How far will you go in one run in your GT/Ecoboost?

[Dannyho]

mixed driving I'm having a hard time breaking 22mpg over the course of a tank with the 4 cylinder. Straight highway I can get up around 30, of course. But that's not real life. part of that 22mpg has to do with the winter gas I'm sure, but the turbo 4 really seems to punish you on the city driving side, hopefully it gets better as she breaks in a little more, only 1200 miles.

Sponsored

 

[Fox5.0]

I'm at the gas station almost every day...
Oh well!

 

[Rhys]

I'm at the gas station almost every day...
Oh well!

If I bought a S550, I'd probably be at the gas station every 3-4 days, unless I've been in the mood for some fun. I have a short commute from work to home, around about 50km/30 mile distance.

 

[04SloSnake]

To further that tough though:

I'll use my closest station as an example. 87 is $2.30 per gallon. 93 is $2.70.

I'll use 15.5 gallons- the full tank size for both just for example purposes.

At those prices, the Ecoboost costs $41.85 to fill up and using the avg 25mpg goes 387.5 miles on that tank.

Since the GT uses 87 at $2.30 per gallon, it would cost $35.65 to fill up and using the 19mpg average goes 294.5 miles.

But that gas price different is $6.20 which buys you 2.7 more gallons of gas in the GT and go another 51 miles.

So for the same price the Ecoboost goes 387.5 miles, and the GT goes 345.5 miles; not a huge difference at the end of the day.

People seem to forget this when looking solely at mpgs- the GT can run on cheaper 87 gas (up to premium if you wanted or have a tuned car).

The same person who would run 87 octane in a GT will run 87 octane in an Ecoboost. I wouldn't run 87 in either though.

 

[Old 5 Oh]

Nearly 400 miles, or 650 km, real world, open freeway at 65 to 75 mph.

 

[Dragen]

My mileage basically stinks, so my range usually reads 275-280 when its filled up.

 

[Rhys]

My mileage basically stinks, so my range usually reads 275-280 when its filled up.

Still, thats good for a v8

 

[Blk2015GT]

The same person who would run 87 octane in a GT will run 87 octane in an Ecoboost. I wouldn't run 87 in either though.

I wouldn't on an Ecoboost it needs 93 for the turbo.

The Ecoboost loses 11% of its HP by using 87- down to 275hp.

At that point mine as well just buy the base V6 Mustang that uses 87 and gets 300hp; and costs a lot less for the car. You lose all benefits of the turbo on the Mustang that puts it above the cheaper V6 model.

Also remember the mpg ratings on the Ecoboost is based on premium too.

By contrast the GT only loses 1% HP by using 87, so a whopping 4.35hp off of 435. I run 87 in my GT just fine. 430.5hp is still plenty.

 

[Rhys]

I wouldn't on an Ecoboost it needs 93 for the turbo.

The Ecoboost loses 11% of its HP by using 87- down to 275hp.

At that point mine as well just buy the base V6 Mustang that uses 87 and gets 300hp; and costs a lot less for the car. You lose all benefits of the turbo on the Mustang that puts it above the cheaper V6 model.

Also remember the mpg ratings on the Ecoboost is based on premium too.

By contrast the GT only loses 1% HP by using 87, so a whopping 4.35hp off of 435. I run 87 in my GT just fine. 430.5hp is still plenty.

Yeah, thats the one problem with the ecoboost. It won't run on anything that isn't 93 Ron. It just doesn't work too well without it.

 

[04SloSnake]

At what RPM do you start to see a difference in power? Over 5,500 rpm is where power drops off with 87 octane. Really won't make much difference on a stock car.

 

[Spartan]

So you only went 186 miles/297.6. Geez, I thought it would of at least gone 650km. But how many miles are on your mustang?

You know he commutes in NYC right? That's murder on a car's MPG.

The same person who would run 87 octane in a GT will run 87 octane in an Ecoboost. I wouldn't run 87 in either though.

Not true at all. Even though the EB is designed to run on 87, that is with around 279HP or so. Not the 310HP. At that point the car is definitely going to be more sluggish. You are not going to miss the 1% HP hit in the GT running 87 vs 93 and in fact you wouldn't even notice it ever unless you were tracking/dyno'ing it.

Yeah, thats the one problem with the ecoboost. It won't run on anything that isn't 93 Ron. It just doesn't work too well without it.

That's not accurate or correct. The EB is designed to run on 87. It has to be due to American laws where you might not be able to get higher octane fuels. It will work fine with 87, you just wont get the performance #s out of it. The EPA MPG tests are with 87 octane in the EB also.

It's HP/TQ are based on 93 HP, hence the * in all Ford's marketing materials.

Also remember the mpg ratings on the Ecoboost is based on premium too.

.

Not accurate. The GT and EB were tested with 87 octane with the EPA tests. You can see that in the statistic sections in the data file. Only cars that require premium (like Audis) will say 'premium' in there type of gas section. Lines 205-212 of the Excel spreadsheet show the 2015 Mustangs.

 

[Rhys]

You know he commutes in NYC right? That's murder on a car's MPG.

Whoops, didn't look at his location. Ny is not a good place to live(in my opinion, but its all for work there). I think the only vehicle you should have in NY is a push bike.

 

[04SloSnake]

I'm aware of the power difference between the octanes, I never disputed that. My point is you do not HAVE to run 93 in the EB like was being stated. I don't know why you wouldn't but if you choose it is an option.

 

[Sasuketr]

City range 250 miles. Only highway did a 400 mile road trip once and still had some fuel left!

 

[Dannyho]

Yeah, thats the one problem with the ecoboost. It won't run on anything that isn't 93 Ron. It just doesn't work too well without it.

it only loses power in the high RPMs and given the wintery conditions I wouldn't be getting much use out of that power anyways. also the car runs fine on 87, no issues, so that last line is just plain wrong.

Sponsored