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

[Spartan]

LOOKS - Not impressed ( I think it's improved, but not impressively improved)

Just curious..have you seen it in person or just photos? Photos do not do this car justice.

Sponsored

 

[Brent302]

INTERIOR - Impressed

PRICE - Not impressed

LOOKS - Not impressed ( I think it's improved, but not impressively improved)

MPG's - Not impressed

Performance -..............................the last piece of the puzzle.

This will be the key issue to me. Seems it's coming down to the wire...lol
To me, the Mustang is a performance car. If I'm impressed by the performance, then it's a winner in my eyes. If I'm not impressed with the performance, then it will simply be unimpressive as a whole. Not a bad car, in fact, a great car for the price yet unimpressive for a complete redo. I don't mind if they sacrifice some MPG's for performance, in fact, I would prefer they sacrifice MPG's for performance as opposed to sacrificing performance for MPG's.

As to what will impress me: I believe it will be fine on a road course if it outdoes the Boss, so that only leaves strip and street. I think the EB will be OK on the street with the low down torque as well as the GT with the new intake that will improve low end torque.

So now, the last piece of the puzzle, what will impress me on the strip?
The GT will need to be a solid 12.5 car. Solid 12.5 meaning that many runs will be faster than 12.5. If it's a solid or 12.7 car that will be an improvement but it won't be like "WOW, impressive".
The EB will have to be a 12.6 car.

I won't be particularly disappointed if it doesn't achieve that level of performance but if not, I certainly won't be saying that it's an impressive car, I'll just be saying that I'm impressed with the interior on the new Mustang

...the price barely increased yet there are tons of new STANDARD equipment added that use to be optional...not to forget a whole new IRS...look at the competition who can be 6k to 15k more with less features.

MPG is obvious. Ford just got smacked for being to liberal with the mileage so they are being conservative with numbers so when you get 35 you'll go "oooo wow"

12.6 EB? I mean it's not going to be a slouch but it has a power to weight ratio of 11 something while the GT is 8 something so no they won't be neck and neck in the quarter....like I said my picture explains it all...

 

[DivineStrike]

You are forgetting that ford also redesigned the diff. Although the ratios are the same would it be worth having their supplier produce a 2.73 that was going on only 1 engine and that they can handily beat its fuel economy with the ecoboost. I don't think so. The v6 was not going to be the fuel economy leader anyway even with the 2.73 so why bother to produce another variant of the diff?????? Makes no sense to me.

Now this I can agree with and is the best defense and explanation for the loss of mileage in the V6. Still it doesn't make sense to me not to offer the 2.73 for the EB if it helps mileage by that much, especially with the improved torque curve of the EB.

 

[Sal JC]

If the 4cyl had a 2.73 you would need a push car just to move. A honda civic is 3.94

 

[IGJoe2192]

A Honda civic also lacks displacement and a twin scroll turbo..

 

[Sal JC]

A Honda civic also lacks displacement and a twin scroll turbo..

so you want a 2.73??? a PT Cruiser has a 3.91
Civic Si 4.76
WRX 4.11

 

[xlover]

Now this I can agree with and is the best defense and explanation for the loss of mileage in the V6. Still it doesn't make sense to me not to offer the 2.73 for the EB if it helps mileage by that much, especially with the improved torque curve of the EB.

I'm sure it's a balancing act. If their target mpg was say 34 and they can do that with the ecoboost and still offer the 3.15 which will give stronger acceleration and a more sporty feel to every mustang rather than saddle buyers with the lowest performing ratio in order to get 35-36 mpg. I bet they made a calculated decision that the mustang would be the mpg leader either way and all buyers would be up a notch on performance. So everyone wins. Rather than have a customer have to drive the less responsive 2.73 in order to drive the mpg leader

 

[Brent302]

so you want a 2.73??? a PT Cruiser has a 3.91
Civic Si 4.76
WRX 4.11

Those vehicles you have named sound like they belong in a trash compactor lol

 

[Sal JC]

Those vehicles you have named sound like they belong in a trash compactor lol

Exactly!

