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

[midnite9150]

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.

agreed! Ive owned a few 5.0 fox bodies and an SVO and while i love the V8 sound and torque, the turbo4 in the SVO was damn fun too.

Given my budget ill take a EB premium with performance package over a base GT any day of the week.

Sponsored

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

People here are still claiming the EB requires premium fuel. Can anyone substantiate this or is it just a rumor that people have taken as truth to bash the 2.3?

Also, the EB is much more than a '4 cylinder w/ a turbo'. It has DIRECT INJECTION. Higher line pressures mean finer fuel atomization. The combustion process can be controlled much more effectively than port injection. This advancement is similar to comparing a carb to fuel injection.

Don't know about you guys, but my last 2 daily drivers (Accord V6 and Tacoma Prerunner) could beat their highway mpg ratings by 2-3 mpg following a similar cycle as used to establish these 'official' figures. I think they are conservative to account for every person/idiot that doesn't pay attention to their driving style or the way the car (machine) they're operating works.

IMO, the V6 is a great commuter engine, but is not the choice for an enthusiast, and hope that anyone skeptical of the EB does a back to back comparison between the two.

A lot of the same criticisms were heard when the 3.5 EB was released in the F150. What has been found is that some far exceed the mpgs of the 5.0 while providing similar power (and much more torque), or the mileage is simply comparable. I'm sure this discrepancy has to do w/ the driver. On the other hand, there are crew cab 4x4s running 12's w/ a just a few select modifications. The 3.7 does not offer that potential.

 

[souprmage]

Technically speaking, the owners manual (page 127) recommends 87 octane for all engines. For the EB and V8, they recommend 'premium' fuel for 'severe duty, such as trailer tow'.

 

[midnite9150]

I believe the EB will lose like 5hp on 87, 91 is for max performance

 

[SeventhWard]

Technically speaking, the owners manual (page 127) recommends 87 octane for all engines. For the EB and V8, they recommend 'premium' fuel for 'severe duty, such as trailer tow'.

Yep, right there in the manual. I was pretty happy to see that the V8 drinks good ol' 87 octane, the 'cheap' stuff. I was also pretty pleased to see that 91 Octane is considered the 'premium', although for most stations I've visited in my travels, 91 octane is midgrade and 93 octane is the extra fancy stuff.

At least its refreshing to know that if you wanna feed your 5.0 the good stuff, it doesn't drink gas station champagne.

-SeventhWard

 

[DivineStrike]

To clarify, while 87 is recommended/minimum for all models. Both the EB and GT need 93 to attain the hp/tq numbers given to us by the manufacturer. It can also be assumed, 93 is also needed to get claimed mpg's for eb and gt. If you want to look it up, it's on the Ford site and several Ford documents.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

To clarify, while 87 is recommended/minimum for all models. Both the EB and GT need 93 to attain the hp/tq numbers given to us by the manufacturer. It can also be assumed, 93 is also needed to get claimed mpg's for eb and gt. If you want to look it up, it's on the Ford site and several Ford documents.

Why/how would slower burning fuel provide better gas mileage? I would say you're making a bad assumption. In fact, it's just plain wrong.

Higher octane slows the flame front and enhances anti-knock...this is prevalent at high loads. At low loads, all it does is burn slowly, reducing peak cylinder pressures, reducing efficiency.

 

[DivineStrike]

Because the engine is tuned to perform better with 93. As is such with any vehicle tuned to perform better with 93. For example, my GTI can take 87-93 but if I use 87, my MPG's drop dramatically.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

Because the engine is tuned to perform better with 93. As is such with any vehicle tuned to perform better with 93. For example, my GTI can take 87-93 but if I use 87, my MPG's drop dramatically.

Might be in the tuning of your GTI. In my experience, filling up w/ 85 octane in Colorado then going to 1000 ft above sea level on the same tank, the computer is still using the timing from before I went into the mountains ie 87. This combined w/ the quick burn at low loads has always given me higher mpgs on all vehicles I've ever owned. I've even bought low octane gas from higher elevations to bring home bc of it.

Maybe the computer is used to 93, you put in 87 and floor it, or see high loads, knock sensors detect detonation, and pull timing until the computer can figure out where the timing is happy at, killing mpg in the process? Only explanation for what you're describing...

