Ecoboost MPG's Window Sticker

[Sal JC]

The funniest part is the sticker price...almost 40k!

Sponsored

 

[Horse]

Thanks.

Have to say that the numbers are just ... so so. This is a stick. Maybe automatic EB should have better mpg.

Cannot help wondering where are the window stickers for V6 and V8? Happen to have them? (Edit: just saw the EPA numbers for V6.)

 

[Papaya]

Prices

Not funny at all. The price of the car trim and options are even higher in Canada, which would put this car at 43,249 + the cost of the 201A package (I'm not sure what the Canadian price is).

Prices:
P8T: EcoBooster Premium MSRP: $33,499 INVOICE: $31,234
201A Equipment Grp: MSRP: $2,000 INVOIVE: $1,760
443: 6-SPD AT: MSRP: $1,500 INVOICE: $1,320
43S: Security Pckg.: MSRP: $700 INVOICE: $616
66W: 18" SPARE Wheel: MSRP: $200 INVOICE: $174
77R: Reverse PK Assist.: MSRP: $350 INVOICE: $308
91N: Navigation Pckg.: MSRP: $800 INVOICE: $704
D&D: $1,600
FED TAX A/C: $100

:gossip::gossip:

 

[EXP Jawa]

I hate to sound old (since I'm not yet 40), but man, I remember when getting 30+ MPG out of my Escort was something worth talking about. Now we're talking about a 300+ HP turbo pony car getting that, and people are disappointed? Really???

 

[Biffosaur]

I think the figures are very disappointing, especially since the only reason I was thinking to get back into a Mustang at all was the possibility of not giving up too much of the great MPG I've gotten used to over the past two years.

The fact that the 3.7 was downrated, though, may just indicate that Ford's latest round of reformulating its economy tests has resulting in more accurate (i.e., less inflated) MPG figures.

However, those writing here about getting better MPG from a model without options or the PP will be very disappointed. The window stickers are always for the base car. Different stickers are not produced for the same model based on options. Therefore, they are always "best case". Consider that 2011-14 V6 automatics are always rated 31 MPG highway (which assumes 2.73 gears) even if the particular car has 3.31 gears optioned alone or as part of the PP and will thus get significantly lower mileage. The car stickered here will get nowhere near the stated mileage (due to 3.55 gears vs 3.15 and the option weights). This is standard practice and perfectly legal.

Don't be so pessimistic man!

The mustang with a bigger engine, more power, and being heavier (by a few hundred pounds) is getting close to the same MPG as the focus st, golf GTI, or Genesis Coupe Turbo.

The Genesis is actually a great comparison because it has a similar weight, 6-speed trans, and a 2.0 turbo. The EB mustang has 35 more Hp, 40 more tq, and gets better MPG in both city and highway.

Even NA cars like the BRZ only see a few MPG better rating, and they have over 100 hp less!

Another great example would be the Civic Si...they are only rated at..what's that? 22 mpg city and 31 mpg highway!?!!!??!

I do agree it'd be nice to see more...but when you stop looking at it under a microscope you see that this mustang kills the competition...at least on paper

 

[Spartan]

The performance package comes with a 3.55 rear end gear ratio. That will certainly effect highway mpg. A base model ecoboost with 3.15 gear ratio should be higher.. Maybe around mid 30's :shrug:

Exactly.

 

[RoryTate]

Heh, thanks guys, you're helping me put things in perspective.

As mentioned by EXP_Jawa, I also had an '88 Escort (Pony power!).

I also traded a Genesis Coupe 2.0T in on a BRZ.

According to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/:
Escort: 28 City 32 Combined 38 Highway
Genesis: 21 City 24 Combined 30 Highway
BRZ: 22 City 25 Combined 30 Highway

The Genesis numbers are pure BS, a class action lawsuit proved that.

But I am solidly spoiled by the mileage I'm getting out of the BRZ. I'm realizing 37mpg (all highway, all summer long) compared to the 30mpg reported by the EPA figures (above). I do get 32mpg in the winter (same commute, same usage).

At worst I'd be getting the same numbers out of the EB as compared to the Genesis.

 

[stilesg57]

But I am solidly spoiled by the mileage I'm getting out of the BRZ. I'm realizing 37mpg (all highway, all summer long) compared to the 30mpg reported by the EPA figures (above). I do get 32mpg in the winter (same commute, same usage).

Wow -- well done man, you're killing it! I'm usually beating EPA, but not by THAT much!

I hate to sound old (since I'm not yet 40), but man, I remember when getting 30+ MPG out of my Escort was something worth talking about. Now we're talking about a 300+ HP turbo pony car getting that, and people are disappointed? Really???

RIGHT!?!?! I'm not that old either and I think this is REALLY good by any historical standard. Interesting how people's pre-release expectations are totally influencing their thoughts about this -- the absolute numbers are pretty great but because people generally wanted 32+ and talked about it like that weeks and months, they're somehow disappointed. "Anchoring" writ large. Stupid human psychology ;)

 

[icherub]

I hate to sound old (since I'm not yet 40), but man, I remember when getting 30+ MPG out of my Escort was something worth talking about. Now we're talking about a 300+ HP turbo pony car getting that, and people are disappointed? Really???

A quintessential indicator of aging is forming present expectations based on past conditions. I'm older than you, but I base by expectations on present alternatives not historical vehicles.

My 2012 Mazda3 (which is the only 4-cyl I've ever owned, after driving Mustang GT's exclusively for 21 years) was redesigned in 2012 to improve over 20% in it's fuel efficiency and increase power with the same displacement merely through developing new technologies (mainly super-high compression and direct injection).

We are living now, not 20 years ago, so our expectations can reasonably be contemporary. Ford hyped the economy of the Ecoboost as being a huge improvement, which it is not, and they could have done better given the huge focus on economy and all the technological improvements over the past 3 years or so.

If you don't really care, it's a bonus to get better efficiency, but if it's make-or-break for getting into the pony game again, it's not what was expected or hoped for, that's all.

And again, those saying that specs will be better for vehicles without the PP, just NO. There will be 12 window stickers for the three core vehicles, and none will considering options, gearing, etc. The vehicle described in OP's window sticker will not achieve the listed mileage. Only three things are considered in testing: engine, transmission, and roof. Vehicle manufacturers do not test every permutation of vehicle with every combination of options. Ford will test (or has tested) the 12 basic configurations that come from 3 engines, 2 transmissions, and 2 roof types.

 

[Moustache]

Interest how they used Regular fuel to rate it when manufacturer recommends Premium fuel

 

[Spartan]

Interest how they used Regular fuel to rate it when manufacturer recommends Premium fuel

They use what Ford says in the engine book which is going to be 87. The Torque and HP come from the 93 Premium.

 

[Moustache]

When you say engine book, you mean the owners manual?
I don't understand why they would have two different specs.

 

[Horse]

check out the fuel economy c/d observed

http://blog.caranddriver.com/perfor...mustang-gt-versus-2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost/

 

[Spartan]

check out the fuel economy c/d observed

http://blog.caranddriver.com/perfor...mustang-gt-versus-2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost/

That I believe is basically driving it "like you stole it" fuel economy observed.

Though a bunch of reviewers have said that the GT is getting around 15 mpg " like you stole it" driving (some have said 11-12). Others have said pushing the EB they were getting on average 22 mpg.

 

[Spartan]

When you say engine book, you mean the owners manual?
I don't understand why they would have two different specs.

They have to list the minimum Octane that the engine will run on, which is 87.

But you'll have also listed in these usually something that says "Premium fuel will provide improved performance..." which is the 93 they worked with while designing this thing with the Turbo, etc.

Sponsored