Any V6 fans?

[phil1336]

^^^I've owned quite a few vehicles with keyfobs and I've had buttons accidentally depressed, but never for more than a second. It would take quite a bit for something to do that for more than three seconds in a pocket less than 150' from the car......

As far as reliability goes, if you take care of it, and perform routine maintenance like any vehicle, the EcoBoost will be just as reliable as any of them. If you beat the hell out of it and lack regular maintenance, then yes, the turbo cars will fail faster. And as stated, just like every other EcoBoost, it will run fine on any pump gas octane just fine. You will only get the max rated power with the recommended fuel. Fuel economy, will never see a difference big enough to be calculated.

Interesting point. Did your experience with these Key Fobs all have the Global Open feature? Even the (remote) possibility of having ones Windows and Moonroof accidentally opened allowing either "theft or rain damage" negates the advantage of allowing built up heat to escape moments before you enter ones Vehicle. I`m having my Global Open (feature) disabled.

Sponsored

 

[stangs-R-me]

I thought this thread was about the V6 ... lets get back on topic !!

Enough of this global window talk ... start a new thread.

Doug

 

[phil1336]

I thought this thread was about the V6 ... lets get back on topic !!

Enough of this global window talk ... start a new thread.

Doug

Agreed!

 

[Horse]

I thought this thread was about the V6 ... lets get back on topic !!

Enough of this global window talk ... start a new thread.

Doug

OK, back to 2015 V6.

What do you guys think the mileage will be. Maybe the 2015 manual V6 will get 30 or more highway EPA? Current is 29 highway for manual.

 

[phil1336]

OK, back to 2015 V6.

What do you guys think the mileage will be. Maybe the 2015 manual V6 will get 30 or more highway EPA? Current is 29 highway for manual.

Supposedly, they "de-tuned" the 3.7 V6 Engine back to 300 HP. I don`t believe it. Its simply a Marketing Ploy to give the EcoBoost 2.3 I4 a 10 HP boost to justify the added expense. If in fact, they made any changes to the V6 Engine, it should in theory produce a few extra MPG.

 

[stangs-R-me]

3.7L V6 MPG's 2011-14 vs. 2015:

The base rear gears in 2011-14 was 2.73:1 for the V6 and will now be 3.15:1 in the 2015 ... Ford has supposedly made no major changes to the transmission ratios or o/a tire diameters.

Ok, there MAY have been a minor change in OD, but it was in the wrong direction ... was 0.70:1 and now it is supposedly 0.704:1 (I'm guessing '11-14 was probably 0.704 too but it was rounded down to 0.70 in Ford's specs).

Anyway ... this will be better for off the line performance, but cruising RPM's in overdrive will be increasing 15%.

75 MPH in an '11-14 w/ 2.73 gears ... 1834 RPM
75 MPH in the 2015 w/ 3.15 gears ... 2116 RPM

Unless the 2015 is that much more aerodynamic and Ford has figured that the 3.7L is more economical running at 15% more RPM I don't see how a 2015 V6 can get any better MPG's than an '11-14.

The Ecoboost AT will have the same 3.15:1 rear axle ratio as base V6, however the MT will have 3.31:1 gears so it will be cruising at even higher RPM's:

75 MPH in EB MT w/ 3.31 gears ... 2223 RPM

4 cylinders do typically run at higher RPM's than larger engines, so this is not an apples to apples comparison as far as potential MPG's ... but I think the V6 comparison above certainly is !!

Further interesting is the "OPTIONAL" performance rear axle for 2011-14 V6 was 3.31:1 and now is 3.55:1 for the 2015 V6 (and EB PP).

Also, you could not get the optional 3.31 axle with 2011-14 Convertibles but it appears you can get the 3.55's with a 2015 V6 Convertible.

Doug

 

[Horse]

Supposedly, they "de-tuned" the 3.7 V6 Engine back to 300 HP. I don`t believe it. Its simply a Marketing Ploy to give the EcoBoost 2.3 I4 a 10 HP boost to justify the added expense. If in fact, they made any changes to the V6 Engine, it should in theory produce a few extra MPG.

hope so...

personally, 300hp is enough for me... if Ford had de-tuned it to 300hp in order to gain in mpg, welcome.

 

[Horse]

3.7L V6 MPG's 2011-14 vs. 2015:

The base rear gears in 2011-14 was 2.73:1 for the V6 and will now be 3.15:1 in the 2015 ... Ford has supposedly made no major changes to the transmission ratios or o/a tire diameters.

