Gas Mileage numbers are out for 2018 Mustangs

[Kevin08]

This will be a gas saver when compared to my current vehicle.

For real, I average about 13mpg in my Jeep and my Mustang is like 17mpg and it's a 17 year old V6.

Sponsored

 

[ALUSA]

Don't forget they also cost way more.

Thats what i thought too but a slightly used one (under 15000 miles) can be bought around 45 grand or little under so its not too bad.

 

[Ebm]

.

Thats what i thought too but a slightly used one (under 15000 miles) can be bought around 45 grand or little under so its not too bad.

If the cost doesn't deter you, maybe the lack of ground clearance will. Good luck going over bumps here. Sometimes I scrape with my Stallion. Anything lower and you are screwed.

 

[mustang_guy]

It both doesn't run 12.0s, and isn't EPA rated for 30mpg.

The mustang beats its highway MPG rating with ease. My GT350 rated for 21mpg, and gets 24mpg with ease. The GT gets near 28ish mpg for some people.

Better go check their fast list then.

You care about what it's rated for then bring up unofficial ratings. Which is it? The mustang is not beating it.

 

[ghostnote]

I'm seeing a lot of confusion here about basic math. In terms of fuel consumed, the variable in the MPG measure is at the bottom of the fraction - the denominator. This means that every point increase is not linear, but rather goes as 1/x.

In other words, at lower MPGs, every additional MPG is worth more than at higher MPGs. To see why, just compare an increase of 5 MPGs at two different ranges: 10 - 15 MPG versus 30 - 35 MPG.

The first represents a 50% decrease in fuel consumption ( (15-10)/10 = 50% ). And while you've got a 5 MPG increase in the second example, it's only marginally more efficient, at about 16.6%.

The fact is that the MPG increases here are significant, especially for the V8. Direct injection and the A10 make a hell of a difference.

Obligatory plug -> Everyone knows metric is superior to the imperial system. But likewise, people who use imperial don't want to change. My suggestion is to follow the european model and change MPGs to GPMs. That puts the variable on top and provides a linear (and more intuitive) way to compare changes in engine efficiency. Citing the example above - the 10 MPG vs 15 MPG would look like 10 gallons per 100 miles, and 6.7 gallons per 100 miles. You can clearly see you're using way less fuel with the higher MPGs at that level. Comparatively, 30 MPG vs 35 MPG looks like 3.3 gallons per 100 miles versus 2.8 gallons per 100.

 

[Ebm]

.

I'm seeing a lot of confusion here about basic math. In terms of fuel consumed, the variable in the MPG measure is at the bottom of the fraction - the denominator. This means that every point increase is not linear, but rather goes as 1/x.

In other words, at lower MPGs, every additional MPG is worth more than at higher MPGs. To see why, just compare an increase of 5 MPGs at two different ranges: 10 - 15 MPG versus 30 - 35 MPG.

The first represents a 50% decrease in fuel consumption ( (15-10)/10 = 50% ). And while you've got a 5 MPG increase in the second example, it's only marginally more efficient, at about 16.6%.

The fact is that the MPG increases here are significant, especially for the V8. Direct injection and the A10 make a hell of a difference.

Obligatory plug -> Everyone knows metric is superior to the imperial system. But likewise, people who use imperial don't want to change. My suggestion is to follow the european model and change MPGs to GPMs. That puts the variable on top and provides a linear (and more intuitive) way to compare changes in engine efficiency. Citing the example above - the 10 MPG vs 15 MPG would look like 10 gallons per 100 miles, and 6.7 gallons per 100 miles. You can clearly see you're using way less fuel with the higher MPGs at that level. Comparatively, 30 MPG vs 35 MPG looks like 3.3 gallons per 100 miles versus 2.8 gallons per 100.

You lost me after you said the bold statement above which simply isn't true. The increases aren't significant at all. A v8 engine will never see the same efficiency as a v6 or an I4 whether it has a 50 speed tranny or a 2 speed. It simply doesn't matter. V8s were never designed for fuel efficiency. Why do you think all this technology has been developed to help out the v8 like cylinder deactivation. No need in trying to prove they are efficient. They aren't. They never will be. They will slowly be fazed out in the coming years, just like the combustion engine(that will take awhile).

 

[ghostnote]

You lost me after you said the bold statement above which simply isn't true. The increases aren't significant at all. A v8 engine will never see the same efficiency as a v6 or an I4 whether it has a 50 speed tranny or a 2 speed. It simply doesn't matter. V8s were never designed for fuel efficiency. Why do you think all this technology has been developed to help out the v8 like cylinder deactivation. No need in trying to prove they are efficient. They aren't. They never will be. They will slowly be fazed out in the coming years, just like the combustion engine(that will take awhile).

Good job. A red herring and a strawman fallacy at the same time. I never said they were "efficient." I also never compared the v8 with other engines to tout their efficiency.

I'll put it in clearer terms: this v8 engine is more efficient than the last, by a significant degree.

EDIT: Looks like I'm wrong on that last part, lol. Going by my 15 GTPP mpg numbers (13.6 combined) I thought there was an increase. But EPA numbers from the 15-17 model years are identical to the new ones? Strange.

EDIT2: Further searching shows at least one website claiming there's a 1 mpg boost in the auto GT. If so, I stand by my last statement. More horses and 6% more efficient, significant in my view.

 

[Ebm]

Good job. A red herring and a strawman fallacy at the same time. I never said they were "efficient." I also never compared the v8 with other engines to tout their efficiency.

I'll put it in clearer terms: this v8 engine is more efficient than the last, by a significant degree.

Haha, terms I haven't heard since college. Thanks for refreshing my memory. You are right about that part.

I agree, the engine is more efficient. Where we disagree is saying significant. There isn't a significant difference in mpg from this year to last. Heck, there isn't a difference at all. They added horsepower, so efficiency obviously went up since mpg didn't go down. But for you to say mpg is a significant difference simply isn't true.

Sponsored