27.5 mpg 13 GT/CS - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 1979-2015 Mustang GT || Tech and Talk > 2011-2014 Mustang GT



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 02-21-2013, 10:51 AM   #1
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: washougal
Region: Washington
Posts: 99
27.5 mpg 13 GT/CS

Hey all, I just installed the K&N filter assy, changed the oil to synthetic as the car reached 1K miles. I removed the rectangular piece that goes from the radiator support to the airbox so the engine runs on the warm air from the engine bay. I know that it defeats the CAI concept, but really, this car has 420 hp, I am more interested in boosting the MPG. The car went from 18mpg to 27.5 mpg overnight.
The idea is that the warm air is less dense, so the same air/fuel ratio will give higher mpg. It works.
mtnman325 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-21-2013, 11:21 AM   #2
Moderator Emeritus
Legacy
Regular
 
SpectorV's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Region: Alabama
Posts: 26,049
Send a message via AIM to SpectorV
Colder air does require less fuel to burn, but under normal driving with a fully warmed car I dont see those mods creating 10mpg, when the summer time hits that hotter air will probably hurt more than it helps though.

27mpg is more of a highway set cruise when its nice and flat type of thing which is doable no problem stock or slightly modified. I have the V6 version so cant compare, but I get 30mpg if I go 55 vs 29mpg at 70 vs 27.5-27.0 at 75+ with cruise.
__________________
2003 Cobra Vert (Redfire) #3938 of 5082 @ 05/27/2003
472rwhp/493rwtq -Modification List - Dyno Sheet
2012 Mustang 3.7L M6 (Kona Blue)
2011 Ford Edge Sport (Red Metallic)
SpectorV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 12:53 PM   #3
Registered Member
Regular
 
Jetag93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Region: Texas
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpectorV View Post
Colder air does require less fuel to burn, but under normal driving with a fully warmed car I dont see those mods creating 10mpg, when the summer time hits that hotter air will probably hurt more than it helps though.

27mpg is more of a highway set cruise when its nice and flat type of thing which is doable no problem stock or slightly modified. I have the V6 version so cant compare, but I get 30mpg if I go 55 vs 29mpg at 70 vs 27.5-27.0 at 75+ with cruise.
yes, colder denser air requires less fuel so the engine is more efficient with cooler air. I doubt you got those numbers from pen and paper calculation.
__________________
2013 DIB Premium GT/CS, 6MT, Cervinis Ram-Air Hood, RTR Charcoal 19X9.5s, BBK Cat Deletes & X-Pipe, DMH E-Cutouts, GT500 Rear Diffuser w/GT500 Quad-tip Axle-Backs, AED E85 Lope Tune, Boss 302 Intake, BBK 85mm TB, JLT CAI, Dynatech Alum DS, FRPP 3.73's, Eibach Pro-Springs and Pro-Struts/shocks, J&M Adj Panhard Bar, UPR Billet Alum LCA's, BMR UCA & Bracket & Relo Brackets, Eibach Adj Sway Bars, MGW Shifter, Brembo brake kit w/14" slotted 2 piece Boogie Full Tilt Racing Rotors, Llumar 30/5 Tint
Jetag93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-21-2013, 01:32 PM   #4
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Region: Virginia
Posts: 453
No disrespect, but if there ANY mod that provided a 10MPG boost to fuel economy, then Ford would have incorporated it into the car.

Under the right conditions on flat ground, the car is already EPA rated at 26MPG anyway. Add in some margin of error depending on how you're determining the mileage, and you could easily "see" 27 MPG under the right conditions.
mmike87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 03:17 PM   #5
Moderator Emeritus
Legacy
Regular
 
SpectorV's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Region: Alabama
Posts: 26,049
Send a message via AIM to SpectorV
since my v6 is a manual its rated at 29 vs 31 but I still get 30+ if I go the right speed and dont have to mess with a bunch of hills.
__________________
2003 Cobra Vert (Redfire) #3938 of 5082 @ 05/27/2003
472rwhp/493rwtq -Modification List - Dyno Sheet
2012 Mustang 3.7L M6 (Kona Blue)
2011 Ford Edge Sport (Red Metallic)
SpectorV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 11:19 PM   #6
The Blue Dragon
Regular
Supporter
 
GrabberBlue5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Louisville
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 5,661
Did you change your driving habits as well? Did you decide to do strictly highway driving on your test instead of city and highway? It doesn't add up
__________________
New quick exhaust video

