5.0 Mileage

[fionic]

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?

Sure, I care. I just don't see how these numbers could affect that. How long could they use the 5.0 for? Who knows. You're extrapolating unknown information. It seems you're assuming that, because the new 5.0 MAY have worse mileage, all future versions will be worse.

Remember, we don't have the numbers yet. You guys are worrying about numbers that don't exist that Spartan posted out of no where with no proof. AND EPA numbers are estimates anyway, and you almost 100% guaranteed get highers than what they say.

Sponsored

 

[Spartan]

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.




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

Haha yah I think you and me get it...everyone else doesn't.

This would be like Apple coming out with the new iPhone and it's thicker, much heavier and has the same processor and with worse battery life.

 

[Spartan]

Sure, I care. I just don't see how these numbers could affect that. How long could they use the 5.0 for? Who knows. You're extrapolating unknown information.

Remember, we don't have the numbers yet. You guys are worrying about numbers that don't exist that Spartan posted out of no where with no proof. AND EPA numbers are estimates anyway, and you almost 100% guaranteed get highers than what they say.

Proof?

It's the window sticker what more do you want?

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showpost.php?p=87862&postcount=300

 

[fionic]

Proof?

It's the window sticker what more do you want?

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showpost.php?p=87862&postcount=300

You had not posted anything prior, thank you.

Regardless, my point still stands.

You guys could always switch to the EB

 

[Spartan]

You had not posted anything prior, thank you.

I assumed most people followed the GT MPG and the main general thread on EPA MPG that is 15+ pages.

Regardless, my point still stands.

You guys could always switch to the EB

I doubt I'd switch but I'm definitely going to wait for more real world #s and to hear the EB in person.

 

[DivineStrike]

Sure, I care. I just don't see how these numbers could affect that. How long could they use the 5.0 for? Who knows. You're extrapolating unknown information. It seems you're assuming that, because the new 5.0 MAY have worse mileage, all future versions will be worse.

Remember, we don't have the numbers yet. You guys are worrying about numbers that don't exist that Spartan posted out of no where with no proof. AND EPA numbers are estimates anyway, and you almost 100% guaranteed get highers than what they say.

Let me break it down for ya.

Since these EPA estimates are lower than the previous generation, it WILL negatively effect sales of the 5.0. Granted the 1st couple years that will be hard to determine due to it being a new model. But I guarantee you if it had stayed the same or improved, sales will be better than what they are going to be with these numbers. Better sales means a better future. If there is a demand for it, there is a future to improve it.

EPA numbers are the only thing that matters to the future of a product, in regards to future EPA restrictions and the availability of a motor. You do realize how fast these increased regulations are bearing down on us right? The fact they are reducing the numbers tells me they don't plan on having it around in the long term, and also it isn't important enough for Ford to keep around longer than they need to, otherwise improving the efficiency of the 5.0 would have been more of a priority. But no they are pushing the ECOBoost. Meaning they are trying to get customers used to having a smaller turbo engine in a car typically known for it's displacement and cylinders. IE breaking the ice for future EB applications meant to replace the V8.

Will they make improvements to the mass production V8? maybe. If they can cheaply add DI then maybe the future of the V8 is a little longer than we can hope for. But if it is more beneficial for them to add in a FIv6 then they will do that instead.

I suspect the next feeler engine will be a 2.7 placed in between the 2.3 and the 5.0 sometime in the near future. And I think likely we will get a DI V8 before they kill it off. But once that happens the V8's days are numbered in large productions as the ground work for replacing it will already be there. Unless they decide to go w/ a low displacement V8 and FI. As much as i'd like to see that, I just don't see it happening in large production numbers. More than likely an EB v6 will be used

 

[Spartan]

I suspect the next feeler engine will be a 2.7 placed in between the 2.3 and the 5.0 sometime in the near future. And I think likely we will get a DI V8 before they kill it off. But once that happens the V8's days are numbered in large productions as the ground work for replacing it will already be there. Unless they decide to go w/ a low displacement V8 and FI. As much as i'd like to see that, I just don't see it happening in large production numbers. More than likely an EB v6 will be used

Agree the 2.7 EBv6 will be next. It will probably be a few grand more then the current EB..maybe $2500-$3000. Slotting it in that $7000 difference between the current EB and GT.

 

[dwaleke]

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.

You have to laugh at these numbers. Not because we went backwards, but because we probably have went forward. Ford just decided to give us more accurate numbers this time around.

Anyone that puts faith in these EPA numbers is only fooling themselves. Manufacturers dupe these tests. You can score a 20 and be 18 in a real life or 16 in real life. Every driving scenario is different.

One manufacturer can put 21 and get 17 real life. One could put 18 and get 17. Which one is better? These test can't and won't tell you. You buy the car that says 21, but you are no better off than the one with 18 on the sticker.

Just because a manufacturer can put big numbers on the sticker doesn't mean anything. It gives you a ball park for best possible scenario (Cruising with the wind to your back with "test fuel" that you cannot get at the pump).

