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

[DivineStrike]

Man, I was really hoping my PP GT Manual would get 30 city 44 highway.

with 900HP at 15,000RPM

Oh, don't be dumb you two lol those exaggerations are a little bit much


just a little

Sponsored

 

[Brent302]

Oh, don't be dumb you two lol those exaggerations are a little bit much


just a little

I wanted six wheels instead of four...four isn't an improvement lol

 

[Sal JC]

I definitely don't car too much about the numbers. I would like to get 20+mpg average on my commute though. I'm guessing beating the numbers given this year should be pretty easy, at least as compared to previous years. I can't imagine the engine is actually using more fuel than last year.

So, data from the "real world' will be more interesting to me than a specifically conservative EPA estimate.

^ This

It really really really depends on drive conditions. If I'm just "commuting" to work (sometimes I take the train, sometimes I drive) I get less than 10 mpg -- it's a five mile drive with at least sixty stoplights (one city block is 1/20th of a mile) and I almost never get above 20 mph despite having to constantly get on power to cut ahead of other cars to change lanes around construction blockages. The drive takes 18 minutes if there's no traffic and I hit the lights right; can take up to an hour and fifteen minutes in heavy traffic. If I'm just on the highway, I top 30 mpg. Real world driving conditions bear no relationship to the EPA testing.

I love driving in the city

 

[DivineStrike]

I wanted six wheels instead of four...four isn't an improvement lol

Here ya go, Gobs of torque too. More than your little challenger could ever handle.

If I ever get rich, I'm buying this before a Ferrari, and it will be my daily driver haha.

 

[MikeAZ]

As someone pointed out, this info has already been discussed.

 

[Spartan]

EPA data is starting to show up on recent "in production" GTs. Here is one from a 401A, no GTPP: http://www.inventory.ford.com/services/inventory/WindowSticker.pdf?vin=1FA6P8CFXF5303003&ref=VL

19 average, 16/25, 5.3 gallons per 100 miles.

Cannot find a GTPP with EPA data yet.

Prob going to be lower for the PP and those 3.73 gears. So this one doesn't have the 3.55s either but it does have 19"s.

My guess is the 16/25 is the final for the GT (base 3.15). Bummer.

 

[DivineStrike]

"Look guys, look who's late to the party....Bob"

Prob going to be lower for the PP and those 3.73 gears. So this one doesn't have the 3.55s either but it does have 19"s.

My guess is the 16/25 is the final for the GT (base 3.15). Bummer.

Still for the Auto. And Ford hasn't differentiated between gears anytime in recent history. Again, remember the 33% rule in regards to options. Hopefully the manual and real world will do better but I doubt it for the manuals EPA numbers.

 

[Tim Hilliard]

Ugh this is the 300 pound weight gain rumor all over again..

:lol:

 

[Tim Hilliard]

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/updates.htm

Didn't know if anyone posted this, I'm just to lazy to read through all the comments.

 

[Tim Hilliard]

Here is the window sticker:

It's also on a car not due to be built until September so maybe it will change. I honestly don't think it's that bad for a 435HP car.

 

[jeebuspwnz]

Here's a few cars I had that should have gotten WAAAAY better mileage than a 5.0 Mustang, but did not.

- 2010 Mazdaspeed3 - 263hp -- 18 City / 25 Highway (and that's with direct injection!)
- 2004 Subaru WRX STI - 300hp -- 16 City / 22 Highway
- 2005 Honda Element AWD - 160hp -- 18 City / 22 Highway
- 2006 Subaru Forester XT - 225hp -- 17 City / 24 Highway

The new 5.0 is heavier than all of the previously listed cars, it makes 135hp more than the next closest, it has wider tires, bigger wheels, and doesn't employ any extreme fuel sipping technologies (direct injection, hybrid system, etc)

Does that make everyone feel a little better?

 

[phil1336]

Here's a few cars I had that should have gotten WAAAAY better mileage than a 5.0 Mustang, but did not.

- 2010 Mazdaspeed3 - 263hp -- 18 City / 25 Highway (and that's with direct injection!)
- 2004 Subaru WRX STI - 300hp -- 16 City / 22 Highway
- 2005 Honda Element AWD - 160hp -- 18 City / 22 Highway
- 2006 Subaru Forester XT - 225hp -- 17 City / 24 Highway

The new 5.0 is heavier than all of the previously listed cars, it makes 135hp more than the next closest, it has wider tires, bigger wheels, and doesn't employ any extreme fuel sipping technologies (direct injection, hybrid system, etc)

Does that make everyone feel a little better?

Can I add one of my own Personal Cars to that list as well?

2012 Kia Rio5 Hatchback 1.6 ltr. with 6-speed A/T 20 mpg City / 30 mpg Hwy

 

[ChefBorOzzy]

Here's a few cars I had that should have gotten WAAAAY better mileage than a 5.0 Mustang, but did not.

- 2010 Mazdaspeed3 - 263hp -- 18 City / 25 Highway (and that's with direct injection!)
- 2004 Subaru WRX STI - 300hp -- 16 City / 22 Highway
- 2005 Honda Element AWD - 160hp -- 18 City / 22 Highway
- 2006 Subaru Forester XT - 225hp -- 17 City / 24 Highway

The new 5.0 is heavier than all of the previously listed cars, it makes 135hp more than the next closest, it has wider tires, bigger wheels, and doesn't employ any extreme fuel sipping technologies (direct injection, hybrid system, etc)

Does that make everyone feel a little better?

Stupid list. Everyone knows that Subaru vehicles have gotten crappy mileage up until 2010 or so. Ancient engines and transmissions. Thing is, they IMPROVED! Also, I can say for sure two of those cars don't have direct injection either.

2014 Forester XT - Rated at 22/28. - Not bad at all, and does great in real world.
2015 WRX STI - 17-23.. Short geared AWD sports sedan. They need to gain a little bit of mpg (still an old engine), but I don't think they need more than a couple with what is being offered with the car. Made a step in the right direction with the WRX. Now they need to upgrade the STI powertrain. I'm guessing that's coming very soon.

Anyway, I'm fine with 25mpg highway on the Stang. I think it's acceptable and never expected 28 like other people here claimed.

 

[Andy@TmaTurbo]

the 3.7L just came out in 2011. It's a modern state of the art DOHC engine.
No ford is not phasing it out. They've embrased it. They are using this engine in the 3.5L ecoboost trucks. Practically the same v6 engine family besides the different stroke and no turbo.

The new 4 cylinder ecoboost turbo is the new mpg winner. Only makes sense to make the 3.7L mustang engine attain proper sporty gearing instead of the mpg cheating gear ratio of 2.73 common in the 2011-2014 v6 mustangs.

Having Irs will hurt quarter mile times. Only makes sense to give sporty rear end gearing to the new mustangs to help compensate.

Ford no longer needs to cheat mpg figures with crappy gears. We can now finally have a proper balance mustang car.

Overall the v6 sounds like the real winner and better balanced car. It's horsepower is underrated to help market the ecoboost. Much lighter then the v8, much cheaper then the v8, Lighter than the 4 cylinder ecoboost. Couple of N/A bolt ons and the v6 can walk on the 4 cylinder turbo.

 

[Tim Hilliard]

http://services.forddirect.fordvehicles.com/inventory/WindowSticker.pdf?vin=1ZVBP8CF3E5265358

My car I almost bought, 19/25 TP/Recaro 300A. I was fine with this rating and never expected the '15 to be any different with more content and more HP.

Sponsored