It's the final straw and the last piece of the puzzle for me.

 

[Spartan]

Interesting. If the rating for manuals has to account for the 3.73 gears in the PP, while the rating for the more-efficient AT includes the 3.15 gears, there may well be some air between the two, at least according to the EPA. I'd think you'd be looking at something like 14/23 for the manual and maybe 17-18/25-26 for the AT. That'd catch people's eyes.

Someone in the thread said that they don't take into account options (like the PP)...but I find that hard to believe.

These #s should have to account for anything like the PP, wheel size, axle, etc.

 

[akwal07]

The 2.3L ecoboost is the better motor, built specifically for the mustang. Granted it is shared with the new Lincoln MKC. The 3.7L was originally a truck motor brought over to the mustang. It has now been dropped from the F-150 and is also being weened out of the other models as well.

This is also the reason why more money wasnt dropped into the 5.0. Its budget was based off the 5.0 for the F-150. I suspect before long the 5.0 will be the only N/A engine offered by ford, strictly for the mustang. Every other engine will be turbo'd.

Your logic is flawed the 2.3l ecoboost is designed to be used in many ford models, just like the 3.7l was

 

[flyers]

Fuel economy tidbit on the 2015 GT:

"The rumor that we’ve heard is the 2015 Mustang GT gets 24 MPG highway while cruising at 80 MPH."

 

[66coupe]

I used to live in Europe and yes usually taxes there are based on engine displacement. That's why Ford needed the EB. A four cylinder engine will never be as smooth or refinded as a V6. When I talk to my friends in Europe and tell them that I am contemplating between a 2.3L turbo and a NA 3.7L V6, they all ask me and how much more expensive is the V6.

The EB was overpromised and underdelivered. It was supposed to be lighter, which is not, it's only 5 HP more than the old V6, which I am sure they could have tuned for additional 5, it's only around 2 mpg better on permium fuel and with a more slippery car. I am sure if they wanted they could have improved the V6 a little bit on the fuel economy front as well.

I know we are all fans of the Mustang and Ford and we all want them to be great, but the truth is the EB is not any kind of a superb racing engine. It's a Camry 4 cylinder with a turbo. In fact if I am not mistaken it is very similar to the Fusion 2L Ecoboost with additional displacement and tuning.

I think the reason why Ford introduced the EB is not because it is better than the V6, but for marketing purposes. Apperantly they are succeding, considering how many people are convinced that it is going to "blow the doors off" even the V8, just because it has great turbo "low end torque" and at the same time it is going to have the millage of a Fiesta.

I was assuming all along that the reasons for the EB was (1) to improve CAFE numbers in the US and (2) to make the care more marketable outside of the US. The second point is still valid, but the EPA numbers suggest the first point is not.

What if the reason for replacing the V6 with the EB is primarily cost savings? The V6s are being replaced by EB engines in other models, and so economies of scale may mean that it is now significantly less expensive for Ford to build an EB than it is to build a V6.

But the V6 has a good following and offers a good combination of power, fuel economy, and reliability, so Ford needs to justify getting rid of it. They can't say "we're getting rid of a popular engine to increase profits", so they crank up the PR machine and rumor mill and focus on needing the EB for CAFE.

I'm not saying the EB is a bad engine (I'm sure it's a great engine), but does the power and fuel economy (and premium fuel) justify the price premium when compared with the V6 before whatever was done to if for 2015? I wonder if what's happening here is just a strategy to increase profits rather than to give us the best pony car Ford has to offer.

 

[DivineStrike]

Someone in the thread said that they don't take into account options (like the PP)...but I find that hard to believe.

These #s should have to account for anything like the PP, wheel size, axle, etc.

They do, the test vehicle they use for EPA testing has to include options that are expected to be sold on 33% of vehicles. It is in the EPA testing requirements rule book. There's a few other rules in there too, but they have been in place since at least 2010 or so.

This was discovered during the great weight debate

So EPA results will include 33% of popular optioned out V6 Auto/Man, EB auto/man, and V8 auto/man. So that will be 6 total EPA outcomes. Some manufacturers even divvy it up by trim allocation ie...basic or premium etc... Ford doesn't do this with the Mustang

 

[62Telecaster]

I was assuming all along that the reasons for the EB was (1) to improve CAFE numbers in the US and (2) to make the care more marketable outside of the US. The second point is still valid, but the EPA numbers suggest the first point is not.

What if the reason for replacing the V6 with the EB is primarily cost savings? The V6s are being replaced by EB engines in other models, and so economies of scale may mean that it is now significantly less expensive for Ford to build an EB than it is to build a V6.

But the V6 has a good following and offers a good combination of power, fuel economy, and reliability, so Ford needs to justify getting rid of it. They can't say "we're getting rid of a popular engine to increase profits", so they crank up the PR machine and rumor mill and focus on needing the EB for CAFE.

I'm not saying the EB is a bad engine (I'm sure it's a great engine), but does the power and fuel economy (and premium fuel) justify the price premium when compared with the V6 before whatever was done to if for 2015? I wonder if what's happening here is just a strategy to increase profits rather than to give us the best pony car Ford has to offer.

it looks pretty bad from Ford's behalf. I probably could have optioned out a V6 Premium for $4-5k under the Ecoboost Premium that I would be getting and been happier overall. It's all about corporate branding and marketing...same reason why we have "Mustang Ecoboost" as a name instead of bringing back the SVO badge, which I'm sure every last enthusiast would have loved to see.

 

[Khell86]

Your logic is flawed the 2.3l ecoboost is designed to be used in many ford models, just like the 3.7l was

I'm saying it was originally designed for the mustang, with changes being made to it so it can be fit into a few other models. The 3.7L was made for the F-150, and tweaked to fit into other models like the mustang. The 2.3L will end up being the better motor because it was originally built for the mustang.

 

[DivineStrike]

what??? :shrug: how does designing new mounts to install an engine have anything to do with how good an engine is? an N/A engine will always be more reliable than a turbo engine, there are just less moving parts, less to go wrong, less wear, and less heat. Not saying the EB won't be a reliable engine, and as long as Ford did their proper homework, because it should be. It's just that, to say the V6 is a less reliable motor because it was originally designed as a truck motor, is just silly. It's an engine, just like the old 4.0 which is really reliable, especially after 04. And the 4.6, I don't have any experience with this engine but I expect it's been a really reliable engine. All truck motors put into the mustang, and they've been fine.

 

[Zeaken]

disappointing mpg figures to say the least. Heck its on par with the heavier v6 dodge charger!


So now we lose the v6 sound in exchange for basically nothing. I wonder if that not so bad weight penalty of the new gen is the cause but if it is we will see it carry over to the gt....

Sponsored