Post your MPG's

[mj]

I had much the same conversation with myself about the EB. The direct injection and carbon fouling worried me. I decided a big ol' Coyote and automatic would be the trouble-free way to go 150K in five years. But you are right, the 3.7 will do it, too.

Even though the N/A engines should theoretically have fewer long-term issues, I see no reason why we can't see high mileage EB motors too. There are already many 100k+ Ecoboost F150's running without any major problems.

I don't see why that shouldn't translate to the 2.3 as well.

Sponsored

 

[derieuz]

Man you guys are good at keeping your foot off the pedal! a majority of my driving has been stop and go traffic although.

I'm averaging 15.5 MPG, on 93 Octane Ethanol-Free Gas. Picture will be shown once my car comes back from the shop so I can review my secret aftermarket goodie being installed

 

[zackmd1]

Even though the N/A engines should theoretically have fewer long-term issues, I see no reason why we can't see high mileage EB motors too. There are already many 100k+ Ecoboost F150's running without any major problems.

I don't see why that shouldn't translate to the 2.3 as well.

It's not so much the engine I would be worried about... It would be the supporting components like the turbo and such. My mother's 2011 flex 3.5 Ecoboost has 120,000 and it sounds as though one or both of the turbos are about to go. They haven't failed yet but there is definitely a loss of boost/power. Also just like old 5 oh said the carbon buildup issues had me worried.

 

[Old 5 Oh]

Even though the N/A engines should theoretically have fewer long-term issues, I see no reason why we can't see high mileage EB motors too. There are already many 100k+ Ecoboost F150's running without any major problems.

I don't see why that shouldn't translate to the 2.3 as well.

I hope that becomes true. A car is just too expensive for me to be an early adopter of such an expensive component. Or so I told myself, checking the box that gets me 435 hp.

 

[rdnbrbk]

gearing and trans choices?

Hey i'd be interested in knowing what transmission and rear end gear ratio you are all running as well? That would give us a little more context for all your mileage numbers. I think all manual GTs have 3.73s but beyond that i dont know much else. Thanks for all you've given so far.

 

[SunkenShadow]

From Ford's Build & Price:

Mustang is stock with 3.31 gearing. PP is 3.73 gearing. Supposedly they EPA tested a GT with the PP, but someone else can chime-in on that.

 

[RB510]

UPDATE!!

So, I guess after some breaking-in of the engine, gas mileage has improved. I have not changed my driving style and pretty much this is still 40/60 city/highway:

A little more acceptable given the performance nature of the car in its configuration.

 

[peetucket]

Can anyone with a GT or Eco who lives in a hilly area comment on the effect on MPG? We live on top of a large steep hill (~800 feet up and down every day to go anywhere), and this tends to reduce the overall average mileage on our other cars by nearly 15% over the EPA estimates stated. Just curious if cars with more power are less or more affected by hills.

 

[RB510]

Can anyone with a GT or Eco who lives in a hilly area comment on the effect on MPG? We live on top of a large steep hill (~800 feet up and down every day to go anywhere), and this tends to reduce the overall average mileage on our other cars by nearly 15% over the EPA estimates stated. Just curious if cars with more power are less or more affected by hills.

There is a large uphill portion of my daily commute. When I go up the hill, if I keep it on cruise control, the "instantaneous MPG" green-tank-meter-thing drops down to where it is when I accelerate normally.

The upshot here is that you are also going DOWN the hill and in so doing, should have pretty much max fuel economy during that portion.

 

[peetucket]

The upshot here is that you are also going DOWN the hill and in so doing, should have pretty much max fuel economy during that portion.

What surprised me about the Prius was that the coming up hill lost you a lot more than you gained by going downhill. I was a Physics major, so I know there are losses in various places, but a Prius literally gets over 100 MPG downhill (it shuts off the engine and lets you coast in electric only mode). The return trip up the hill is around 15-20 MPG though, which makes the average somewhere around 35-40, instead of the 50 MPG you get on flatlands. Just not sure if the Prius has such a small engine that when you ask a lot of it (steep incline, uphill for over a mile) it just kills the MPG more than a "regular" engine would.

 

[Patrick S]

3rd day - i am sitting at 16.3 MPG. i sit behind WAY too many trucks on the way to work...

The road from my home to the freeway starts out flat, becomes hilly, goes through a town with an oppressively low speed limit, with an oppressively intimidating looking state trooper sitting at the corner, who is just itching to get me, i am sure.

This weekend when i am free from the bonds of my oppressively ever present job, i will see how well the throttle works on a back country road.

 

[Patrick S]

What surprised me about the Prius was that the coming up hill lost you a lot more than you gained by going downhill. I was a Physics major, so I know there are losses in various places, but a Prius literally gets over 100 MPG downhill (it shuts off the engine and lets you coast in electric only mode). The return trip up the hill is around 15-20 MPG though, which makes the average somewhere around 35-40, instead of the 50 MPG you get on flatlands. Just not sure if the Prius has such a small engine that when you ask a lot of it (steep incline, uphill for over a mile) it just kills the MPG more than a "regular" engine would.

it should be expected that you lose a lot more than you gain in all aspects of driving a Prius. :lol:

 

[Todd15Fastback]

^^^^^End of thread

 

[dcspears]

averaging 17.5 mpg with 300 miles on the odometer. mostly stop and go/city.

 

[Old 5 Oh]

What surprised me about the Prius was that the coming up hill lost you a lot more than you gained by going downhill. I was a Physics major, so I know there are losses in various places, but a Prius literally gets over 100 MPG downhill (it shuts off the engine and lets you coast in electric only mode). The return trip up the hill is around 15-20 MPG though, which makes the average somewhere around 35-40, instead of the 50 MPG you get on flatlands. Just not sure if the Prius has such a small engine that when you ask a lot of it (steep incline, uphill for over a mile) it just kills the MPG more than a "regular" engine would.

Not really surprising. The physics problem is air drag particularly, also tire and mechanical losses, and losses in the generator. You are not gaining 100% going downhill, there is drag to overcome both downhill and uphill, so descending and then ascending is not equivalent to driving on the flat.

Sponsored