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

I suspect the next feeler engine will be a 2.7 placed in between the 2.3 and the 5.0 sometime in the near future. And I think likely we will get a DI V8 before they kill it off. But once that happens the V8's days are numbered in large productions as the ground work for replacing it will already be there. Unless they decide to go w/ a low displacement V8 and FI. As much as i'd like to see that, I just don't see it happening in large production numbers. More than likely an EB v6 will be used

I don't think the V8 is ever going to go away. There will always be special editions -- Cobras or Shelbys or Bosses or Machs or whatever -- that will have a V8. Might just be very high price / low volume models, but they'll be there.

 

[DivineStrike]

I don't think the V8 is ever going to go away. There will always be special editions -- Cobras or Shelbys or Bosses or Machs or whatever -- that will have a V8. Might just be very high price / low volume models, but they'll be there.

I agree completely and is why I mentioned "In high production models" in my posts.

You have to laugh at these numbers. Not because we went backwards, but because we probably have went forward. Ford just decided to give us more accurate numbers this time around.

Anyone that puts faith in these EPA numbers is only fooling themselves. Manufacturers dupe these tests. You can score a 20 and be 18 in a real life or 16 in real life. Every driving scenario is different.

One manufacturer can put 21 and get 17 real life. One could put 18 and get 17. Which one is better? These test can't and won't tell you. You buy the car that says 21, but you are no better off than the one with 18 on the sticker.

Just because a manufacturer can put big numbers on the sticker doesn't mean anything. It gives you a ball park for best possible scenario (Cruising with the wind to your back with "test fuel" that you cannot get at the pump).

Again, we are not talking about real numbers, although I agree that is what matters. And I do hope real world numbers reflect differently. But something made ford either post lower numbers or they weren't able to squeeze more out of it while increasing power which the latter was a must.

Mftrs now a days try to do the best they can to accurately release EPA test data. Otherwise consumers will catch on, and sales will reflect. And they do have to follow the test requirements, they can't just make up numbers on a whim.

 

[B Gordon]

I don't think the V8 is ever going to go away. There will always be special editions -- Cobras or Shelbys or Bosses or Machs or whatever -- that will have a V8. Might just be very high price / low volume models, but they'll be there.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me, and I really wish that will be the case right along with you.
Reality, on the other hand, has a way of showing up just when things get interesting.
Ecoboost V6, almost a given because Ford already has them in other platforms.
Twin turbo V6 is a real possibility and can give plenty of performance for top end equipment.
The 800 lb. gorilla in the house is the government CAFE requirements that are coming in the future. Everything else will have to work around those requirements and a low volume V8 that can be replaced by a V6 getting better mileage is going to be a discussion when the time comes.

The surprising thing to me is that Ford didn't bring it out as part of the 2015 Mustang. Maybe the marketing people decided it will get more exposure if they bring it out in a year or two along with 10 speed transmissions and a few other mileage increasing items.

 

[Spartan]

You have to laugh at these numbers. Not because we went backwards, but because we probably have went forward. Ford just decided to give us more accurate numbers this time around.

Anyone that puts faith in these EPA numbers is only fooling themselves. Manufacturers dupe these tests. You can score a 20 and be 18 in a real life or 16 in real life. Every driving scenario is different.

My explorer with the old tests said 15c -19h -17cb with the changes it says it's really more like 14c - 18h - 16cb.

Just thought we'd get better then 18c - 25g - 20cb and not go back by 2 in the auto in the GT.

I don't think expecting 27H from the GT when the Corvette that just came out gets 29H is much to ask. Just curious wtf is going on at Ford. They had a home run here and it's like the film is being reviewed now to see if it was a home run. It is one of those things that makes you wonder why they waited on the weight and now the fuel...two big downers for a lot of people.

 

[MikeAZ]

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.

 

[scottpe]

I think we just need to wait for an official announcement on the EPA numbers. Who's to say the numbers that are showing up on the stickers aren't just placeholders or something? They may very well be the final numbers, but the fact is we don't know for sure. I just hate seeing people get bent out of shape over unconfirmed information. We've been down that path before.

If the numbers are official, I find it interesting at the very least. But even if the mileage actually did go down a little bit, and this isn't just a 'truing' of the numbers, to me it's not enough to really matter that much. All it takes is a couple spirited blasts and the MPG numbers go out the window anyway. ;)

Of course, regardless of what's printed on the sticker, none of us will really know the true implications of any of it until we drive the cars and do our own measurements based on our own driving styles. In other words YMMV.

 

[williamwally]

I still think comparing the '15 mustang GT's MPG's to the '15 BMW M4's is appropriate. Seeing they are similarly sized cars with similar intent; and some would argue the M4 is what a v8 sports car is supposed to evolve into with ever increasing efficiency regulations.

Unlike the '14 GT, the '15 M4 conforms to the same EPA standards as the '15 GT, so there's no question there.

The M4 has similar HP and Tq as the '15 GT.
The M4 has a much smaller displacement, direct injection, 3.0 I6 turbo vs 5.0 na non-DI v8.
It is a lighter car by ~200lbs, using lots of expensive lightweight materials.
It has a more efficient transmission (dct vs auto).
It has another gear in this more efficient transmission. (7 vs 6)
Being a higher priced car from an area that appears to be more concerned with efficiency than the US; would arguably lead to more R&D $ being allocated to the power/efficiency balance.
All this and the M4 gets 1mpg better city and hwy.

Given all this it seems to me that Ford did a pretty darn good job here.

Sponsored