Ok, there MAY have been a minor change in OD, but it was in the wrong direction ... was 0.70:1 and now it is supposedly 0.704:1 (I'm guessing '11-14 was probably 0.704 too but it was rounded down to 0.70 in Ford's specs).

Anyway ... this will be better for off the line performance, but cruising RPM's in overdrive will be increasing 15%.

75 MPH in an '11-14 w/ 2.73 gears ... 1834 RPM
75 MPH in the 2015 w/ 3.15 gears ... 2116 RPM

Unless the 2015 is that much more aerodynamic and Ford has figured that the 3.7L is more economical running at 15% more RPM I don't see how a 2015 V6 can get any better MPG's than an '11-14.

The Ecoboost AT will have the same 3.15:1 rear axle ratio as base V6, however the MT will have 3.31:1 gears so it will be cruising at even higher RPM's:

75 MPH in EB MT w/ 3.31 gears ... 2223 RPM

4 cylinders do typically run at higher RPM's than larger engines, so this is not an apples to apples comparison as far as potential MPG's ... but I think the V6 comparison above certainly is !!

Further interesting is the "OPTIONAL" performance rear axle for 2011-14 V6 was 3.31:1 and now is 3.55:1 for the 2015 V6 (and EB PP).

Also, you could not get the optional 3.31 axle with 2011-14 Convertibles but it appears you can get the 3.55's with a 2015 V6 Convertible.

Doug

well examined indeed :clap2:

that said, I hardly believe that Ford will let the new generation have lower mpg stock.

 

[jeebuspwnz]

I think the biggest problem with the V6 is not that it isn't a great motor, it's that an even greater v8 exists.

As for the ecoboost, I'm sure it will be a great seller but after owning many turbo cars myself, I've never seen any real mileage benefit to a turbocharged 4 over a similarly powered v6. There's also more moving parts that fail, a more heavily stressed cooling and oiling system, and in the case of direct injection, plenty of carbon-related problems.

The ecoboost would be great for the tuner that likes to dial up the boost and make "free" power, but if left alone the v6 will be a cheaper, more reliable, and nearly as fast choice.

All that said, I ordered the v8.

 

[Horse]

I think the biggest problem with the V6 is not that it isn't a great motor, it's that an even greater v8 exists.

I can live with that... and I am seriously considering V6

As for the ecoboost, I'm sure it will be a great seller but after owning many turbo cars myself, I've never seen any real mileage benefit to a turbocharged 4 over a similarly powered v6. There's also more moving parts that fail, a more heavily stressed cooling and oiling system, and in the case of direct injection, plenty of carbon-related problems.

The ecoboost would be great for the tuner that likes to dial up the boost and make "free" power, but if left alone the v6 will be a cheaper, more reliable, and nearly as fast choice.

Thanks for sharing. I am a bit more towards V6 now

All that said, I ordered the v8.

Nice and enjoy

 

[Suddueth13]

My fobs would trigger the alarm if depressed for more than a few seconds.

As far as the gearing goes, you need to use either the speed that the EPA would regulate testing at(60-65 mph) or use the speed at which most of the countries speed limits are which are 65-70 mph. 75 and 80 mph limits do exist but are not the majority in the country. The higher the speed, the worse mileage you'll see, no matter the gearing.

Seeing how the 3.7L makes it's torque, slightly higher RPM shouldn't affect it much. It's possible it could see a slight bump because of it. Being lower with a lower drag coefficient helps out as well.

Like I've said before though, when kept out of boost, the 2.3 will see better mileage than the 3.7L will. It's the same principle as an NA 2.3L vs. the 3.7L. Until the EcoBoost actually sees boost, it's a naturally aspirated engine. Once in boost though, it will drink fuel like a V8.

 

[stangs-R-me]

As far as the gearing goes, you need to use either the speed that the EPA would regulate testing at(60-65 mph) or use the speed at which most of the countries speed limits are which are 65-70 mph. 75 and 80 mph limits do exist but are not the majority in the country. The higher the speed, the worse mileage you'll see, no matter the gearing.

Seeing how the 3.7L makes it's torque, slightly higher RPM shouldn't affect it much. It's possible it could see a slight bump because of it. Being lower with a lower drag coefficient helps out as well.

I don't care what the EPA does, 75 MPH is pretty typical REAL WORLD interstate speed in the USA.

I'd even wager a guess that it is pretty close to the "average" speed driven today on the whole I-System (outside of morning & evening "rush-hours") regardless of "posted" limit.