Edit: I'd still prefer them to a 2.73

 

[Old 5 Oh]

so you want a 2.73??? a PT Cruiser has a 3.91
Civic Si 4.76
WRX 4.11

If memory serves, none of those cars has 280 ft-pounds of torque at 2,000 RPM. Those are 5.0 Windsor numbers, and Mustangs with that engine came standard with 2.73s for the entire run. The EB would do fine with an AT and 2.73 gears, especially slotted in as a fuel economy special.

I hadn't thought about the gears affecting highway fuel economy, but that's it. 2-3 mpg sounds about right for going from 2.73s to 3.15s.

 

[DivineStrike]

If the 4cyl had a 2.73 you would need a push car just to move. A honda civic is 3.94

so you want a 2.73??? a PT Cruiser has a 3.91
Civic Si 4.76
WRX 4.11

umm...I'm sure gear ratio's in the transmissions are much different as well. Also, are you saying the 2.73 was fine in the inferior V6, with less hp and tq, let alone a lot less tq under the curve?

You sound like an engine cylinder, displacement fan boy type of guy.

 

[Sal JC]

umm...I'm sure gear ratio's in the transmissions are much different as well. Also, are you saying the 2.73 was fine in the inferior V6, with less hp and tq, let alone a lot less tq under the curve?

You sound like an engine cylinder, displacement fan boy type of guy.

no it wasn't fine for the 3.7, it was a gimmick to get the mileage up. even the 4.0 had a 3.15.

displacement fan boy? I had a 3.3 I6, a 2.5 Chrysler and an '08 v6 so how do you figure?

 

[Brent302]

Exactly! and even garbage wouldn't be caught dead with a 2.73

I hated my 2011 V6 with 2.73s Blegh and it never came close to 31 mpg.

 

[Old 5 Oh]

Also, are you saying the 2.73 was fine in the inferior V6, with less hp and tq, let alone a lot less tq under the curve?

I wouldn't say the 2.73s were fine in the 3.7. I've driven the rental cars. Ugh. No torque, and an automatic bent on hitting sixth gear before you get across the intersection.

Those long gears work with tons of low speed torque, like was found in the Windsor 5.0s, and again in the EB.

I am choosing my words carefully. The gears work. The cars accelerate smoothly and with some alacrity. But 2.73 gears are never very sporty. I have had 5.0 5-speeds with those gears. Standing starts are clutch-slipping affairs, and around town even fourth is too high. That's why changing to 3.55 gears has always been so popular. The cars drive much nicer with a little extra ratio to help out. But those gears KILL fuel economy dead. So you have to make your choice.

 

[DivineStrike]

no it wasn't fine for the 3.7, it was a gimmick to get the mileage up. even the 4.0 had a 3.15.

displacement fan boy? I had a 3.3 I6, a 2.5 Chrysler and an '08 v6 so how do you figure?

Every engine you were hating on was a 4 cylinder. That is why I said you sound like a fan boy. Have you driven a 4 cylinder with a small turbo? Because if you haven't the torque is ridiculous. My little 2.0 tuned made 250wtq at about 2300rpm's with peak at 2800 w/ 278wtq and over 200 wtq since about 1900 rpms. This was on a mustang dynamometer btw. The EB will be much much better than my older 2.0 although it might have a bigger turbo so the earlier tq might not be as good, the extra 300cc's might help with that though.

Granted getting all that tq won't net you a lot of mpg's lol but it's there if ya want to go fast while also getting really good mpg's when you're not in the throttle. 2.73's would probably feel better on the 2.3 than they did on the 3.7 but I understand the balancing act as another member mentioned. Also, depends on how much boost is needed to stay at speed if the gear ratio's are too long.

And sorry I wasn't saying they were fine in the 3.7, I haven't driven the car to comment on driveability. I only made that reference because it seemed Sal was hating so much on 4cylinders which have very differently geared transmissions. I can only comment on it's effects on mpg's and that a turbo 4 would be able to handle the taller gear better than the 3.7

Sponsored