2015 worse MPG - Ford Mustang Forum
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 11 (permalink) Old 09-11-2014 Thread Starter
PONY Member
 
Bgoins's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Chesapeake
Posts: 506
 
2015 worse MPG

Check this. Pretty lame. With all the technology they gave us worse gas mileage.

Official: 2015 Ford Mustang GT, V-6 EPA Numbers Fall via MOTOR TREND News for iPhone
Official: 2015 Ford Mustang GT, V-6 EPA Numbers Fall - Motor Trend WOT


2013 GT, automatic, Brembo brake package
Bgoins is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 11 (permalink) Old 09-11-2014
PONY Member
 
calspcl's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Denham Springs
Posts: 502
 
You want gas mileage buy a Prius


2008 Black Mustang GT/CS, 5 speed manual, G/T appearance package, FRPP 4.10 gears, Charcoal Aluminum interior panel, Interior upgrade. Roush TVS stage 1 SC , Stang Hi dyno-jet 93 Oct tune, Pypes LT's X-pipes and delete mufflers, MGW shifter.
calspcl is offline  
post #3 of 11 (permalink) Old 09-11-2014 Thread Starter
PONY Member
 
Bgoins's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Chesapeake
Posts: 506
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by calspcl View Post
You want gas mileage buy a Prius
Good one. Funny thing is, my wife's car IS a Prius! I love my Mustang but wouldn't it be cool if a completely new model had at least a slight increase in MPG like just about every other all new model car that comes out? It's pretty sad when the V6 loses HP and MPG.

2013 GT, automatic, Brembo brake package
Bgoins is offline  
 
post #4 of 11 (permalink) Old 09-11-2014
GT Member
S197 Member
 
csamsh's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: OKC
Posts: 2,259
       
detuned V6, heavier car. No big surprise. Also, they've got to make the the ecoboost look good

2002 C5 Z51. MCS 2WNR TT2 coilovers, 18x11 Forgestars, 315's, yada yada. Built Z06 T56. Bolt ons. Coming soon to a CAM event near you.

2013 F150 6.2L. 9mpg.

csamsh is offline  
post #5 of 11 (permalink) Old 09-11-2014
PONY Member
5.0L Member
S197 Member
 
G-Mann's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Location: Around The Way
Posts: 503
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by csamsh View Post
detuned V6, heavier car. No big surprise. Also, they've got to make the the ecoboost look good
^ this. Plus Ford has been known to fudge numbers with past models, lets hope these are not exaggerated.

It will be interesting to see real world numbers, 25 combined would be ok for EB4.

Ford needs a EB6 that delivers 5.0 performance and EB4 MPG numbers.

15 F22 M235i, JB4 Stage II, Cat delete, CAI
12 GT Prem 5.0 (Sold)
G-Mann is offline  
post #6 of 11 (permalink) Old 09-11-2014
Apprentice
 
14MustangV6's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2013
Location: Essex County
Posts: 154
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Mann View Post
^ this. Plus Ford has been known to fudge numbers with past models, lets hope these are not exaggerated.

It will be interesting to see real world numbers, 25 combined would be ok for EB4.

Ford needs a EB6 that delivers 5.0 performance and EB4 MPG numbers.
While they've had issues with their more fuel efficient models, from a lot of the experiences I've seen on here, the Mustang's US fuel economy numbers actually seem to have been underestimated. My V6 for example is rated at 30 MPG on the highway, but I (and many others) have gotten well over that numerous times.

Current: 2014 V6 Mustang Premium, Automatic Transmission, Oxford White, Safety & Security Package.

Previous: 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt LS, bone-stock except for automatic transmission.
14MustangV6 is offline  
post #7 of 11 (permalink) Old 09-12-2014
BOSS Member
 
Blazin72's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Location: Union
Posts: 3,543
           
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Mann View Post
Ford has been known to fudge numbers with past models,
+1 I tried to reply with that same response yesterday but apparently my post didn't post...
Blazin72 is offline  
post #8 of 11 (permalink) Old 09-12-2014
PONY Member
 
Nuclearranger's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Somerset
Posts: 987
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14MustangV6 View Post
While they've had issues with their more fuel efficient models, from a lot of the experiences I've seen on here, the Mustang's US fuel economy numbers actually seem to have been underestimated. My V6 for example is rated at 30 MPG on the highway, but I (and many others) have gotten well over that numerous times.
In my 2011 GT BREMBO, realistically I get 19-21 on different tanks.

It was rated at 26 highway...

2011 Mustang GT, Black with Black stripe.
6 Speed Manual.
3.73 + Brembo Brake Package.
Comfort Package.
Charcoal Black Interior.
Appearance Package 4.(Hood Scoop and Rear Spoiler)

Nuclearranger is offline  
post #9 of 11 (permalink) Old 09-12-2014
Apprentice
 
unimorpheus's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Shindand
Posts: 227
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclearranger View Post
In my 2011 GT BREMBO, realistically I get 19-21 on different tanks.

It was rated at 26 highway...
I am in the same range. I think the EPA numbers were generated with the 3.31 car running lighter 18" wheels.
unimorpheus is offline  
GT Member
5.0L Member
 
Mustangfreak196's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Eau Claire
Posts: 2,307
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclearranger View Post
In my 2011 GT BREMBO, realistically I get 19-21 on different tanks.

It was rated at 26 highway...
Yeah same here. Im usually getting 21-22 with mostly highway driving. Cant complain though. It gets better MPG than my little V6 ranger.


2013 Mustang GT, Track Pack, Recaro Seats, MT82, GT500 Axle Back, Boss 302 Quad Exhaust, Transmission Bushing Insert, MGW Shifter, Steeda Shift Knob, GT500 Spoiler, MMD Hood Struts, CPC Battery Covers.
Mustangfreak196 is offline  
PONY Member
 
NoVa5.0's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2014
Location: Arlington
Posts: 704
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Mann View Post
^ this. Plus Ford has been known to fudge numbers with past models, lets hope these are not exaggerated.

It will be interesting to see real world numbers, 25 combined would be ok for EB4.

Ford needs a EB6 that delivers 5.0 performance and EB4 MPG numbers.
Ford does not "fudge numbers" nor or they "exaggerated". Nor could they do anything to make one model/engine look better than another.

Ford doesn't come up with the numbers, the EPA does. Ford tests their pre-production vehicles, then drops cars off that the EPA tests, who then tell Ford what numbers they are allowed to use in their marketing and on their window stickers.

"Fuel economy is measured under controlled conditions in a laboratory using a standardized test procedure specified by federal law. Manufacturers test their own vehicles—usually pre-production prototypes—and report the results to EPA. EPA reviews the results and confirms about 10-15 percent of them through their own tests at the National Vehicles and Fuel Emissions Laboratory."

As far as the 2015s having lower MPG ratings? Yup. They're heavier. That's gonna happen.

2012 GT Premium, Brembo PP, MT82, 3.73s, Blk/Blk. Bama 93R, Koni Yellow Rear Shocks, Hawk Ceramic pads, Luxurious & Plush Floor Mats
NoVa5.0 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
 

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 not post new threads
You may not 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