2015 Mustang EPA DATA!!!! for most models.... UPDATE 2 ALL MODELS

[stilesg57]

So 2011 they made such a big deal that the v6 got up to 31 & now the 2.3 is only 31
and the v6 is mysteriously down to 28? Sounds like a bunch of games.

I think those are the #s they got, but I think they gamed it to get them lower and make the EB look really good.

In other news...GREAT EB NUMBERS! Really happy with the combined cycle #.

As for the auto/manual thing: I've found autos are consistent, whereas I can drive a manual to beat any same-engined auto in an MPG contest. I can also dump more gas with a stick than with an auto too Much more depends on the driver when a car has a manny.

Sponsored

 

[Reds197]

Buy what you want. The difference in fuel economy is so minimal between all models who cares! Hopefully your budget can afford 2 miles a gallon.

 

[FiveLiterDreamer]

interestingly enough foundry wheels on the v6 are $995 and foundry wheels on the ecoboost are $155

 

[zackmd1]

interestingly enough foundry wheels on the v6 are $995 and foundry wheels on the ecoboost are $155

On the V6 they are making you buy an entire package that includes fog lights, power seats, a blade spoiler, and the wheels. On the ecoboost they are just an optional wheel.

 

[Tony Alonso]

Well obviously. I was saying that since the mileage was last to be released I'm sure it's one of the things they were trying to ring as much out of the car as they could before sign off for production.

Got ya. My guess is that the engineering signoffs were already done awhile back and that the final examples of production-spec engines before the start of full production is where the test engines were sourced. This is one of these things that we probably will care less about when we are out driving our own cars

 

[BigShow]

Disappointed. The V6 didn't seem like good option before these numbers were released, now it's worse. For my money the fuel economy of the EB is too low, I can't imagine why I would chose an EB over a GT.

 

[Nitro]

So I guess 17/28 for the V8 isn't going to happen. I figured the S550 would be more slippery and thus get better highway mpg. I guess not.

 

[YBMatt]

Finally these numbers are out ever since Ford came out with a new turbo-4. One thing I do wish is what gasoline grade such as E0, E10, E15 the MPG numbers were attained at. I am assuming it is an average of E0 and E10 because California has the highest standard in the US with no E0-87 octane at pump for regular while everyone east of California has access to it.

 

[likeaboss]

Disappointed. The V6 didn't seem like good option before these numbers were released, now it's worse. For my money the fuel economy of the EB is too low, I can't imagine why I would chose an EB over a GT.

For most it will be price that leads them to the Eco.

 

[Andy]

Very disappointing from Ford. The first disappointment was the HP numbers. I am looking at the V6 engine. I thought products are supposed to be developed and improved over time. So first the V6 was down 5 HP. I guess the wishful thinking was: They must have made it more efficient. Now the mileage is down 3 mpg. A lot of people are saying, they want to make the EB look better. I don't expect them to make one thing or another look better or worse. I expect them to give us the real numbers. In any case they did a very poor job with the engines. So they either:

1. Lied before that the V6 was 31 mpg
2. Are lying now that it is 28 mpg
3. In the last 3 years they made the same engine worse.

To top it off the EB gets the same mpg as the V6 was getting before, but requires premium fuel. There are a few people I expect to tell the truth: my doctor, my bank, and my car manufacturer. I was so excited to buy this car, but now I am reconsidering. I am a big fan of Ford and I like the design, but all the numbers that have come out so far are worse than the previous model.

 

[JoeDogInKC]

Could these less than impressive numbers solely be due to the recent EPA changes and how Ford was listed as having their numbers not be accurate before? We've all seen EPA estimates on our vehicles before and then not being able to easily match those numbers. I was always off by 2 - 3 MPG from what the ratings showed. I'm thinking that these numbers "appear" lower because they are simply more accurate.

 

[Andy]

Also if they are supposedly promoting the EB to improve their CAFE numbers. How is that going to happen if the EB is not rated better than the old V6?

 

[Old 5 Oh]

Might be more smoke and mirrors by Ford though to sell more Ecoboost since it didn't get anywhere near what everyone expected. Ya know 32+ for the Highway

This is really possible. Need some air between the V6 and EB. But I have heard of V6 owners actually hitting 28-29 on the highway, and there's no reason to think the actual mileage would be worse this year. I have been saying the V6 will be better in the real world.

 

[stilesg57]

For my money the fuel economy of the EB is too low, I can't imagine why I would chose an EB over a GT.

I can think of about 8,000 reasons other than gas mileage for choosing an EB PP over a GT PP....

 

[aspensilver]

Also if they are supposedly promoting the EB to improve their CAFE numbers. How is that going to happen if the EB is not rated better than the old V6?

The EPA test is harder now, the old V6 would do worse.

Sponsored