5.0 Mileage

[DivineStrike]

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

Incorrect. EPA standards are no different from 2014 to 2015. Only thing different is Ford decided to lower the mpg's on their own. According to a source who wishes not to be quoted, the downgrade is entirely due to just adjusting the numbers and not due to lack of real efficiency. Basically knee jerk reaction to the Ford MPG fiasco.

I think it's utter nonsense because I haven't seen anyone in the Mustang community complaining they couldn't hit the claimed epa estimates. Actually, i've regularly seen people get better than the stated EPA estimates.

Sponsored

 

[motoroid65]

I think it's utter nonsense because I haven't seen anyone in the Mustang community complaining they couldn't hit the claimed epa estimates. Actually, i've regularly seen people get better than the stated EPA estimates.

Complaints tend to spiral into class action lawsuits quickly. They are trying to get ahead of that. In the end the rating should not matter.. just the real world mpg.

 

[Sal JC]

And what else is there anyway?

370z is slightly better but requires premium fuel, weighs 400 lbs less & No back seat. Not even sure it would be considered a direct competitor

Camaro, slightly worse, no surprise

Challenger, same, Amazingly Dodge did a good job of getting that hippopotamus to even get that, but still requires mid-grade and no match for the Mustang GT unless you move up to the 6.4 or Hellcat in which case MPGs go completely out the window along with your wallet.

My favorite is the Geniuses Coupe. 3.8L, 348hp, 8 speed Automatic, Curb Weight A/T 3538-3631 lbs, requires premium fuel and gets exactly the same as the 5.0

It’s only the first year of a complete redesign, there’s no real competition with better mileage & people are lined up to buy them. No one knows what they have planned for ’17 so Ford has no reason to blow their load yet. They’re still gonna have to answer the new Camaro (maybe) in a year or two

 

[Tim Hilliard]

These threads crack me up.

 

[Grimace427]

These threads crack me up.

Seriously. Priorities are a little muddy here. Somewhere in the galaxy Obi-Wan is sensing a disturbance in the Mustang Force.

 

[1320']

A 5 liter DOHC V8 making more net power than the old 426 Hemi while getting 26 or more mpg on the highway?

And people are complaining.

welcome to the future

 

[Spartan]

Seriously. Priorities are a little muddy here. Somewhere in the galaxy Obi-Wan is sensing a disturbance in the Mustang Force.

A 5 liter DOHC V8 making more net power than the old 426 Hemi while getting 26 or more mpg on the highway?

And people are complaining.

welcome to the future

Understandable but when you're the head engineer, you don't make statements like he did about the GT and saying it WILL have better fuel economy and then not back them up.

If he didn't make the statement, we wouldn't be having these specific conversations/complaints.

 

[Seabee1973]

And what else is there anyway?

370z is slightly better but requires premium fuel, weighs 400 lbs less & No back seat. Not even sure it would be considered a direct competitor

Camaro, slightly worse, no surprise

Challenger, same, Amazingly Dodge did a good job of getting that hippopotamus to even get that, but still requires mid-grade and no match for the Mustang GT unless you move up to the 6.4 or Hellcat in which case MPGs go completely out the window along with your wallet.

My favorite is the Geniuses Coupe. 3.8L, 348hp, 8 speed Automatic, Curb Weight A/T 3538-3631 lbs, requires premium fuel and gets exactly the same as the 5.0

It’s only the first year of a complete redesign, there’s no real competition with better mileage & people are lined up to buy them. No one knows what they have planned for ’17 so Ford has no reason to blow their load yet. They’re still gonna have to answer the new Camaro (maybe) in a year or two

Geniuses coupe... that's a new one... Never heard off that before..lol... I know, I know

 

[Grimace427]

Understandable but when you're the head engineer, you don't make statements like he did about the GT and saying it WILL have better fuel economy and then not back them up.

If he didn't make the statement, we wouldn't be having these specific conversations/complaints.

