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

[Sal JC]

I don't understand the hating on part??? You got me wrong, all I was "hating on" was the idea of a 2.73 axle ratio, go back and read my posts. I wouldn't want it with any engine. The cars I mentioned had much lower ratios which is the way it should be. From PT Cruiser to a WRX (both slower DD and faster performance car than the 2.3T Mustang) ALL have a lower differential. I don't know why you're saying that?

edit: I've wanted an I4 back in the Mustang for years. Check out my one of my post from over a year ago. And I caugt shit from v6 "fan boys" for suggesting a 4cyl should replace the v6

http://themustangsource.com/forums/f806/rumoured-power-outputs-15-a-521706/index3/#post6625556

all they really need is a base 300+hp ecoboost 4 & GT 5.0 V8.
don't see the point of a v6, they did away with it back in '87
and it's already dropped from the fusion & escape

Sponsored

 

[DivineStrike]

sigh those engines are completely different than what's in the EB. If you compare the EB's tq curve w/ my 2.0's, my 2.0 actually makes the same tq but earlier at 2800 rpm's so that tells me the turbo is slightly larger given the displacement. I understand you are hating on the 2.73, but every car you brought up would definitely not be suited for it and is a 4cyl

Every car you mentioned makes tq later than the EB and has less of it, in some regards much less. Again they are all 4cylinders, the wrx being the only turbo. But it's turbo is much larger than the EB's or is just a crappier design as it doesn't make peak until almost 4,000 rpms. All not conducive to having a lower gear. They also have different gearing in the transmission itself which effects what rear gear they choose. I don't understand what you're not grasping here. A 2.73 might not be great for performance but w/ the EB it would be fine and react better than the V6, given it's tq curve and to take advantage of better Hwy mpg's.

Edit: your comments were only directed at 4 cylinders so it made it seem you had hate on them. Not all 4cylinders are the same.

 

[Sal JC]

Sorry I just can't grasp why anybody would advocate for a higher (worse) gear ratio in a performance car. This is a Mustang not a Prius

 

[DivineStrike]

The EB is not meant to be just a "performance" car. It has good performance, and is marketed as such, especially with the PP, but it is meant to be the less expensive car so everyone can enjoy having a mustang. It is also marketed for it's efficiency. No it's not a Prius, but it's also not the performance tier car you seem to think it is. Wasn't it just 4 years ago, the base mustang actually got marketed as a "performance" option? It's still the same base car, it just performs better than it used to. It had to in order to compete.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

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?

That 'torque curve' you keep referring is a byproduct of WOT.

The car is designed to operate at part throttle conditions most of the time.

 

[DivineStrike]

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.

That 'torque curve' you keep referring is a byproduct of WOT.

The car is designed to operate at part throttle conditions most of the time.

Thanks, but all peak tq curves are a by product of WOT. Even part throttle will net you some boost. But I get your point and I eluded to it in a previous post. Turbo's really do suck down some gas when you have the boost on. But in all honesty city mileage doesn't get too effected by it. At least in a 4cyl. I regularly get my claimed city mileage when I drive aggressively, even with the tune. When I'm driving normally, I easily best city. I can remember maybe only a few tanks of gas where i've gotten below city. Where your gas mileage really starts hurting is above highway speed limits. At least in my experiences. Anything over 70 and there's always a little bit of boost being put in. The mustang will probably fair better than my GTI does due to having better aero.

Sounds to me like you're the one hating a the 4cyl. Yes the 2.3T is a performance car.

Lol, me hating on the 4 cylinder when i've done nothing but defend it?

and ok if you say so. I already said it performs well but being a base car, it is aimed at the masses. It's intent is to balance performance and efficiency. Granted all cars do that to some degree but to me a performance car is way more in favor of performance than it is efficiency. If it weren't for the necessity of the EB to have over 300 hp to be competitive, Ford would have hindered it's performance in favor of more efficiency. Like I said the EB is a good performing car but it's like saying my Golf is a sports car when it is really only a "sporty" car.


Edit: maybe I should add in here that all these post are assumed with saying IMO

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

Anything over 70 and there's always a little bit of boost being put in. The mustang will probably fair better than my GTI does due to having better aero.

Your car sees boost at a cruise speed of 71 and above?!?!?

Hope you're getting rid of it, sounds like something's wrong.

Lower gears will lessen the load on the engine, so hopefully it won't need positive manifold pressure for simple, gentle acceleration everytime the pedal is tipped into.

 

[DivineStrike]

Your car sees boost at a cruise speed of 71 and above?!?!?

Hope you're getting rid of it, sounds like something's wrong.

Lower gears will lessen the load on the engine, so hopefully it won't need positive manifold pressure for simple, gentle acceleration everytime the pedal is tipped into.

