GT mpg at stickers and the website

[accel]

I've noticed that some 2017 GT cars at dealerships have 15/25 mpg and some 14/23... how's that? the one with 15/25 has no performance pack but the engine is the same....

Ford website says - 15/25.

All Stickers say that the numbers reflect new EPA methods for 2017 models. But they are all 2017 models at the lot.

What the heck.

Sponsored

 

[AppoTheApple]

Did you verify auto vs manual?

 

[accel]

Did you verify auto vs manual?

Yes, I was looking at manuals only.

 

[Labradog]

Maybe Ford had to send some cars equipped with the PP for EPA testing. We know the 3.73 rear end is gonna drop your mileage.

 

[accel]

Maybe Ford had to send some cars equipped with the PP for EPA testing. We know the 3.73 rear end is gonna drop your mileage.

Bingo... the one with 15/25 was 3.31 and 14/23 - 3.73!

 

[Rye]

I have driven my car 67 miles and have averaged 10.5 mpg

 

[zxd9]

I have driven my car 67 miles and have averaged 10.5 mpg

Oh, but the smiles per mile is so worth it!

 

[BmacIL]

The PP is worth the mileage hit.

 

[Zelek]

My 2017 GT PP scored the lowest overall fuel economy for the sports car class. Good thing I didn't buy it for fuel economy!

'Murica.

 

[accel]

Still I see a lot of drivers excited about their GTs, but then rant about fuel economy several months later.

Would ordering GT without PP (and with lower final ratio) and then adding springs/swaybar from shelby be potential solution?

 

[BmacIL]

Still I see a lot of drivers excited about their GTs, but then rant about fuel economy several months later.

Would ordering GT without PP (and with lower final ratio) and then adding springs/swaybar from shelby be potential solution?

You mean like I did?

If I could do it over again I would start with the PP. I'd rather do a gear swap to 3.31 and have all the PP goodies than try to get the Torsen, brakes and all the suspension and chassis stiffening goodies, along with wheels and tires that aren't woefully undersized.

 

[Spartanator]

The "computer" says 16.4 is my average for my 3:31 2016 GT. Mixed driving.

 

[Grabber By The Bluesy]

I avg 14 with 3.31.

 

[OldKooT]

Our 2017 PP GT according the dash display has averaged 18.7 and 18.4 the first two tanks of mixed driving. There were a few "spirited" romps on those tanks. So EPA ratings aren't too far off it would seem.

 

[bahasad]

I have been averaging 20-22 MPG on my 17 GT, 3.55 gears, and FRPP1. Thats cruising highway 70% and going from 75-90 MPH easily.

This car isn't meant to be a fuel efficient. Most V8 cars that I looked at around this horsepower have worse fuel economy (besides chevys). I find if you aren't flooring it everywhere (which is very hard to do), then this car actually gets pretty good fuel economy for what it is.

Also I found that once you start pushing it, the Ecoboost that I used to have got worse fuel economy than my GT.

Sponsored