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

[Sal JC]

FTFY

oops

Sponsored

 

[apexclipper]

I think V6 mileage will be on par with the EB given with actual world driving and these numbers, just like EVERY manufacturer EPA number (especially Ford), is derived from tuning made specially for the EPA cycle test.

Im sure you can meet or exceed these numbers if the car is broken in and you drive like a grandma

And the EB's numbers can also be better than the EPAs.

On average, the EB is notably more fuel efficient - per the EPA.

The V6 could be a lot more engine in terms of performance and fuel economy if Ford didn't have to sandbag it to make Ecoboost (more profitable and "green") look good.

 

[DivineStrike]

The owners manual recommends 87 for all three engine. The only place it mentions premium is on the 2.3 & V8 for severe duty usage such as pulling a trailer.

Yes, we've covered this, but via every other Ford document, their website, and if I remember correctly even out of some of the engineers mouths. 93 is required if you want maximum performance and want to attain the EB's 310hp/320tq and the 5.0's 435hp/400tq. Otherwise if you don't care about max performance, then running 87 will be fine.

 

[Trackaholic]

Just wanted to point out that the EB numbers aren't far off from today's "state of the art" for this type of vehicle.

For example, look at the BMW 428i. Extremely similar car in terms of size and weight, performance envelope, and intended function.

428i 6-speed manual = 22/34, 26 combined
428i 8-speed auto = 23/35, 27 combined

Also take note that while the 2014 V6 Mustang has decent HWY mileage, the combined is pretty far off the BMW and the 2015 EB.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=34268&id=34267&id=33406&id=33407

So, the Mustang will be making more power (although the BMW may be underrated), and will be getting the same combined mileage with the manual and only one less than the very advanced BMW 8-speed.

Overall I'd say that is quite good, and it therefore should not be considered a disappointment. It has been very clear that Ford is phasing out the V6 (which IS a disappointment to me), but at least the EB seems to be a significant improvement in most objective measurements.

-T

 

[DivineStrike]

My only disappointment with this is intentionally hurting the V6's mpg's to promote the EB. Also, w/ the EB manual getting the same highway mpg as the previous v6 auto's. We will have to wait and see if the EB auto is worth writing home about. 32 would be good but 33 or 34 would be better on the highway. But 33 imo would be plenty sufficient as an improvement for the auto

 

[Sal JC]

Yes, we've covered this, but via every other Ford document, their website, and if I remember correctly even out of some of the engineers mouths. 93 is required if you want maximum performance and want to attain the EB's 310hp/320tq and the 5.0's 435hp/400tq. Otherwise if you don't care about max performance than running 87 will be fine.

^ Agree with all of this.. I'm just one of the ones who doesn't care about the max performance, the 5L is almost a ridiculous overkill compared to just about any other car I'll run into on my way to work or the supermarket, so I'm good with 87

 

[WhiteMuscle]

On the fence

I'm actually let down by these numbers. I have been looking for a new car and have had my eyes set on this new mustang. I love everything about it except the gas mileage and what is to be put in the tank. It's almost like using diesel except not getting REALLY good gas mileage. I was expecting 33, 34 or even 35 mpg highway. Yes, that's high expectations but welcome to 2014.

I might have to stick with my 2005 mustang while longer despite it making me nervous that it's getting worn down. I also hate the rim choices. Not any good 18" rims. I love the 20" rims but thats cutting it with flat tires and driving it on dangerous conditions. I really don't know what to do now except wait now with these numbers. :thumbdown:

 

[NRMStand]

These are perfectly respectable numbers for a car of this performance level and I have a hard time believing many enthusiasts will balk at buying it over a couple mpgs once we see it in person and are behind the wheel of one.

 

[JonnyMustang]

I'm actually let down by these numbers. I have been looking for a new car and have had my eyes set on this new mustang. I love everything about it except the gas mileage and what is to be put in the tank. It's almost like using diesel except not getting REALLY good gas mileage. I was expecting 33, 34 or even 35 mpg highway. Yes, that's high expectations but welcome to 2014.

I might have to stick with my 2005 mustang while longer despite it making me nervous that it's getting worn down. I also hate the rim choices. Not any good 18" rims. I love the 20" rims but thats cutting it with flat tires and driving it on dangerous conditions. I really don't know what to do now except wait now with these numbers. :thumbdown:

The 2011+ GT and 2015 EB are getting some of the best MPGs in Mustang history...so anything is really an improvement if you're driving something earlier than 2011.