Depends on wind resistance with lower gearing, if it's too low you need more energy to push the car. and no, nothing wrong with my car, it's the nature of the beast of a small turbo. There is a dramatic difference in mpgs when going from 70 to 75 and obviously far more going to 80 mph. At 80 around 26-27 mpg's at 3,000rpms. 70 and below, 30 is doable.

 

[Brent302]

 

[Spartan]

Okay you guys are talking math so this goes right over my head since I'm a motion graphic artist. LOL.

I understand the basics of gear ratio and that a lower gear ratio like 2.73 equals better fuel mileage then you would get with the 3.15. But that also equals less acceleration with a lower gear ratio.

Do you guys feel the 3.15 is good in the GT to give you enough acceleration ?don't think I want to upgrade to 3.55 because I do want my GT to be a daily driver and want to try to get some good MPG out of it if possible.

Also could one of you explain how on the highway the GT might get better gas mileage going above 70 because of the RPMs and the engine at higher speeds versus the eco-boost. I've seen people say that their GT still gets pretty good gas mileage going at higher speeds that I would think would be bad for gas mileage and yet other people saying that the eco-boost going above 65 would probably not get good gas mileage. I know some people say that the V8 doesn't have to work that hard at higher speeds therefore conserves more gas and that the Turbo 4 would have to work harder going faster and it would be burning more gas

Thanks and my apologies for being a newbie on the gear thing/and gears at rpm.

 

[Brent302]

Okay you guys are talking math so this goes right over my head since I'm a motion graphic artist. LOL.

I understand the basics of gear ratio and that a lower gear ratio like 2.73 equals better fuel mileage then you would get with the 3.15. But that also equals less acceleration with a lower gear ratio.

Do you guys feel the 3.15 is good in the GT to give you enough acceleration ?don't think I want to upgrade to 3.55 because I do want my GT to be a daily driver and want to try to get some good MPG out of it if possible.

Also could one of you explain how on the highway the GT might get better gas mileage going above 70 because of the RPMs and the engine at higher speeds versus the eco-boost. I've seen people say that their GT still gets pretty good gas mileage going at higher speeds that I would think would be bad for gas mileage and yet other people saying that the eco-boost going above 65 would probably not get good gas mileage. I know some people say that the V8 doesn't have to work that hard at higher speeds therefore conserves more gas and that the Turbo 4 would have to work harder going faster and it would be burning more gas

Thanks and my apologies for being a newbie on the gear thing/and gears at rpm.

Go 3.55 I've heard complaints on the 3.15s not having enough...oomph.

 

[Spartan]

Go 3.55 I've heard complaints on the 3.15s not having enough...oomph.

How much of a mile per gallon hit would that be about 2 to 3 gallons? Like I said I don't plan to take this thing racing or race people at lights lol.

 

[Brent302]

How much of a mile per gallon hit would that be about 2 to 3 gallons?

Id say 1-2 but you can make that up by just easier driving. 3.73s will be a 2-3 bit but barely noticeable on a manual.

My Challenger R/T is EPA of 15/24 combined 18 for the regular gears. With the track pak and 3.92 gears/20in rims I get combined 17.1 with spirited driving and 18 with granny driving.

 

[DivineStrike]

Okay you guys are talking math so this goes right over my head since I'm a motion graphic artist. LOL.

I understand the basics of gear ratio and that a lower gear ratio like 2.73 equals better fuel mileage then you would get with the 3.15. But that also equals less acceleration with a lower gear ratio.

Do you guys feel the 3.15 is good in the GT to give you enough acceleration ?don't think I want to upgrade to 3.55 because I do want my GT to be a daily driver and want to try to get some good MPG out of it if possible.

Also could one of you explain how on the highway the GT might get better gas mileage going above 70 because of the RPMs and the engine at higher speeds versus the eco-boost. I've seen people say that their GT still gets pretty good gas mileage going at higher speeds that I would think would be bad for gas mileage and yet other people saying that the eco-boost going above 65 would probably not get good gas mileage. I know some people say that the V8 doesn't have to work that hard at higher speeds therefore conserves more gas and that the Turbo 4 would have to work harder going faster and it would be burning more gas

Thanks and my apologies for being a newbie on the gear thing/and gears at rpm.

Honestly I don't see the GT besting the EB in any situation in hwy mpg's. (Maybe a possibility at 90+mph but I doubt it)

As for lower gearing, I would have to say wait for someone with experience to comment. You will have to go out on your own and test drive a 2014 w/ lower gear ratio's and compare them to the higher gear ratio's and see which suits you best. The 3.15 on the 2015 will probably feel better than the lower geared previous gens due to the improved low end torque, but time will tell.

 

[Brent302]

Btw Spartan where are you at? I live in Springfield.

Sponsored