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

[1320']

Did he specifically say improved fuel economy with the GT? BECAUSE. ..the EcoBoost does offer significant fuel economy improvement over the S197 3.7.
Am I mildly disappointed? Sure, I would be lying otherwise. However the car gained the IRS, a better platform, 15 more HP and 10 tq while maintaining roughly the same as the less refined and powerful S197 of 2014.

I will live

Sponsored

 

[Spartan]

Did he specifically say improved fuel economy with the GT? BECAUSE. ..the EcoBoost does offer significant fuel economy improvement over the S197 3.7.
Am I mildly disappointed? Sure, I would be lying otherwise. However the car gained the IRS, a better platform, 15 more HP and 10 tq while maintaining roughly the same as the less refined and powerful S197 of 2014.

I will live

Yes he specifically said improving fuel economy in the GT.

 

[1320']

Yes he specifically said improved fuel economy in the GT.

Well things happen...nothing earth shattering to me. Those are pretty close to the old SN95 4.6 ratings. 260hp vs 435...

 

[ilkhan]

Um the EPA #s.

If it was more efficient it still would test better and it didn't.

Are you saying the EPA numbers arent met in the real world and people's actual numbers are going to be worse or are you saying peoples numbers are actually better in the real world then the EPA.

I think real world numbers are highly dependent on driving style, while EPA numbers only reflect how well they "optimized" it for the EPA test cycles.

Its a simple equation; the more average HP you demand from the engine, the more air and thus fuel has to go into the cylinder. Drive like granny, do better than EPA. Drive like an adult, you'll get about EPA numbers. Drive like a teen/20-something, you'll get lower. Its a Mustang. While more MPG is always nice, you aren't buying it to squeeze out every last mile from a tank. My Mustang consistently gets 16-18mpg per tank. Getting 24-26 from a vehicle that weighs a few hundred pounds more and has 50% more power would seem pretty damned nice to me. Hell, 22 real world from a GT sounds pretty awesome at more than twice the power.

The EPA number is what it is, and complaining won't change it. They decided a little more power was more important than 1 mpg on the sticker. The difference between 25 and 26mpg over a 12500 mile year is all of 20 gallons or around $70. And that number gets less as mpg goes up. You're buying a $25-45k vehicle. You'll survive.

 

[Sal JC]

 

[Brent302]

RIP Mr. Horsey

 

[Khell86]

Remember guys that with the mid cycle refresh ford will most likely introduce the joint venture 10 speed its working on with GM. I expect the highway MPGs to improve 2-3 with its usage. I also expect HP/TQ numbers to go up as well with most likely the use of direct injection.

 

[Grimace427]

The EPA number is what it is, and complaining won't change it.

+1 :doh:

 

[cbrookre]

While I'll agree he's only telling you the part of the story he thinks you want to hear, and it's marketing speak, but as I said before, at the end of the day, the numbers speak for themselves.

So, now you have the numbers.

My argument is somewhat orthogonal to this (clarification edit: orthogonal to the epa vs. Real world mileage argument). Someone like him should be very aware of how dangerous misleading, or in this case statements that could be interpreted as misleading, can be for a brand. Every year in my company we get trained on how to handle statements in social media, etc, to avoid potential damage to the brand and I do not think he chose his words carefully. He said higher which people always interpret as better than the last which leads to a certain expectation level. He should have said offset, balanced or something else if he meant better than it would have been but not better than last year. I am surprised that the lawyers advising him did not stop him from saying that, they always have a plan before a public interview.

As you have said we have some numbers, not confirmed or official, and that will be followed by evidence in the real world which is difficult to nail down because it is not controlled, too many different driving styles.

As I will be using it as a daily driver it does matter to me though, tough to justify a gt if it is too far from the EB on the cost to use. More wait and see, time to move on for me until the review start.

Chris

 

[2wheels4me]

I think real world numbers are highly dependent on driving style, while EPA numbers only reflect how well they "optimized" it for the EPA test cycles.

Its a simple equation; the more average HP you demand from the engine, the more air and thus fuel has to go into the cylinder. Drive like granny, do better than EPA. Drive like an adult, you'll get about EPA numbers. Drive like a teen/20-something, you'll get lower. Its a Mustang. While more MPG is always nice, you aren't buying it to squeeze out every last mile from a tank. My Mustang consistently gets 16-18mpg per tank. Getting 24-26 from a vehicle that weighs a few hundred pounds more and has 50% more power would seem pretty damned nice to me. Hell, 22 real world from a GT sounds pretty awesome at more than twice the power.

The EPA number is what it is, and complaining won't change it. They decided a little more power was more important than 1 mpg on the sticker. The difference between 25 and 26mpg over a 12500 mile year is all of 20 gallons or around $70. And that number gets less as mpg goes up. You're buying a $25-45k vehicle. You'll survive.

Amen. Enjoy the V8 while you still can. It's mileage is what it is.

 

[Spartan]

Should have been a pony. ;)

 

[2wheels4me]

Remember guys that with the mid cycle refresh ford will most likely introduce the joint venture 10 speed its working on with GM. I expect the highway MPGs to improve 2-3 with its usage. I also expect HP/TQ numbers to go up as well with most likely the use of direct injection.

Yes, a many-gear tranny definitely improves mileage for torquey engines, if not all of them. My BMW 8-speed auto 335i has 300+ turbo-ed hp, and when driven moderately, typically upshifts at 1700 or 1800 rpm down to about 1200 rpm or so, never using the revs, because it has so many gears and so much torque off-idle. Great for mileage (28-31mpg commuting and running errands), not so much for fun, because it NEVER revs unless you force it to with your right foot or by switching to a more hyper sport mode.

When commuting its hard to justify being in sport mode; it just feels like one is wasting gas needlessly in traffic when the super torquey engine will do just fine keeping up with traffic at low revs where the 8-speed keeps the engine. But the rub is that despite its multiple personalities (it will go like stink for a sedan and hit 60 in the high fours), most of the time it isn't fun. A V8 manual with a 6 speed will always be fun, except when stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

But even then, it will sound great. Bye bye 335i in February, hello Mustang GT.

 

[xlover]

Yes, a many-gear tranny definitely improves mileage for torquey engines, if not all of them. My BMW 8-speed auto 335i has 300+ turbo-ed hp, and when driven moderately, typically upshifts at 1700 or 1800 rpm down to about 1200 rpm or so, never using the revs, because it has so many gears and so much torque off-idle. Great for mileage (28-31mpg commuting and running errands), not so much for fun, because it NEVER revs unless you force it to with your right foot or by switching to a more hyper sport mode.

When commuting its hard to justify being in sport mode; it just feels like one is wasting gas needlessly in traffic when the super torquey engine will do just fine keeping up with traffic at low revs where the 8-speed keeps the engine. But the rub is that despite its multiple personalities (it will go like stink for a sedan and hit 60 in the high fours), most of the time it isn't fun. A V8 manual with a 6 speed will always be fun, except when stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

But even then, it will sound great. Bye bye 335i in February, hello Mustang GT.

I have an S4 with the 7speed DSG and feel the EXACT same way!

 

[DMV]

A lot of internal decisions involved in the rating. Bottom line is fuel econ did not go backwards.

 

[cbrookre]

A lot of internal decisions involved in the rating. Bottom line is fuel econ did not go backwards.

That is good to hear, will be interested to drive it and see what it is when behind the wheel! Sometimes will like to have fun, but when commuting will be good to know that I am not totally emptying the wallet as well .

Sponsored