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

[Andy]

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.

I don't know why people think so highly of the EB. Car and Driver estimates that is going to be only 0.1s quicker than the V6. Everybody expected it was going to be lighter and we saw it is not. EPA figures are only slightly better, but you need to use premium, so no cash savings. And I have driven a few boosted engines, if you drive spiritedly and keep it in the boost mpg is probably going to be worse than the V6. Besides the refinement of a six is much bett. A lot less vibration. The EB though boosted is still a four. I have driven the new BMW boosted 328 four cylinder and the old inline six328, old one is much smoother.

Sponsored

 

[minjitta]

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.

My 14' Explorer combine estimate 20mpg, me and wife both driving it and get 21.6 mpg

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

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

I have a 2011 V6 with the 3.7 and an automatic. I do mostly city driving -- I mean real city driving, in Manhattan and Brooklyn getting stuck in two hour traffic jams constantly -- and average around 20 mpg mostly, maybe 18 on tanks with NO highway driving.

However, road trips are a different story. On pure highway rides where I gas up, get on the interstate, and don't tap the break pedal again until I need to refuel, I see 33 or 34. I once topped 35 mpg between Richmond and the South Carolina / Georgia border.

 

[xlover]

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.

Actually in the case of the v6 I disagree, it's a price point engine for rentals and those wanting the cheapest mustang possible. It's likely they may have used cheaper parts in order to maintain the price edge..... The move forward is the ecoboost... Better than the v6 by every measurable

 

[cgm9999]

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.

Fair enough, I didn't qualify my statement. In terms of sales and marketing, the ecoboost campaign has indeed been a huge success, no argument here. In terms real world fuel economy, ecoboost equipped vehicles have failed to equal the deafening hype. Car magazine long term tests and fuelly.com data show less-than-stellar fuel economy results in the real world.

Furthermore, how successful the ecoboost campaign is depends on how you measure "success". If you take into account that Ford's method of gaining mpg is comparably complex and expensive compared to the competition, it looks far less successful in terms of overall costs and manufacturing complexity. To consider the full economic success of ecoboost technology, you have to consider that the ecoboost program was comparably expensive in terms of R&D, technology, manufacturing, supply chain, and marketing costs. There's also the fact that to gain the so-called fuel efficiency benefit from ecoboost, the consumer has to pay a large up front cost for an ecoboost equipped car - $2,000 in an F-150, and $1,500 in a Mustang. In contrast, GM's Active Fuel Management is a simple, reliable system that comes standard with the 4.3, 5.3, and 6.2 liter engines that required very little investment on GM's part. So whose ROI is higher and more successful? Only time will tell...

I'm not saying that turbocharging is bad (my last 4 cars have been turbocharged), or that buying an EB Mustang is a poor choice. Far from it. I'm merely saying that Ford's marketing department is out of sync with what Ford's engineering department is currently able to accomplish and that this disparity will continue to disappoint consumers whose expectations are pumped up by advertising. That said, I'm sure Ford's naming of their new turbocharged engines (ECOboos) was purely coincidental...

There's been huge amounts of hype around ecoboost for awhile now. If you don't believe me, search a few threads on Ford-centered forums before the first ecoboost hit the market and take notice of all those quixotic pie-in-the-sky "predictions" about how amazing these engines were going to be and you'll understand what I mean about the hype machine failing to deliver. Hell, you have people on this very forum that were truly expecting the EB Mustang to be rated high 30s on the highway despite weighing over 3500 lbs, having 6 speeds, and being RWD.

The real test of how successful the ecoboost strategy is is how many first-time ecoboost buyers would buy another one.

 

[aspensilver]

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

Most people overestimate their mileage. They look at the mpg estimate while they are driving 65 and think that's their combined. Or they rely on the computer which is usually wrong.

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

Pie in the sky. I also have many bridges for you, good price

 

[mustangfamily03]

I don't know why people think so highly of the EB. Car and Driver estimates that is going to be only 0.1s quicker than the V6. Everybody expected it was going to be lighter and we saw it is not. EPA figures are only slightly better, but you need to use premium, so no cash savings. And I have driven a few boosted engines, if you drive spiritedly and keep it in the boost mpg is probably going to be worse than the V6. Besides the refinement of a six is much bett. A lot less vibration. The EB though boosted is still a four. I have driven the new BMW boosted 328 four cylinder and the old inline six328, old one is much smoother.

