Option Packages Effect on Mustang MPGs - Page 2 - Ford Mustang Forum
View Poll Results: Does Your Mustang Hit the Offical MPG #s?
No 12 38.71%
Yes 14 45.16%
No, but I drive with a heavy foot 4 12.90%
Yes, but I drive with a light foot 1 3.23%
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
glock22357
Guest
 
glock22357's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a
I get wicked mileage.


Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Grimace427
Guest
 
Grimace427's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a
I don't care what motivations people have to track their fuel mileage, I only care about how people actually track their mileage. For people who go off the onboard trip computer, you are doing it wrong. Hand calculate each and every drop or don't bother.


As to the original post, the primary performance options that have a dramatic effect on fuel mileage are the different gear ratios. That would be something a potential buyer would need to research and be familiar with on their own before getting behind the wheel.

GT Member
5.0L Member
S197 Member
 
powerwhee's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Location: LA
Posts: 2,153
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radioguy View Post
Yes, I have been keeping the same data for the 2013 GT auto vert. Here is the data for the first 4400 miles.
On the 2011 Mustang V6 auto vert I was running 87 octane. On the 2013 GT auto vert I am running 93 octane with the
FRPP tune.

Looks like the gt, while not having as large of a discrepancy in the mpg range, is consistent in getting close to 20mpg all the time which is still great.


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com Free App

1st Time at the 1/4 Mile Best E.T out of 4 passes (Without Ported Intake Manifold):
Uncorrected 2500DA [email protected] MPH w/ a 2.17 60".Corrected [email protected] MPH
Ford Racing 4.10 Gears/ Borla S Type Axleback/BBK Chrome Equal Length Shorties/Lethal Performance Catless H Pipe/JLT CAI/Ported Upper and Lower Intake Manifolds/Steeda 91 Octane Tune/ SR Springs
powerwhee is offline  
 
GT Member
5.0L Member
S197 Member
 
powerwhee's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Location: LA
Posts: 2,153
 
And to the op, my mods haven't done much to my mpg. I can easily get over 30 mpg on the highway cruising at 70 mph.




Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com Free App

1st Time at the 1/4 Mile Best E.T out of 4 passes (Without Ported Intake Manifold):
Uncorrected 2500DA [email protected] MPH w/ a 2.17 60".Corrected [email protected] MPH
Ford Racing 4.10 Gears/ Borla S Type Axleback/BBK Chrome Equal Length Shorties/Lethal Performance Catless H Pipe/JLT CAI/Ported Upper and Lower Intake Manifolds/Steeda 91 Octane Tune/ SR Springs
powerwhee is offline  
SHELBY GT 350 Member
5.0L Member
S197 Member
 
slorydn1's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Location: New Bern
Posts: 6,081
                 
Garage
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimace427 View Post
I don't care what motivations people have to track their fuel mileage, I only care about how people actually track their mileage. For people who go off the onboard trip computer, you are doing it wrong. Hand calculate each and every drop or don't bother.


As to the original post, the primary performance options that have a dramatic effect on fuel mileage are the different gear ratios. That would be something a potential buyer would need to research and be familiar with on their own before getting behind the wheel.
+1

I really could care less about the mileage in and of itself (I mean, our F150 gets 13.0 mpg and it gets used the most out of any of our vehicles). I am just a numbers guy and I like to keep track of things. It would be useless for me to just go by the computer, as the numbers wouldn't be right.