AUGUST 2012 MOTM!!!!
GrabberBlue5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 01:50 AM   #7
Road Trip!
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: California
Posts: 610
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnman325 View Post
Hey all, I just installed the K&N filter assy, changed the oil to synthetic as the car reached 1K miles. I removed the rectangular piece that goes from the radiator support to the airbox so the engine runs on the warm air from the engine bay. I know that it defeats the CAI concept, but really, this car has 420 hp, I am more interested in boosting the MPG. The car went from 18mpg to 27.5 mpg overnight.
The idea is that the warm air is less dense, so the same air/fuel ratio will give higher mpg. It works.
Did you actually drive it and got 27.5 mpgs or it just showed up on the dash?? Because what happens sometimes is that it says your getting 27.5 mpgs ( ex) but once your done with the tank you didn't really get what it says . It's less.. happens to me all the time
Andy714 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 02:02 AM   #8
Registered Member
Regular
 
Venomouz831's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Seaside
Region: California
Posts: 8,133
Man I wish I could gain 10mpg with doing what you did!
__________________
)02 Gt, Founder of WE2G
Venomouz831 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 08:58 AM   #9
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: washougal
Region: Washington
Posts: 99
I drove the exact same route to town, 20 miles one way, about the same temperature and same driving habits. I used the dash display the same as before for consistancy. I realize it may be off, but it just shows a huge jump that can't be argued away. Yesterday I drove into Portland, about 30 miles one way and with somewhat more city stopping, it still averaged 24.4. Bottom line is that the warmer air is not as dense, which given the same air/fuel ratio means less fuel. The idea of the CAI is to get higher density air for higher hp. I don't need any more hp for my style of driving, this car absolutely rocks as is. It may well be a combination of the engine reaching a break in point at 1100 miles as well as using the synthetic oil. The argument that Ford would have done this is not founded by the results. The Ford engineering is performance based, not mpg based. It is a Mustang, after all.
mtnman325 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 10:22 AM   #10
Registered Member
Regular
 
tc x 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Region: Indiana
Posts: 3,783
Don't care what the computer says, the car did not gain 9.5mpg over night. I can make mine say what ever I want, but simple math (gallons used divided by miles driven) will say different.
tc x 4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 11:04 AM   #11
Registered Member
Regular
 
Jetag93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Region: Texas
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnman325 View Post
I drove the exact same route to town, 20 miles one way, about the same temperature and same driving habits. I used the dash display the same as before for consistancy. I realize it may be off, but it just shows a huge jump that can't be argued away. Yesterday I drove into Portland, about 30 miles one way and with somewhat more city stopping, it still averaged 24.4. Bottom line is that the warmer air is not as dense, which given the same air/fuel ratio means less fuel. The idea of the CAI is to get higher density air for higher hp. I don't need any more hp for my style of driving, this car absolutely rocks as is. It may well be a combination of the engine reaching a break in point at 1100 miles as well as using the synthetic oil. The argument that Ford would have done this is not founded by the results. The Ford engineering is performance based, not mpg based. It is a Mustang, after all.
U need to go retake a basic science class. LOL
__________________
2013 DIB Premium GT/CS, 6MT, Cervinis Ram-Air Hood, RTR Charcoal 19X9.5s, BBK Cat Deletes & X-Pipe, DMH E-Cutouts, GT500 Rear Diffuser w/GT500 Quad-tip Axle-Backs, AED E85 Lope Tune, Boss 302 Intake, BBK 85mm TB, JLT CAI, Dynatech Alum DS, FRPP 3.73's, Eibach Pro-Springs and Pro-Struts/shocks, J&M Adj Panhard Bar, UPR Billet Alum LCA's, BMR UCA & Bracket & Relo Brackets, Eibach Adj Sway Bars, MGW Shifter, Brembo brake kit w/14" slotted 2 piece Boogie Full Tilt Racing Rotors, Llumar 30/5 Tint
Jetag93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 11:10 AM   #12
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: washougal
Region: Washington
Posts: 99
And to what end would taking a science class achieve...it wouldn't stop people from behaving like ostriches...head too deep in the sand to even consider something might work. I just know what I see in the car, the results are there, and how else to explain it other than the slight mods done???
mtnman325 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 11:30 AM   #13
Registered Member
Regular
 
Jetag93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Region: Texas
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnman325 View Post
And to what end would taking a science class achieve...it wouldn't stop people from behaving like ostriches...head too deep in the sand to even consider something might work. I just know what I see in the car, the results are there, and how else to explain it other than the slight mods done???
A science class would teach u that ur theory on warmer air & fuel consumption is backward.
__________________
2013 DIB Premium GT/CS, 6MT, Cervinis Ram-Air Hood, RTR Charcoal 19X9.5s, BBK Cat Deletes & X-Pipe, DMH E-Cutouts, GT500 Rear Diffuser w/GT500 Quad-tip Axle-Backs, AED E85 Lope Tune, Boss 302 Intake, BBK 85mm TB, JLT CAI, Dynatech Alum DS, FRPP 3.73's, Eibach Pro-Springs and Pro-Struts/shocks, J&M Adj Panhard Bar, UPR Billet Alum LCA's, BMR UCA & Bracket & Relo Brackets, Eibach Adj Sway Bars, MGW Shifter, Brembo brake kit w/14" slotted 2 piece Boogie Full Tilt Racing Rotors, Llumar 30/5 Tint
Jetag93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 11:38 AM   #14
Registered Member
Regular
 