 

[Brent302]

Might be in the tuning of your GTI. In my experience, filling up w/ 85 octane in Colorado then going to 1000 ft above sea level on the same tank, the computer is still using the timing from before I went into the mountains ie 87. This combined w/ the quick burn at low loads has always given me higher mpgs on all vehicles I've ever owned.

Maybe the computer is used to 93, you put in 87 and floor it, or see high loads, knock sensors detect detonation, and pull timing until the computer can figure out where the timing is happy at, killing mpg in the process? Only explanation for what you're describing...

Welcome to the world of Mustang. You will get lower mileage and performance with lower octane. Hell even the S197 4.6 acted that way. The last Mustang engine to run better on 87 was the 4.0 V6 truck engine.

 

[DivineStrike]

It's not just my GTI, it's all vw 2.0's. And I don't think i'm following your first statement...your computer is always adjusting timing according to whatever conditions are currently present. It doesn't know what octane you put in, it just knows what parameters your engine is currently running at and adjusts accordingly and actively. I'm not really familiar with fuel and elevation, but I think your basically saying 85 is equivalent to 87 at higher elevations.

Edit: ok took me a minute for it to click that you were referring to your vehicles stock 87 octane recommendation, as well as it was probably tuned to run on 87. As for why you got better gas mileage, it could be as easy as how much ethanol is in the gas going from 85 to 87.

And no I wasn't flogging it or anything, again my 2.0 is tuned to run best at 93 from VW but you can run 87 if you want to. It's the same with the 2.3 and 5.0, they are both tuned to run best at 93 but your not going to hurt the engine by using lower. You will just suffer performance losses.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

It's not just my GTI, it's all vw 2.0's. And I don't think i'm following your first statement...your computer is always adjusting timing according to whatever conditions are currently present. It doesn't know what octane you put in, it just knows what parameters your engine is currently running at and adjusts accordingly and actively. I'm not really familiar with fuel and elevation, but I think your basically saying 85 is equivalent to 87 at higher elevations.

Edit: ok took me a minute for it to click that you were referring to your vehicles stock 87 octane recommendation, as well as it was probably tuned to run on 87. As for why you got better gas mileage, it could be as easy as how much ethanol is in the gas going from 85 to 87.

And no I wasn't flogging it or anything, again my 2.0 is tuned to run best at 93 from VW but you can run 87 if you want to. It's the same with the 2.3 and 5.0, they are both tuned to run best at 93 but your not going to hurt the engine by using lower. You will just suffer performance losses.

True, the computer adjusts the timing and doesn't 'know' the octane. It goes to a threshold where it senses knock, then backs off. Now, lets say you run 93 octane in your GTI regularly, then put 87 in, but don't load the engine enough to produce detonation...the computer doesn't know any better so continues to run timing tables based on what it had become accustomed to...93 octane. This should be most efficient for low load cruise situations, as when maximizing mpgs. Once detonation is detected, all bets are off...the computer can add fuel and/or retard timing in an effort to save itself from detonation, then will slowly try to get back to where it feels comfortable. How 'bout this...have you run, say 2 or 3 tankfuls of 87 through your car? Just to make sure the computer has time to adjust accordingly...it won't produce the same hp, but shouldn't get worse mpgs.... Hmm, at the 200hp level, what's premium worth, 7 or 8 hp at peak?

There is a delicate balancing act of timing, fuel, and load. General rule of thumb is highest timing w/ lowest octane will produce the most power for a given engine combination as long as detonation is kept at bay. As you said, the higher octane allows the computer to advance timing to produce the highest power (high load)...but in low load situations the higher octane is not needed.

The altitude thing was just an example of getting lower octane and an attempt at an example that I'm familiar w/. Fyi, less oxygen at elevation means slower burn...slower burn, the less need for higher octane fuels to slow said burn

 

[Sal JC]

I only use 87, I'm perfectly happy with only 400 hp.

 

[Brent302]

I only use 87, I'm perfectly happy with only 400 hp.

But What you're failing to grasp is your MPG will also drop with lower octane...you're saving near pennies in the end

 

[Thed]

I only use 87, I'm perfectly happy with only 400 hp.

Yes, only 400 HP. How long until we have 600 HP Camrys that run off of the tears of babies and sausage links?

Sponsored