Hers:2012 Mustang GT Premium,6M,Kona Blue Exterior/Charcoal Interior, 400A, HID/Security Pkg ,Comfort Pkg.
[COLOR="DimGray"][B]His: 2014 Mustang GT Premium,6M,Sterling Gray Exterior/Charcoal Interior,400A, Reverse Sensing/Security Pkg, Comfort Pkg SMR# 3635
slorydn1 is offline  
post #21 of 29 (permalink) Old 01-01-2013 Thread Starter
Rookie
 
MPGomatic's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Location: the swamps of jersey
Posts: 12
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerwhee View Post
And to the op, my mods haven't done much to my mpg. I can easily get over 30 mpg on the highway cruising at 70 mph.
Nice. I'm most interested in the before-and-after on the 1.5-inch drop. Eibach's done some preliminary tests that indicate to have a significantly positive effect. Lower = less aerodynamic drag/higher fuel efficiency at speed. That's why the big Audi & Merc SUVs, as well as the Jeep Grand Cherokee lower themselves on the Interstate ...
MPGomatic is offline  
GT Member
5.0L Member
S197 Member
 
powerwhee's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Location: LA
Posts: 2,153
 
I started a thread about my springs recently saying that I notice a huge positive difference on the freeway. In terms of acceleration and handling the springs are ten times better than stock. I can accurately switch lanes accelerating at 100 mph with no body roll at all. I would have never attempted that without my sprigns because the ride is so much more planted. I drove on a flat straight highway called the 405 on a stretch where it was opened up to 8 lanes and completely straight; I did a real time test to see what I would average. Going 60 I got 36.1 mpg going 65 34.3 70 31.8 and 75 29 mpg. I was resetting the onboard computer each time with cruise control on getting to speed than resetting the computer and waiting 5 minute for the gauge to stabilize at a number it would stay at. Pretty good highway mileage but of course no freeway is completely straight and level all the time. when i say straight section I mean for about 30 miles no incline at all. also it's at sea level, in 40 degree ambient temperatures.

I might add that when I put on my tires and wheels I was seeing a 2 mpg decrease on the highway which I think the springs made up for and I'm back to what I was at with my 215/65/17 energy saver bicycle tires.


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com Free App

1st Time at the 1/4 Mile Best E.T out of 4 passes (Without Ported Intake Manifold):
Uncorrected 2500DA [email protected] MPH w/ a 2.17 60".Corrected [email protected] MPH
Ford Racing 4.10 Gears/ Borla S Type Axleback/BBK Chrome Equal Length Shorties/Lethal Performance Catless H Pipe/JLT CAI/Ported Upper and Lower Intake Manifolds/Steeda 91 Octane Tune/ SR Springs
powerwhee is offline  
GT Member
5.0L Member
S197 Member
 
412horses's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Columbus
Posts: 2,458
 
Of course the sticker doesn't reflect the exact combination of options that are on the car.

Even with today's limited number of options and packages can you imagine how long it would take to get any new model launched if the manufacturer had to compute every possible option combination?

As to my results: my car behaves better than sticker for city but I really can't say on highway because I don't ever drive at the speed the cars are tested at.

Scott | 2012 GT Premium Coupe Performance White 6R80 HID 64M Wheels Ford All-Weather Pony Mats & Trunk Liner GT500/GT Rear Mud Flap Set Ohio's Horses License Plate Raxiom Aero Tails

If you love your dog, get a microchip, they really work! My lost dog was back home in just under 24 hours thanks to the good citizens who called the county and the microchip that told animal control exactly where he lived.
412horses is offline  
Apprentice
 
ComputerGuy's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: West
Posts: 96
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPGomatic View Post
Happy 2013, 'Stang Fanatics!

I tested a 2013 Mustang V6 Premium not so long ago and came up with some interesting MPG results. After taking a look at the specs, I began working on the theory that specific option packages can have a direct impact on fuel economy. These changes are not reflected on 'official' EPA mileage ratings shown on the window sticker ...

Here's the review video:

2013 Ford Mustang V6 Premium Review : MPGomatic - YouTube

... and the Full Review: 2013 Ford Mustang V6 Premium Review | MPGomatic

My big goal for 2013 is to work the reverse of this. With luck, I'll have something to share in a few weeks ...
I have not had a chance to watch the posted video yet. On the current tank, the computer is predicting right around 13 MPG on my 2011 Mustang GT automatic. My Mustang has been parked for winter since the middle of November, so that probably justifies the lower than EPA estimated mileage on this tank.

