5.0 Mileage

[Spartan]

2015 GT Automatic - 16/25...disappointing to say the least.

Sponsored

 

[fionic]

2015 GT Automatic - 16/25...disappointing to say the least.

why?

are you buying the mustang for good mileage?

this thread is confusing.

 

[DivineStrike]

why?

are you buying the mustang for good mileage?

this thread is confusing.

Not the point at all. Unless you're happy with mediocrity? Do you prefer new vehicles to be less efficient than their predecessors? I for one am all about improvement. If you don't improve (let alone go backwards), especially in this area where it is feared the V8 will be dead soon (at least in affordable models), then yes it is a big disappointment.

Anything else?

 

[fionic]

Not the point at all. Unless you're happy with mediocrity? Do you prefer new vehicles to be less efficient than their predecessors? I for one am all about improvement. If you don't improve (let alone go backwards), especially in this area where it is feared the V8 will be dead soon (at least in affordable models), then yes it is a big disappointment.

Anything else?

I couldn't care less about fuel efficiency, hence why I'm buying the V8. EPA estimates are ALWAYS wrong. Plus, we don't have official numbers (really). I'd say ya'll need to take a chill pill.

 

[DivineStrike]

So if the mustang came out getting 8 in the city and 12 on the highway you wouldn't care? what about the future of being able to get a V8 at a reasonable price?

 

[ChefBorOzzy]

I couldn't care less about fuel efficiency, hence why I'm buying the V8. EPA estimates are ALWAYS wrong. Plus, we don't have official numbers (really). I'd say ya'll need to take a chill pill.

I disagree with you about the mpg not being important. It's nice to get good mileage if you're not driving aggressively. I'm pleased to see another person say "I couldn't care less" though. Lol.

 

[Reds197]

Expecting great MPG and getting more HP is not a recipe for economy. I am buying the v-8 for the power alone. The 25 mpg is a bonus in my opinion.

 

[DivineStrike]

Expecting it to stay the same isn't out of the realm of being realistic either. But ya know when the V8 dies, hey at least no one cared about it improving in efficiency, because nobody who buys a v8 cares about mileage right?

Personally, I do not expect the V8 to get excellent gas mileage but seeing as it's the lowest in displacement, I expect it to be class leading. As well as I expect to see progression, not hey lets take a step forward one year then take two steps back another. 25 hwy mpg's is the same, but what has dropped is city and combined where most of you will be driving.

Anyways we will just have to wait and see what happens in the real world to see if Ford is just playing games with numbers and what not. I hope it's just them being frugal with the numbers but time will tell

 

[B Gordon]

2015 GT Automatic - 16/25...disappointing to say the least.

Are those official numbers from somewhere or are you guessing?

I saw the thread that showed window sticker numbers for the Ecoboost but the GT numbers did not show up in the same post.
Did it show up somewhere else?

Edit, I looked at the last couple of pages and saw the post. Thanks.

 

[DivineStrike]

The last couple pages of that same thread it has been posted the same way as the EB and V6 numbers were posted. No manual numbers yet

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

Is that mileage number on 87 octane or 93? Would it make a difference?

 

[Spartan]

why?

are you buying the mustang for good mileage?

this thread is confusing.

As technology improves, you expect something to get better...not go backwards.

At least these #s could have stayed the same but they didn't. I expected a 1MPG improvement. But that didn't happen either.

To me that is going BACKWARDS.

This gives Chevy even more incentive to one up Ford and embarrass them. Ford's already taken multiple media hits on the weight gain. Now the fuel loss is starting to show up in various news outlets like USA Today.

People expect PROGRESS.

 

[DivineStrike]

Is that mileage number on 87 octane or 93? Would it make a difference?

My guess is 93 since stated HP numbers are given using that octane. But the recommended fuel is 87 so really it's anyones guess.

As technology improves, you expect something to get better...not go backwards.

At least these #s could have stayed the same but they didn't. I expected a 1MPG improvement. But that didn't happen either.

To me that is going BACKWARDS.

This gives Chevy even more incentive to one up Ford and embarrass them. Ford's already taken multiple media hits on the weight gain. Now the fuel loss is starting to show up in various news outlets like USA Today.

People expect PROGRESS.

Thank you, at least someone gets it. :clap2:

 

[fionic]

I disagree with you about the mpg not being important. It's nice to get good mileage if you're not driving aggressively. I'm pleased to see another person say "I couldn't care less" though. Lol.

It's the very last thing I could possibly worry about.

I do not care about spending a couple thousand more a year on gas money if that means my car will be a beast.

Mileage is a non-issue. It doesn't bother me that it MAY have gotten worse. MT #s aren't out yet, so we shall see.

Also, we haven't seen ANY numbers for the GT as far as I know. The numbers in the last couple of pages were either guesses, or carry-overs.

Like I said, why worry about something like this

 

[DivineStrike]

It's the very last thing I could possibly worry about.

I do not care about spending a couple thousand more a year on gas money if that means my car will be a beast.

Mileage is a non-issue. It doesn't bother me that it MAY have gotten worse. MT #s aren't out yet, so we shall see.

Again, do you care about the future of the V8's availability? or are you just made up of enough money that you'll be able to afford the V8 regardless?

Sponsored