Jump to content

'15 Mustang Fuel Economy Leaked


Recommended Posts

I don't think those numbers are correct. The current V6 is 19/29 (manual) and 19/31 (auto). Surely it didn't go down!

 

 

EDIT: Looks like the rating is with a different axle ratio for '15, but still, that's disappointing to see the numbers go down.

Edited by fordmantpw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, with a 7 or 8 speed transmission and the right ratios, it should work rather well, IMHO. :)

 

The 2015 8 speed auto Corvette has a 2:41 rear gear but uses a 4:56 1st gear ratio in the transmission. It gets 16/29/20mpg epa numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, they add a more technical 4 banger with a turbo, just to closely match what the current NA V6 is getting ( 2013 mpg is 19/31)? Seems like a waste of R&D money. They could have easily tweaked the V6 to get 22/33 if they really tried with way less effort. Love Ford, but this is a big ol disappointment.

Edited by Hydro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps there is nothing more to this than the EPA attempting to better reflect real world ratings?

 

I would be interested to see if other newly redesigned 2015 vehicles are receiving a similar restatement of ratings as the EPA seems to have had a history of estimating optimistic numbers.

 

Furthermore, are there any current Mustang owners here who can attest to EPA's numbers for the '14 model year cars?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, they add a more technical 4 banger with a turbo, just to closely match what the current NA V6 is getting ( 2013 mpg is 19/31)? Seems like a waste of R&D money. They could have easily tweaked the V6 to get 22/33 if they really tried with way less effort. Love Ford, but this is a big ol disappointment.

meh, like Ive stated, last thing a Camaro,Challenger and Mustang owner will be discussing over a few beers in the local, is their gas mileage....

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford and their stupid "we put a 2.3 Turbo in the SVO, so we HAVE to use a 2.3 again" thing. They should be using the 3.5EB or the new 2.7EB at the very least, and pushing near 400HP.

 

That is downright stupid reasoning. The reason they used the 2.3EB is cut down on the amount of displacement taxes overseas...not to mention why would they want two engines with nearly identical HP outputs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do you have any evidence to support this?

 

And you do realize that the 2.3L is going to offer better performance with better combined FE, right?

 

Axle ratio. If they wanted to be pony car MPG king's, just put a 2.91 gear and call it the SFE model like their other vehicles. Then offer a V6 track pack and other fun V6 & V8 models people want. I have my doubts the 2.3L will offer better performance, I so badly want to see a 2014 V6 vs. 2015 2.3L shootout. My guess is that'll never happen. Better combined FE..... hell no. Our 2010 Fusion with the 3.0L V6 achieved 5 mpg better highway and 3mpg better city than our 2.0L EB. It's a mustang , I don't think people are going to be hypermilling them to get the EPA numbers. That 22 city will be closer to 17 and highway might see 26mpg going with traffic flow at 70-80 mph. I'm basing those numbers off of what we are seeing in our Fusion.

Edited by Hydro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

meh, like Ive stated, last thing a Camaro,Challenger and Mustang owner will be discussing over a few beers in the local, is their gas mileage....

 

True, so why not make the V6 a little more nasty? Less moving parts and the 3.5L Duratechs have been pretty damn solid from personal experience. Make a stupid high gear (2.91?) version for mpg bragging rights and give the V6's 325 hp... unless she's fully tapped on power at 305? Maybe the world market isn't into V6's and they figure a boosted 4 will be more appealing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Axle ratio. If they wanted to be pony car MPG king's, just put a 2.91 gear and call it the SFE model like their other vehicles.

 

Two problems with that:

 

1 - the 2.3L is going to be the volume model. That's important for CAFE reasons (CAFE is sales weighted). It's far more important for say, 60% of all Mustangs to have this powertrain (22/31) than to have 5% ship with similar economy on a "SFE" model.

 

2 - matching tall gears to an engine that doesn't produce a lot of low-end torque is just mean. Especially in a Mustang. "Okay, I stepped on the gas. I'll give you a call tomorrow morning when the car starts accelerating"

Edited by RichardJensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too heavy,too pricey, too many engines,questionable looks,tepid fuel mileage improvements. In fact the V6 has lost 5 HP...the car has completely lost it's excitement and buzz. They have over-promised and under delivered on this car. The Mustang is not a volume car,but it is the car the press and public uses to gauge the company. I'll bet under truth serum, they wish they had a do-over with this car and roll out.

 

I

Edited by ironhorse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too heavy,too pricey, too many engines,questionable looks,tepid fuel mileage improvements. In fact the V6 has lost 5 HP...the car has completely lost it's excitement and buzz. They have over-promised and under delivered on this car. The Mustang is not a volume car,but it is the car the press and public uses to gauge the company. I'll bet under truth serum, they wish they had a do-over with this car and roll out.

 

I

Weight - they added bigger brakes, IRS, additional equipment. I would have liked to see a lighter car, but I think the weight is a non-issue

 

Looks - a lot of people complained about the 2010 models and the 2013 models. A lot of people also complained about the 1994 models and the 1999 models. Personally, I think it looks great.

 

Power - the V6 lost 5 horses. Anyone buying the V6 for performance can easily recover that with a tune. The base model engine doesn't need to be a performance engine. The EB 4 will be a good engine. The 5.0 gets an extra 15 horses.

 

Too many engines - really!? Wow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...