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

[BigShow]

Ran a quick calc based on $3.50/gal, 5 years, and 15K miles per year. Only counting acquisition costs and fuel cost; after 5 years the EB is over $800 cheaper. The V6 is only for someone (some organization, i.e. Hetz) not paying for the gas and not owning the car very long.

Based on the lower V6 mileage specs I would expect lower 2015 GT mileage than the 2014 GT.

Mileage isn't my primary factor, but when you combine the effects of a small gas tank and reduced gas mileage you can expect to spend a lot of time at the gas station.

The EB mileage is on par with current small SUVs. I drive a full size SUV with a large tank. I can go over 650 miles on the highway. Well,... now that I'm getting older my trips to the gas station bathroom are getting more frequent, so maybe the GT is for me after all.

Sponsored

 

[Khell86]

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.

I'm not saying it is a more reliable engine at all. I'm simply saying that it's the better engine for the mustang because it was designed specifically for the mustang. It's not a carry over engine from another vehicle with modifications made to make it work for that specific application. This 2.3L engine has 40 more tq, which is huge for the non v8 version. It will be substantially faster than the V6, while besting its MPG. How is that not in any way better. This motor wasnt designed simply to be a more fuel efficient replacement for the V6. It offers better performance while achieving better mpg. It's a win win.

 

[Trackaholic]

Interesting numbers.

The EB numbers are better than my 2010 GTI with a 2.0T and only 200 HP.
That car is rated at 21/31 and I typically average 33 on mostly secondary mountain HWY.
I think the Mustang will be very efficient if you take it easy, yet will still feel powerful when you want it to. It's still a boosted 4-cyl, and therefore won't be as smooth as a V6, but I think it will be a great choice.

The V6 numbers are concerning to me only in how they might foreshadow the GT numbers. Did Ford puposefully reduce the estimated mileage on the V6 in order to make the EB look better? At this point I kinda hope so, because it means the V8 is less likely to lose mileage compared to last year's model.

OTOH, if Ford dialed in the V6 as best they could and still ended up with lower economy, it really makes me wonder how the GT will turn out. Hopefully the engine updates for the GT allow it to improve, at least a bit. The survey numbers from a long time ago were promising, but these V6 numbers are not.

In the end though, driving style makes a huge difference in economy, so maybe there's no point in worrying too much. It's funny how big an emotional effect 1 or 2 MPG can have when the real world difference might be negligible.

I do still want the GT to be rated at 26 or better for the manual transmission though!

-T

 

[JonnyMustang]

Doesn't surprise me, the GT has always been the golden son in the Mustang family. The v6 (soon to be replaced by the EB) is just the breadwinner.

 

[aardvark]

Ran a quick calc based on $3.50/gal, 5 years, and 15K miles per year. Only counting acquisition costs and fuel cost; after 5 years the EB is over $800 cheaper. The V6 is only for someone (some organization, i.e. Hetz) not paying for the gas and not owning the car very long.

Well, maybe.

I don't dispute your numbers. Assuming that the official estimates are more or less right, sure an Ecoboost owner driving 15K miles annually could save $400 per year. And taking into account the premium Ford is charging for the Ecoboost, it may indeed net out to $800 saved over 5 years.

On the other hand...
(1) Some folks might just prefer a NA V6 to a turbo 4 for a variety of reasons (e.g., reliability, noise, smoothness, etc.) and $800 might just seem like a small premium for that.
(2) The real-world acquisition cost numbers may be skewed by the fact that so few options are available on the V6. Sure, maybe the base Ecoboost only costs $1,500 more, but maybe the average Ecoboost on the lot will actually be lot more than that because of all the available options. In other words, perhaps the typical V6 buyer will be buying a car near the base price... while the typical Ecoboost buyer will be a buying a car with another $3K in options. If that's the case, the 'savings' of owning an Ecoboost Mustang will quickly evaporate. Of course, the buyer gets the use and an enjoyment out of those options, so that counts for something. I'm just saying it wouldn't shock me if the typical V6 buyer ends up with more money in his pocket 5 years from now that the typical Ecoboost buyer.

 

[Seabee1973]

Ran a quick calc based on $3.50/gal, 5 years, and 15K miles per year. Only counting acquisition costs and fuel cost; after 5 years the EB is over $800 cheaper. The V6 is only for someone (some organization, i.e. Hetz) not paying for the gas and not owning the car very long.

Based on the lower V6 mileage specs I would expect lower 2015 GT mileage than the 2014 GT.

Mileage isn't my primary factor, but when you combine the effects of a small gas tank and reduced gas mileage you can expect to spend a lot of time at the gas station.

The EB mileage is on par with current small SUVs. I drive a full size SUV with a large tank. I can go over 650 miles on the highway. Well,... now that I'm getting older my trips to the gas station bathroom are getting more frequent, so maybe the GT is for me after all.

