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

[aspensilver]

Sorry; I hand-calculate every tank and have seen 33-34 regularly and 35 once.

Granted, that's pure gas station - gas station runs on flat interstate right below the speed limit, with no traffic and no intermediate stops -- no food breaks or piss breaks or stretch-your-legs breaks. Just six straight hours on cruise control.

Sure, but that hardly represents normal driving, and that's awfully grandma driving in a sports car. I drive 80 on the HW and combined in a 1.6L ecoboost fusion I get 26.4mpg. I think those that like to drive fast will see more like 22-23 on the EB, maybe a little higher if you live in flat area.

Sponsored

 

[62Telecaster]

Dunno...I definitely come from the camp of wanting more. It just seems like IRS is the only reason to really get this car, aside from if you like the new styling.

There's not really a point blank "yes, get this over the old model" selling point for this car when it comes to the raw numbers...disappointing.

 

[MustangSteve]

yeesh, the v6 went down that much?

Keep in mind that the standard final drive ratio for the V6 went from 2.73 on the 2014 to 3.15 for the 2015 which should boost off the line acceleration but will hurt on the highway.

 

[MustangSteve]

We still haven't seen MPG numbers for the EB automatic which is likely to be the leader in the Mustang lineup. What no one here has noted is that that the EB manual has a standard final drive of 3.31. The EB automatic gets a 3.15 final drive with the 3.31 being optional. The combination of being able to control the automatic for optimal fuel efficiency on the EPA tests and the lower final drive will probably boost highway fuel economy number by 2-3 mpg putting it at 33-34 mpg.

 

[iBookmaster]

Around 35 mpg for the automatic ecoboost would be attractive to me. The whole point of getting the ecoboost would be the fuel savings. Otherwise, my 2012 V6 Mustang is looking good.

 

[oyitsagreen]

you know whats funny people tell me the same thing with my v6 auto, then i tell them well im averaging 25/26 and they have that dumb priceless look on their face and say "oh" then spew something about american cars not being reliable.

Hah I wish they would! 73k miles on mine and still going strong...The only thing that has stopped working is the Oil life indicator but I never really trusted that anways (always reads 100% no matter what now)

 

[Cobraunit]

Bring the power! Once I put a blower on my V8, those numbers won't matter anymore.

 

[Wildcat]

.

On a personal note, I'd like to imagine the possibility of this GT being the last gas-powered car I'll every buy. Projecting forward 5-6 years I'm looking to grab an electric vehicle so from that standpoint, when it comes to internal combustion engines I wanna go out with the big dog. If somehow I was able to keep it for the long run, it'd be cool to be the old-timer with the old gas-powered 5.0 in the garage.

-SeventhWard

I feel a bit the same way. I figure that by the end of that time frame Tesla will have its more reasonably priced sedan on the market and be close to full national coverage with their charging network. On last hurrah with a gas car and then on to a gas free future.

 

[geokots]

I know we all want exact and accurate numbers but this happens all the time. Car companies (Honda/acura, Toyota) got nailed a few years ago for over inflating hp numbers. Hyundai recently got hit with over inflating mpg. Some cars have under rated hp. Fact is we'll never know real world hp and mpg until we have some in owners hands.

 

[stangs-R-me]

Over 91k miles on my 2011 3.7L V6 ... MCA Edition w/ Manual, 2.73 gears, & 235/50-18 tires. I drive 400 mi week for work and have averaged 30.44 MPG since new (real calculated MPG's). I've gotten above 32 MPG on 22 tank-fulls (including the last 4), but have yet to break 33.

Run ethanol-free 91 octane exclusively, have an SCT-Bama tuner (91P tune), Air-Raid CAI, & aluminum driveshaft.

My weekly 400 mile drive is from N.E. Wisconsin to just north of Chicago (I43 to I94) ... pretty flat driving except Manitowoc & Sheboygan counties near home are a "little" hilly.

I drive 10 over the limit pretty much everywhere so I'm doing either 75 MPH or 65 MPH when on the interstate. In Illinois where it is supposedly 55 MPH I'll also do 75 MPH, but will run with traffic up to 85 MPH.

About 70% of this 400 miles is with the cruise set.
The other 30% I'm either in traffic or on surface streets.

In stop & go traffic, I'll rev it out a bit off the line thru 1st & 2nd, but then get into 5th or 6th as quickly as possible when up to speed (5th @ 30~35 MPH & 6th @ 40~45 MPH).

I'm sure I could get better MPG's if I granny'd it and went the speed limit everywhere, but that just ain't happening !!