I think that asking whether option packages affect mileage might be asking the wrong question. Through the first 26,055.3 miles, my 2011 Mustang GT automatic averaged 27.0721 miles per (U.S.) gallon. Did it hit the EPA estimated highway mileage? Well not exactly, it is rated at 18 city and 25 highway. Did the option packages affect the mileage? Yes, but not exactly. The 18 inch polished aluminum wheels improved the appearance of the car, the scream of the 5.0 under hard acceleration, and the navigation system helped to keep me from getting lost; all three contributed to the car being driven must more frequently than required, and for longer periods of time, thus reducing the effects of cold engine starts on the fuel mileage.

I think that looking at driving habits may yield more usable data. I posted the following in June, after averaging 31.3869 MPG on a 3,123 mile cruise in the Mustang:
---
Here is what I try to do:
* Do not spend a lot of time warming up the car if the first half mile to a mile of the drive is under 30 MPH (this might be bad for the engine, but it is what I do).

* If I expect to sit at a railroad crossing for a couple of minutes, I shut off the engine. I also avoid taking the car through drive-throughs.

* Avoid sitting at stop lights as best as possible. If the light is turning red ahead, tap the brakes a couple of times to let the car behind know that you are slowing, then use engine braking to slow the car – if you can keep the car rolling until the light turns green, it will take less fuel to get back up to speed. Some cities have timed the stop lights so that if you leave one light at a normal pace and obey the speed limit, the next light will turn green just as your car starts to approach the light.

* Leave a good size gap between your car and the car in front – if the car in front slows or stops, use engine braking to slow your car, in the process consuming the good sized gap.

* The speed limit signs are not just on the roads to support government budgets, drive the speed limit when possible.

* Fill up at good quality gas stations with premium. Locally, I used the Phillips 66 92 octane because I found that gas from that station yielded better fuel mileage than the other stations (one of the local Marathon stations have stickers on their pumps stating that the fuel may contain up to 10% ethanol, while the Phillips 66 station pumps do not have a similar sticker). When I am on a long cruise, I typically try to fill up at Marathon stations with 93 octane (some of the station’s pumps had the 10% ethanol sticker, while others did not - I am pretty sure that I achieved 31+ regardless of whether or not the stickers were present at the station). If I could not find a Marathon station, I searched for a Shell station. On one fill up I had to use Exxon gas, which yielded the lowest gas mileage (but that drop in mileage could have been due to the terrain).

* If you are hearing a rumble from the stock mufflers, you are wasting fuel (or if the radar detector flies off the dash, that is also a sign that you are wasting fuel). That probably means that you need to shift before hitting 2,000 RPM. I try to perform 5 or 6 hard accelerations per tank of fuel – it is a performance car after all, but I am not sure if this helps or hurts fuel efficiency in the long run.

* Keep the tires aired to 35 psi.

* Keep road rage to a minimum – passing a farm tractor at 80 MPH to prove a point is excessive, but sometimes necessary.
---

For the record, the above tips did not work too well on my 2004 F-150 4x4 that averaged 13.71 miles for gallon between June 2011 and June 2012. That 5.4 liter engine with 3.73 gears likes to drink fuel, and it did not help that the truck had one or more brakes dragging to various degrees. My 2013 F-150 4x4 (and AWD option) with 3.73 gears and the 5.0 responds much like my Mustang, just with less throttle lag and less engine braking. I was quite surprised to see the overly optimistic MPG readout on the F-150 claiming to be getting 20.9 MPG roughly 59 miles into the second tank of fuel (87 octane). The readout showed 19.8 MPG yesterday on a roughly 95 mile round trip with 2 cold starts in 29 degree (F) weather. That 5.0 is one remarkable engine design.

I think that I have drifted a bit off topic. Yes, the option packages might make a difference in average MPG: nice looking rims and navigation might increase MPG, and the AWD option (aka F-150 Lariat) apparently hurts MPG.