 

[WhiteMuscle]

The 2011+ GT and 2015 EB are getting some of the best MPGs in Mustang history...so anything is really an improvement if you're driving something earlier than 2011.

True...

 

[DivineStrike]

I'm actually let down by these numbers. I have been looking for a new car and have had my eyes set on this new mustang. I love everything about it except the gas mileage and what is to be put in the tank. It's almost like using diesel except not getting REALLY good gas mileage. I was expecting 33, 34 or even 35 mpg highway. Yes, that's high expectations but welcome to 2014.

I might have to stick with my 2005 mustang while longer despite it making me nervous that it's getting worn down. I also hate the rim choices. Not any good 18" rims. I love the 20" rims but thats cutting it with flat tires and driving it on dangerous conditions. I really don't know what to do now except wait now with these numbers. :thumbdown:

How many miles do you have on your 2005? And agree with you on the fact that it's 2014 and soon a lot of other cars are going to be getting ridiculously good gas mileage. I disagree with everyone making the excuse that "oh it's a sports car, or it's a mustang" yea and? it's not an exotic. It's an everyman's car in a nicely styled package. The ecoboost engine is there to give good performance but also increase the efficiency of it. If the V6 hadn't already been 300hp, they would have introduced a model with less hp and more mpg's. Don't fool yourself into thinking the EB is the performance model. It only happens to be a Base model engine that happens to perform well. It's sole purpose is to be sold to the masses and with that get excellent mpg's. Even though it's being marketed as upscale to the V6, it really is in all reality the base mustang. Because if the auto some how comes out getting 34 realistic hwy mpg's it's going to sell like hotcakes.

 

[aspensilver]

Even though it's being marketed as upscale to the V6, it really is in all reality the base mustang. Because if the auto some how comes out getting 34 realistic hwy mpg's it's going to sell like hotcakes.

I agree in general, but if you view the EB as the 'base' then there was a pretty big price increase over S197 base. It's being marketed as a 'mid' option which allowed them to charge a premium and help their CAFE as the V6 base has almost no options and you have to pay $1000 to get at least 18 inch wheels and then you're almost in EB territory!

 

[DivineStrike]

I agree in general, but if you view the EB as the 'base' then there was a pretty big price increase over S197 base. It's being marketed as a 'mid' option which allowed them to charge a premium and help their CAFE as the V6 base has almost no options and you have to pay $1000 to get at least 18 inch wheels and then you're almost in EB territory!

There is a big increase as far as that's concerned but you have it a little backwards. The V6 is only around to be able to lighten the blow of the higher priced EB, and they can still market the Mustang as the "cheapest" in the market. I don't think it's that they want to charge higher for the EB, IMO it's that they needed to because the costs are higher in that car period.

Having the V6 around allows them to push the EB without the negativity associated with it's cost. What sounds better? "Lowest price of the mustang is $23k w/ a V6 and there's an all new Ecoboost engine available"? or "The mustang now has a new Engine, the all new 2.3 Ecoboost, pricing begins at $25k"? If sales are right I bet the v6 will be gone in a year or two. They might even keep the EB price the same over the next couple years to minimize the blow of losing the sixer. But take this all with a grain of salt as this whole post is very opinionated.

 

[Tascam]

You are assuming that if they scrapped the V6 and went with a 2 engine lineup, they would not have adjusted prices for the EB and GT accordingly. There are "base" price targets that they always try to meet. The addition of another engine allowed them to scale accordingly.

I think same goes for the way everything was optioned. You cant assume that plans did not change once they decided to keep the V6 in the lineup.

 

[DivineStrike]

The base price targets are why they kept the V6 in the first place. They have verbally expressed wanting a 2 engine lineup, but decided to keep the V6 so they can offer the mustang at an even greater value. I can't remember where i've heard it or seen it but it's out there.

They might have adjusted the prices a little like maybe bring the EB just under 25k to make it look more appealing but it wouldn't have been under or anywhere near 24k i'm sure.

Although, I don't know why I don't think of this more often, but it just amazes me the pricing of the new EB vs it's competition. It's mpgs are good in relation to what's out there, has a great base interior and all for 25k. You can barely get a FRS/BRZ for 25k

Sponsored