Not necessarily.... remember the hp dropped in the v6 but also there was a slight weight gain though the gt did gain weight too... it also gained 15 hp.... that would make less weight it had to lug around compared to last year's so my guess if it does go up... might only be 1 or 2 mpg BUT if it gets more, I will be impressed

 

[ilkhan]

Well, maybe.

I don't dispute your numbers. Assuming that the official estimates are more or less right, sure an Ecoboost owner driving 15K miles annually could save $400 per year. And taking into account the premium Ford is charging for the Ecoboost, it may indeed net out to $800 saved over 5 years.

On the other hand...
(1) Some folks might just prefer a NA V6 to a turbo 4 for a variety of reasons (e.g., reliability, noise, smoothness, etc.) and $800 might just seem like a small premium for that.
(2) The real-world acquisition cost numbers may be skewed by the fact that so few options are available on the V6. Sure, maybe the base Ecoboost only costs $1,500 more, but maybe the average Ecoboost on the lot will actually be lot more than that because of all the available options. In other words, perhaps the typical V6 buyer will be buying a car near the base price... while the typical Ecoboost buyer will be a buying a car with another $3K in options. If that's the case, the 'savings' of owning an Ecoboost Mustang will quickly evaporate. Of course, the buyer gets the use and an enjoyment out of those options, so that counts for something. I'm just saying it wouldn't shock me if the typical V6 buyer ends up with more money in his pocket 5 years from now that the typical Ecoboost buyer.

If they had the same options available, Id prefer the V6. Its a nice engine, and a good record, and plenty of power. But alas, it doesn't.

 

[Andy]

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.

Based on this I would say it the EB costs more for Ford since it is produced in Valencia, Spain (from Wikipedia). It is also clearly stated that it is based on the 2L Ecoboost found in the Fusion and Focus ST. I think Ford's idea is pure marketing to get people excited and increase the total number of sales. So far it is working. People are excited people who do not check the facts, but just make assumptions. We are seeing statements here that "it is purposefully built for the Mustang" and so on. I think the EPA numbers should not have been a surprise if you looked at the Focus ST numbers (32 mpg, lighter car and smaller engine), but people got excited and had unrealistic expectations.

I actually think the EB numbers are pretty good, both HP and EPA. And it is fine that there are people who prefer the EB for their own reasons. Me personally, I like the V6 better. All I was hoping Ford to do is built the best V6 they can and let the two engines compete on their own merit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoBoost#2.3_L_EcoBoost_I-4


2.3 L EcoBoost I-4[edit]
The 2.3L version of the EcoBoost engine debuted in the 2015 Lincoln MKC crossover. Based upon the 2.0L EcoBoost, the 2.3L engine produces 289 PS (213 kW; 285 hp) @5600 rpm, 305 lb·ft (414 N·m) @3000 rpm. This engine will be available in the 2015 Ford Mustang, with power figures said to be greater than 310 hp (231 kW; 314 PS) @5500 rpm, 320 lb·ft (434 N·m) @2500 rpm[34]

The 2.3L EcoBoost engine is produced with the 2.0L EcoBoost at the Valencia Engine Plant in Valencia, Spain.

 

[Andy]

I would have to agree on the fuel savings = 0. But the .1 seconds quicker I will have to see for myself in testing. First off let me say the 3.7 V6 is a great engine, but the ecoboost will have the low end where it counts..

According to Car and Driver the 2011 GT had 0-60 of 4.6 sec, 0.6 sec faster than 2011 V6 of 5.2 sec and that's with 100+ HP more. I don't know how much faster people think the EB would be compare to the V6. given it has only 10 HP more.

 

[EleanorsBullitt]

USA Today featured Mustang6g.com, re: MPG numbers

Hey guys look we're famous:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/08/21/2015-ford-mustang-uses-more-fuel/14404253/
:shocked:

 

[Spartan]

If they had the same options available, Id prefer the V6. Its a nice engine, and a good record, and plenty of power. But alas, it doesn't.

Agreed. I'm disappointed that car companies don't let us pic what we want as the engine and then the rest separately.

I mean the 201A and 401A are the same minus the engine. Why couldn't we get the V6 in premium?

Just disappointing there from Ford not making a V6 premium like the EB has or the GT has.

 

[midnite9150]

I think that should be very close to real world. My 2012 v6 manual never got more than 22-23 combined. I never got the 29+ on the highway but I also had the performance package with the 3.31 gears and Im sure the mpg was rated with higher gears.

 

[midnite9150]

anyone who has ever driven a proper performance based turbo4 would not want a v6 instead. That turbo sound is addicting

 

[Brent302]

anyone who has ever driven a proper performance based turbo4 would not want a v6 instead. That turbo sound is addicting

I'd rather hear a turbo V8 or SC but that's just me.

 

[stilesg57]

anyone who has ever driven a proper performance based turbo4 would not want a v6 instead. That turbo sound is addicting

That turbo torque curve is addicting too

After owning a couple turbo 4s and a couple V8s, the turbos may not win out entirely but they are damn fun to drive. And much more fun to tune up.

Sponsored