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

[souprmage]

Are these for sure the official numbers? Any chance these are just placeholders?

How exactly does a mfg. exactly affect the tests to be 'conservative'. The test is run using very specific test routines that require the driver maintain a specified mph for each second of the test. There is a City and Highway test. There's also some new tests: High-Speed, Air-Conditioning, and Cold Temperature.

I'd imagine they have to use the production tune in the car or that would be pointless.

The mfg. runs the tests, provides their data, then the National Vehicles and Fuel Emissions Laboratory runs the test and corroborate the mfg. data.

Sponsored

 

[cgm9999]

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.

^This

It definitely seems like Ford needs to get their crap together. If their marketing team is going to crow loudly to anyone and everyone that ecoboost is the way forward, then they need to tell their engineering team; so far, the success of the ecoboost campaign has been mixed, and mixed results are the same thing as failure in my book.

 

[motoroid65]

so far, the success of the ecoboost campaign has been mixed, and mixed results are the same thing as failure in my book.

This could not be further from the truth. No matter how you like or dislike these EPA numbers, the EB campaign has been a huge success for the company.

 

[Dub347sbf]

This could not be further from the truth. No matter how you like or dislike these EPA numbers, the EB campaign has been a huge success for the company.

QFT, I know of F-150 owners who jumped ship because of the 3.5 from their Rams and GMCs. They all want a 2015 F-150 too. The EPA ratings are lower than I expected. New testing probably played a part. I want to compare against new models in 15 before I put too much weight on them. No pun intended.

 

[Andy]

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

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/label-2008.htm

According to this this, the EPA test procedures were last changed for the 2008 model year. The old V6, if I am not mistaken was introduced in 2011.

 

[IGJoe2192]

While EPA ratings do somewhat interest me, It doesn't really have an impact on my choice of Mustang. I live 7 miles one way from work, MPG isn't of my concern. The EB does intrigue me and I have always been a fan of the SVO 'stangs from the mid 80's but my heart lies with the 5.0L.

 

[motoroid65]

QFT, I know of F-150 owners who jumped ship because of the 3.5 from their Rams and GMCs. They all want a 2015 F-150 too. The EPA ratings are lower than I expected. New testing probably played a part. I want to compare against new models in 15 before I put too much weight on them. No pun intended.

Agreed. New testing probably played a part as well as the recent lawsuits. More curious to see how real world numbers will match up to the current lineup.

 

[aspensilver]

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/label-2008.htm

According to this this, the EPA test procedures were last changed for the 2008 model year. The old V6, if I am not mistaken was introduced in 2011.

Wow I must have read some misinformation then, I'll give way to your info unless someone else has something that disproves.

 

[mj]

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

I'm surprised that people thought the EB would get 32+ highway. My Focus ST is rated 23 city, 32 highway, 26 combined -- and that's in a car that weighs 300 lbs less, and has a smaller engine with 58 less HP.

The EPA #'s on the Focus ST are easily achieved with normal driving ( my average over 24,000 mi is 27.3 ), and I bet that the Mustang should hit it's #'s as well.

 

[xlover]

The 2011 v6 manual was only 29 highway so it's pretty comparable.

Also manufacturers have been harder on themselves in EPA testing lately because customers have been unable to reproduce due to the selective nature of the driving styles in the test.

I would expect the v6 auto and ecoboost auto to be higher than the manual models just as they have been since the 6 speed auto was introduced. I would guess the v6 will match or be down 1mpg from 2014

 

[Andy]

The 2011 v6 manual was only 29 highway so it's pretty comparable.

Also manufacturers have been harder on themselves in EPA testing lately because customers have been unable to reproduce due to the selective nature of the driving styles in the test.

I would expect the v6 auto and ecoboost auto to be higher than the manual models just as they have been since the 6 speed auto was introduced. I would guess the v6 will match or be down 1mpg from 2014

True. Combined EPA are down 1 mpg each for the auto and the manual V6, 2014 vs. 2015. But everything else is speculation. Whether Ford were more conservative with the mpg or underrated the HP figures. What we have on paper so far says the new V6 is worse than the old one by 1 mpg and 5 hp, although the new car is supposed to have better aerodynamics. It is reasonable to expect development to move forward or at least stay the same, not backward.

 

[oyitsagreen]

How strange. As a V6 owner, I'm slightly disappointed that Ford is trying to kill the V6. It's a nice engine.

I don't have extremely relevant info to compare this to, but I'll share my experiences anyways.

Back when my 2011 V6 Auto was stock and new I didn't do a whole lot of highway driving.

I'd guess my average was between 23-25 mpg for mostly city.

Since then my car has added:
1. JLT CAI
2. MagnaFlow Cat-Back Exhaust
3. BAMA Performance Tune (always run on 93 fuel "race" tune)
4.Lowering Springs/Rear Lower Control Arms
5. 3.31 gears installed from the factory

Nowadays nearly all my driving is highway. I don't drive like a grandma, I drive normally, albeit more spiritedly than most drivers. The car says I'm averaging 28 mpg, and I usually travel between 70-80 mph for 60 miles round trip. My range is usually at least 420-450 and I've seen as high as 470 miles on a single tank. This isn't from as soon as I fill up, It's when I'm down to the last gallon or so.

So that works out to at the least 28 mpg to nearly 30 mpg.

I'd imagine if you drove 60 or 65 mph and accelerated reasonably (slowly) you could achieve slightly better than what Ford has rated.

I wouldn't sweat these numbers. When you drive normally, you'll be rather close if not on the mark, and you won't see a huge difference in range or mpgs.

I think you will all be pleased whether you buy an EB or a GT. V6 I am sad to say, maybe not :/

 

[mustangfamily03]

I hate to try to get in on this but I can't read these comments and not say something. All I hear is I want more power and more mpgs. The current v6 I agree they may be dropping the mileage for purposes of promoting the ecoboost. But the turbo 4 came about because ford knew that if they upped the power on the six the mileage would fall. So to up power and keep the mileage the same, voila the ecoboost. You can't keep going up in power with a naturally aspirated engine and steadily increase the mpg. The 40 lb ft of torque in the ecoboost will blow the doors off of the v6. Most will probably opt for lower gear ratios anyways. I mean I understand the concern but I like to be realistic.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

I swear I'd read people knocking down 33 on road trips at interstate speeds when the 3.7 first came out...?

Food for thought...neighbor just bought a '15 WRX, rated at 28 highway w/ DIT 2.0. Recent 500 mile trip awarded him w/ 30-31 at 85 mph.

I think real world will prove at least the highway rating very conservative. Also, most EB's gain a bit w/ an aftermarket tune as well...if that's your thing...

There's been a lot of talk of premium being req'd...did I miss the memo?

One last thing, for mpg, use the LOWEST octane available for the predicted driving scenarios. Higher octanes take too long to burn in the chamber for low load situations, ie steady state highway driving.

I'm holding out to see if the aftermarket can provide me w/ a 400 hp 34 mpg EB.

 

[Swoope]

i guess it is not odd that these are the last numbers posted..

a bit disappointed in the eb #s. and it moves my other car choice up a notch or two.

now lets get on to the testing and reviews, as none of us really now crap about this car for sure..

beers

Sponsored