I always do my weekly commute on ONE tank of gas and there is always some left when I get home (typically around 50 MI to E), but not enough to do ALL my weekend errands. I've got other cars to drive, so I don't need to put gas in it more than once a week.
______________

Anyway, YES ... I'm a little disappointed in the EPA numbers dropping 1 MPG city / hwy for the V6 M/T (17/28 was 18/29) ... A/T city stayed the same but highway went down 3 and is now the same as the M/T.

I'm sure a big reason for this is the rear axle ratio change from 2.73 to 3.15 (a 15% difference). Highway MPG's only went down 3.4% for M/T & 9.7% for A/T, so I'm sure better aerodynamics are helping plus MPG's are not directly proportional to engine RPM's.

As this is a new size ring & pinion (9.8 vs. 8.8), maybe this 3.15 is as low (numerically) that Ford currently has in the parts bin.

Or, maybe they wanted the V6 to just have a little more snap off the line compared to the '11-14.

What is further interesting is on 2011-14 V6, the up-grade gears from the stock 2.73 was 3.31, now in 2015 the up-grade is from 3.15 to 3.55. Certainly going backwards if they are supposed to be trying to get BETTER MPG's out of newer models as the EPA would like to see. Too bad Ford did not tweak the MT82's overdrive to compensate for the rear axle change.

The EB M/T 22/31 MPG is a bit disappointing too, but it is still 4/3 MPG better than 2011-14 V6 M/T.

The EB A/T has 3.15 gears vs. the M/T's 3.31. I'm guessing the EB A/T will beat the 2011-14 V6 by similar numbers since they boast in the Order Guide ... "Includes Super Fuel Economy (SFE) with no other options ordered".

My prediction for EB A/T ... 23/34 MPG
(vs. 19/31 MPG for 2011-14 V6 A/T)

Hopefully the EB A/T and the GT numbers are revealed soon.

Doug

 

[genericuser1]

The mileage on the EB mustang looks good to me. An STI only gets 17/23 and that is a turbo 4 with 300 ish hp. Granted the 2.5 EJ is an old design without DI.

 

[Hashbrownn]

These MPG # are about par with what I had expected. I don't know what others are expecting, but 31MPG on the highway for Mustang EB is pretty stellar I say. Especially when it is slotted to perform better than the V6. In my personal experience, I've never driven a F/I car that achieved good MPG. I know that it's probably my driving style, but who doesn't want to play in boost if you have it? In spirited driving conditions, I can see EB and V8 MPG gap getting much narrower.

 

[StangFX]

Keep in mind that the standard final drive ratio for the V6 went from 2.73 on the 2014 to 3.15 for the 2015 which should boost off the line acceleration but will hurt on the highway.

We still haven't seen MPG numbers for the EB automatic which is likely to be the leader in the Mustang lineup. What no one here has noted is that that the EB manual has a standard final drive of 3.31. The EB automatic gets a 3.15 final drive with the 3.31 being optional. The combination of being able to control the automatic for optimal fuel efficiency on the EPA tests and the lower final drive will probably boost highway fuel economy number by 2-3 mpg putting it at 33-34 mpg.

+1 Very good points.

I will echo others that this is about what I expected and think these are solid numbers. I'll wait to see real world MPG for the GT tho...there's no telling how much Ford has changed their approach due to recent backlash from claims of inflated efficiency in their other vehicles.

 

[Don's Stang]

Hehe
I called it a while ago in another thread where the ford rep said the EB got close to 40mpg
http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php/seen-2015-for-2840p4.html


I knew the EB would do a little better then the 5.0 but not a big enough difference for me to even consider a EB over the 5.0. To me the reason to consider a EB is better weight distribution, and possible better handling.

I am going to say a EB will get 3-4 better mileage than the 5.0 in real world driving. If mileage is your only concern then yes get the EB, but to me the 5.0 is a better all around better choice, More power, sounds better, and none of the issues with turbos, and direct injection

To me no replacement for more displacement

Also the reason autos do so good, is in real world driving the computer upshifts a lot sooner, than you would in a standard trans

 

[Andy]

From all engines the V6 meets my needs the best. I expected if they keep the same engine to at least have the same 305 hp and 31 mpg. There are some good points about the final drive ratio, but then accelaration should be better, which I doubt.

If they really rated it lower just to make the EB look better, then the EB is not good enough to compete on its own merit and it also makes me question their marketing tactics and their company integrity as a whole.

Sponsored