I would have to agree on the fuel savings = 0. But the .1 seconds quicker I will have to see for myself in testing. First off let me say the 3.7 V6 is a great engine, but the ecoboost will have the low end where it counts. I bet the ecoboost and the GT have better 0-60 times than the previous models. I would almost bet the v6 has a slightly better 0-60. Why? Because the chassis. The flat takeoff without the squat will help. The 5.0 has charge motion plates in the intake for many reasons, one of them to raise the low end torque to help ensure better acceleration. Many were upset because the GT only went up 15hp, although I think most of that is over, but just because it's the 50th anniversary ford is not going to give it a substantial increase. The hp and tq has to be incremental to the market. You can't jump straight to 450+ hp and not have anywhere else to go.

PS sorry for the rant. I know you didn't say anything about that. It's just built up frustration. I like coming on this site and seeing all of the fresh info as the plot unfolds, but some of the new info threads get bogged down. Everyone is always complaining because they expected ford to wave a magic wand and give them more power and 35 mpg.

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

Most people overestimate their mileage. They look at the mpg estimate while they are driving 65 and think that's their combined. Or they rely on the computer which is usually wrong.

Sorry; I hand-calculate every tank and have seen 33-34 regularly and 35 once.

Granted, that's pure gas station - gas station runs on flat interstate right below the speed limit, with no traffic and no intermediate stops -- no food breaks or piss breaks or stretch-your-legs breaks. Just six straight hours on cruise control.

 

[SeventhWard]

I'm surprised. I thought the Ecoboost would have a higher MPG rating just like most of the guys who've commented before me, and I too am a little shocked that they've detuned (or downplayed) the MPG ratings for the V6. Very interesting.

One things for sure, I'm more confident in my decision to go GT. Speaking for the 2015 models, it doesn't seem the difference in efficiency is going to be enough to sacrifice the V8 experience.

On a personal note, I'd like to imagine the possibility of this GT being the last gas-powered car I'll every buy. Projecting forward 5-6 years I'm looking to grab an electric vehicle so from that standpoint, when it comes to internal combustion engines I wanna go out with the big dog. If somehow I was able to keep it for the long run, it'd be cool to be the old-timer with the old gas-powered 5.0 in the garage.

-SeventhWard

 

[akwal07]

so the v6 1. gained weight 2. lost options 3. lost power 4. lost mpgs. That is definitely not a car worth trading up for. My 2011 auto with airaid intake/roush exhaust/ bama 91 tune is getting 25 mpg combined on this tank, so then that makes the ecoboost also disappointing. Still great cars for a first mustang, the v6 is great for one of your first cars, but if your already coming from a mustang especially a 3.7l i think its 5.0 or bust

 

[JolleyRoger]

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 :/

This was pretty close to my experience with my 2011 V6 Auto. I had the 3.31 gears also and driving just over 70 i would get a true 30-31 MPG. Most people were amazed that I could get that when they would come out and say " looks fast, must eat the gas right?" When i said I could get 31 MPG:shocked: .

 

[mustangfamily03]

I've got two 3.5 EB vehicles and I think that they are excellent engines. Do I think they get v6 mpg and v8 power? No. I think my truck gets big v8 power with small v8 mpg. My explorer only gets slightly better mileage than my truck because I drive the damn thing like a race car. That thing will fly. My buddy has a 2012 v6 stang and gets pissed at me because my explorer whips his ass every time we have lined them up. But he loves it though. I I like his car too. It's nice.

 

[mustangfamily03]

On a personal note, I'd like to imagine the possibility of this GT being the last gas-powered car I'll every buy. Projecting forward 5-6 years I'm looking to grab an electric vehicle so from that standpoint, when it comes to internal combustion engines I wanna go out with the big dog. If somehow I was able to keep it for the long run, it'd be cool to be the old-timer with the old gas-powered 5.0 in the garage.

That's awesome! I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

I don't think anyone will be disappointed when they actually get behind the wheel. I had an 11 GT premium, and comparing it to the 15 ecoboost I sat in yesterday, despite the similarities in the interiors in pictures, it felt like a different car. More composed.

 

[akwal07]

This was pretty close to my experience with my 2011 V6 Auto. I had the 3.31 gears also and driving just over 70 i would get a true 30-31 MPG. Most people were amazed that I could get that when they would come out and say " looks fast, must eat the gas right?" When i said I could get 31 MPG:shocked: .

you know whats funny people tell me the same thing with my v6 auto, then i tell them well im averaging 25/26 and they have that dumb priceless look on their face and say "oh" then spew something about american cars not being reliable.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

Pie in the sky. I also have many bridges for you, good price

I had considered buying one specifically to develop parts for, but don't have time for the R&D of a new project.

I think you will be surprised once they start hitting the streets and people start tinkering.

Sponsored