Oh I bet some of you would. There's a lot of nits being picked throughout this forum.

Geniuses coupe... that's a new one... Never heard off that before..lol... I know, I know

It's what Sheldon Cooper would drive, if he ever gets his driver's license.

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

Corvette gets 19/29. M235i gets 19/28.

 

[jeebuspwnz]

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.

I completely agree here. Some will argue that at least the M4 improved in efficiency over the predecessor. However it improved from abysmal to livable, not exactly something to brag about.

I also think the comparisons to the vette are not very applicable. The vette is a MUCH lighter car, with only two seats, and a much lower profile with better aero in its design. It's a sports car and the stang is a pony car. Plus they gear those things such that you can get great mileage in top gear, but you can't accelerate at all in it.

 

[Seabee1973]

Oh I bet some of you would. There's a lot of nits being picked throughout this forum.




It's what Sheldon Cooper would drive, if he ever gets his driver's license.

If you take the words better fuel economy.... it's exactly that.... they pulled off an extra 15 horses along with some added weight...with almost identical mpg as the outgoing mustang. Take to note, he did not say mpg but EFFICIENCY.... I think it is damn awesome for a V8 @ that

 

[1320']

A thing to consider when it comes to the 5.0/GT your economy debate is that this engine and transmission combination gets the mileage that it does without direct injection or an economy mode.
If Ford were to add the 10spd auto, DI and cylinder deactivation we would probably see 20 or 21 City, 28 or 29 Highway out of this car.

The car gained some weight, power, IRS, better suspension and better brakes while keeping its already respectable fuel economy.

You folks who are freaking out because it did not pick up any fuel economy remind me of the people who swore that if it gained even a single pound then it was a failure. You have to balance what was gained in the process. Would 15 city, 24 highway have been accepted with 450hp/420tq?

No. We got the best possible with CURRENT equipment

 

[DivineStrike]

You guys are such fan boys it's ridiculous. I understand it's a V8 but there is no way you can twist what Dave P said about the V8 improving Fuel Economy. If it had stayed the same, yes you could have. But in no way are you improving fuel economy by making the car less efficient. Yes you can reduce how much mpg's are going to drop but that is still not an improvement, it is simply minimizing loss.

However, since we do not have the Manual estimates yet Dave P's statement isn't false yet, because if the Manual does improve then obviously the V8 well, would have improved.

I am not disappointed in how the Mustang compares to it's competitors, I am disappointed in how it compares to it's immediate predecessor. If Ford had not made this statement of improvement, would I still have been disappointed? Yes, not because I care about the V8 getting great fuel economy, but because I care about improvement in all aspects. However, I wouldn't be this adamant about it. I would have said my piece about improvement and would have been done with it.

Btw Fuel Economy is measured in MPG's. There is no other quantitative way to measure it besides consumption per unit of distance or time. As it is also only based on EPA data as that is the whole purpose of EPA data, to compare vehicle efficiency in a standardized way.

You can not say a 200 hp vehicle which got 30 mpg one year and got upped to 400 hp the next but now gets 20 mpg's and call that an improvement in Fuel economy. what happened with the mustang is the same thing, but on a much smaller scale.

Anyways in regards to what has been said as to the reason for the drop in MPG's, I will believe that, one when real world numbers start showing better numbers, and two if Ford lowers the 2013 and 2014 mustangs MPG's. Because if they believed they were over stating them, then they should change those too, like they did with their other models.

I've said my piece, good night.

 

[Tim Hilliard]

You guys are such fan boys it's ridiculous.

I have my "Fan Boy" flame shield on so I'm protected.

FYI: Effieciency= How an engine consumes fuel to produce a it's output, it has nothing to do with MPG ratings.

BSFC is the ability for an engine to produce X amount of power from X amount of fuel. The side effect is more HP and Torque, i.e. a very efficient engine. Nothing he said was false, the Boss 302 was/is an extremely efficient engine package as are most racing engines. The '15 5.0 liter is in the same class.

Sponsored