The gearing change is also still a 15% increase in cruising RPM regardless of speed.

Doug

 

[phil1336]

When my local Ford Dealer finally informs me that he can place my Order for a 2015 Mustang Convertible, I too will be choosing the Base V6 configuration with the Standard 3:15 rear axle gear ratio. I wish they offered the older 2:73 rear axle gear ratio, I`d have chosen that Option for the potential increased Fuel Economy. To me its simple. Dollar for dollar, as an around town and highway daily driver looking for reasonable MPG with a low purchase price, the 2015 Ford Mustang Base V6 Convertible is the way to go. If performance and handling is important, I personally would skip the EB 2.3 I4 and go all out for the V8 5.0 GT Convertible. Unless your drive the EB 2.3 with a very light foot, your fuel economy will be worse then 3.7 V6 and closer to the 5.0 V8. Considering there is a $6.500 upgrade from Base V6 Convertible with Automatic Transmission to the "Premium" EB 2.3 I4 with Automatic Transmission, since EB is not available in (Base) Trim as a Convertible, if a Convertible is desired, I personally think, its either V6 or V8.

 

[66coupe]

3.7L V6 MPG's 2011-14 vs. 2015:

The base rear gears in 2011-14 was 2.73:1 for the V6 and will now be 3.15:1 in the 2015 ... Ford has supposedly made no major changes to the transmission ratios or o/a tire diameters.

Ok, there MAY have been a minor change in OD, but it was in the wrong direction ... was 0.70:1 and now it is supposedly 0.704:1 (I'm guessing '11-14 was probably 0.704 too but it was rounded down to 0.70 in Ford's specs).

Anyway ... this will be better for off the line performance, but cruising RPM's in overdrive will be increasing 15%.

75 MPH in an '11-14 w/ 2.73 gears ... 1834 RPM
75 MPH in the 2015 w/ 3.15 gears ... 2116 RPM

Unless the 2015 is that much more aerodynamic and Ford has figured that the 3.7L is more economical running at 15% more RPM I don't see how a 2015 V6 can get any better MPG's than an '11-14.

The Ecoboost AT will have the same 3.15:1 rear axle ratio as base V6, however the MT will have 3.31:1 gears so it will be cruising at even higher RPM's:

75 MPH in EB MT w/ 3.31 gears ... 2223 RPM

4 cylinders do typically run at higher RPM's than larger engines, so this is not an apples to apples comparison as far as potential MPG's ... but I think the V6 comparison above certainly is !!

Further interesting is the "OPTIONAL" performance rear axle for 2011-14 V6 was 3.31:1 and now is 3.55:1 for the 2015 V6 (and EB PP).

Also, you could not get the optional 3.31 axle with 2011-14 Convertibles but it appears you can get the 3.55's with a 2015 V6 Convertible.

Doug

Great analysis. Thanks.

hope so...

personally, 300hp is enough for me... if Ford had de-tuned it to 300hp in order to gain in mpg, welcome.

:amen:

well examined indeed :clap2:

that said, I hardly believe that Ford will let the new generation have lower mpg stock.

I wonder. If Ford is viewing the V6 as primarily for rental companies, then good mileage may no longer be important. The rental companies don't care how much it costs their customers to fill up the tank, and Ford wants to make the EB look superior to the V6 in order to push buyers in that direction. Plus, the V6 sales will probably be relatively small, so slightly reduced fuel economy on the V6 won't have any meaningful affect on CAFE.

I want the V6, so I hope this is not the case. But it would not surprise me if we see a reduction in both the HP and the mileage. :frusty:

 

[phil1336]

Don`t be surprised to see 2015 Mustang "Convertible" V6 Sales to be surprising brisk beyond just Rental Car Fleets Sales. For those seeking a lively spirited new Mustang Convertible and either can`t or (don`t) want to Pony Up (no pun intended) to paying 37K for a Premium EcoBoost Convertible, there will be a significant demand of ordinary Retail Buyers who will be much happier spending a mere 31K for a Base V6 Convertible. Missing Power Seat (Driver Only), 18` Wheels & Tires, Fog Lamps, and the (ugly) Blade Spoiler which can be deleted with Option # 13D? Even with the Base V6 Convertible configuration, if you really need those Options, there your for only $995 with Upgrade Package Option #051A. I won`t spend $5,550 to $6,500 to upgrade from the V6 to the EC 2.3 I4 to gain 10 HP and possibly no better Fuel Economy.

Sponsored