Attached is my running MPG chart for the Mustang, and a cell phone capture of the 2013 F-150 claiming to hit 20.9 MPG.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	ComputerGuy2011MustangGTMileage.png
Views:	125
Size:	44.3 KB
ID:	169075   Click image for larger version

Name:	ComputerGuy2013F150-3.JPG
Views:	96
Size:	45.4 KB
ID:	169076  

Last edited by ComputerGuy; 01-01-2013 at 09:25 PM. Reason: Added whitespace between paragraphs
ComputerGuy is offline  
PONY Member
 
KingofQueens's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Location: Queens
Posts: 549
 
Ive been averaging like 11mpg through 5k miles.

90% streets/10% highway in NYC.

2012 GT Premium/Race Red/6MT/3.73 gears/Borla S-type


Ordered-9/27/11
Build-10/28/11
ETA-11/20/11
KingofQueens is offline  
PONY Member
 
GM Convert's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Location: Suburbs
Posts: 324
 
I have no problems exceeding EPA estimates of fuel mileage. It's easy to do, even with some occassional spirited driving. In fact, the lowest mileage I've ever seen out of my V6 is 21.8, and that was with me being REALLY lead-footed for that tank. Usually I hover around the 24 mpg mark with about 80% of my driving done in rush hour city driving. On a flat highway at a steady 70mph, I get 31.4 mpg even with the air conditioner turned on.

And yes. my averages are hand calculated, even though the on board computer has never been off my calculations by more than .1 mpg.
GM Convert is offline  
Apprentice
 
Night-Mare's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 146
 
I get an average of 17 MPG in my car, mixed driving with maybe 70% highway. I just did my second oil change though (quite early) and filled up and I am seeing a little over 21 mpg now (and seems to be slowly getting higher). Needless to say, I'll be thrilled to see actually advertised numbers or close to them. Getting 220-250 miles per tank of premium is ridiculous. Not that I bought the car for that reason at all, but it would be nice especially considering that I baby the car and drive ultra conservative.

HIS: "Night-Mare": 2012 Mustang GT/CS, Black on Black, MT, 3.73 Gears, HID's, Security/Comfort/Electronics Packages. #2 of ????

HERS: "Blue Steel": 2012 Mustang V6, Kona Blue, AT.
Night-Mare is offline  
PONY Member
 
iBookmaster's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Lewisetta
Posts: 274
 
I have had brand new and traded as follows: 2007 Silver V6 Premium to 2008 Candy Red V8 GT/CS to the current 2012 Silver V6 Premium. Why did I go back to the V6? The biggest sellers that I didn't have in the previous 2 cars were the better gas mileage, smoother/quieter ride, Ford navigation and power that is very close to the 2008 V8. Those plus the 2012 V6 was about $5000 lower priced than the V8. If I did mostly city driving, I would have stuck with my 2008 GT or bought a 5.0. But, I knew I would be doing a lot of highway driving and getting 30-33 mpg on this V6 is actually a big factor. I feel like I have a sports car with economy car mpgs. To me, the only reason to have the V8 is the power and exhaust sound. Other than that, it's the same as the V6.

2011 White V6 Premium Convertible Mustang
Automatic Transmission
Ford Navigation
Stone Leather Heated Seats
Reverse Camera
Magnaflow Street Axle Back Mufflers
iBookmaster is offline  
SHELBY GT 350 Member
 
Strange Mud's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: small town CT
Posts: 5,387
         
I get 2/3 mpg worse tahn epa #s (math) I read later that the epa#s do NOT take into account the 3.31/sticky Perf pack tires. Mpg was not the reason I went with the 6 Cost was. I wonder if the V8 guys are subsidising us v6 guys because of CAFE #'s. The v8 is quite a bit more than the v6 compared to what you get. I readily admit it to being a better car just not that much better (opinion).

2012 V6 traded in for a 2017 VW GTI.
Strange Mud is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Tags
fuel economy , mpg , options , test

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1