nosympathy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: none
Region: Ohio
Posts: 3,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnman325 View Post
And to what end would taking a science class achieve...it wouldn't stop people from behaving like ostriches...head too deep in the sand to even consider something might work. I just know what I see in the car, the results are there, and how else to explain it other than the slight mods done???
You're posting in a forum full of a lot of extremely knowledgeable mustang folks. Saying things we know isn't true, isn't going to magically make it true. We all know better. lol.
__________________
MustangEvolution ROCKS MY SOCKS!!!
nosympathy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 11:46 AM   #15
Registered Member
Regular
 
Maverick2004054's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Cooper City
Region: Florida
Posts: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetag93 View Post

A science class would teach u that ur theory on warmer air & fuel consumption is backward.
I'm sorry, but this post is correct, air density doesn't have a whole lot of impact on fuel consumption unless you go from sea level to the Rockies, at which point your MPG would go down as you are starving the engine of necessary oxygen. The denser the air, the more complete burning of the fuel used. It doesn't change the amount of fuel injected. So to burn all of the energy in the fuel, you want more dense air which means more oxygen molecules per cubic inch. Hope this helps a little bit, if not ill find it in my Modern Marine Engineers Manual and post it... Seems to me like you may have tricked the computer by resetting on a slope etc. I can make the computer read 99.9 MPG if I leave it in neutral at the top of a mountain click reset and drift Down.... On another note, I do see 26-27 MPG during highway driving on a consistent basis.... Usually 19-20 combined....
Maverick2004054 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 01:04 PM   #16
Moderator Emeritus
Legacy
Regular
 
SpectorV's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Region: Alabama
Posts: 26,049
Send a message via AIM to SpectorV
lets not try to make this into a bashing thread, while I dont believe those changes would gain 9-10 mpg, I am sure they can help. Thanks for sharing with us what you did and what you noticed. If you really want to get into it revert back to stock and drive for a couple weeks keep logs and drive the same exact way with the mods. Be fair in how/where you drive so it averages out the same.
__________________
2003 Cobra Vert (Redfire) #3938 of 5082 @ 05/27/2003
472rwhp/493rwtq -Modification List - Dyno Sheet
2012 Mustang 3.7L M6 (Kona Blue)
2011 Ford Edge Sport (Red Metallic)
SpectorV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 05:39 PM   #17
Registered Member
Regular
 
TooSlow4U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Region: Arizona
Posts: 505
I added a NRA sticker to the window and then I got 30mpg overnight. Im pretty awesome.
TooSlow4U is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 09:39 AM   #18
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: washougal
Region: Washington
Posts: 99
Ok, I will concede that I am not as knowledgeable as the rest of you, I don't have a NRA sticker.
The whole purpose of posting what I did and what I found was to explore the reason for the results being so dramatic. I now understand that cold air is denser than warm air. And the engine doesn't really change the amount of fuel that is injected into the engine, and that the route that I drive obviously suffered a dramatic elevation shift from sea level to mountaintop, which because of my uneducated background I failed to notice.
So now that I am better informed, I can see clearly that someone slapped a NRA sticker on my car, and that the same air/fuel ratio will mean that less dense air will require higher fuel content than the cold/oxygen rich air, because the oxygen will burn more completely, thus yeilding higher mpg. So I can now understand that I should reinstall the spacer to the front of the car, and change the synthetic oil back to perhaps 75/90 weight. Perhaps removing the K&N filter and duct taping the paper filter in place will assure that the car remains in the forum accepted mpg range of 14-18.
Can't thank you all enough for your insight and encouraging words.
mtnman325 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 10:39 AM   #19
Registered Member
Regular
 
Maverick2004054's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Cooper City
Region: Florida
Posts: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnman325 View Post
Ok, I will concede that I am not as knowledgeable as the rest of you, I don't have a NRA sticker.
The whole purpose of posting what I did and what I found was to explore the reason for the results being so dramatic. I now understand that cold air is denser than warm air. And the engine doesn't really change the amount of fuel that is injected into the engine, and that the route that I drive obviously suffered a dramatic elevation shift from sea level to mountaintop, which because of my uneducated background I failed to notice.
So now that I am better informed, I can see clearly that someone slapped a NRA sticker on my car, and that the same air/fuel ratio will mean that less dense air will require higher fuel content than the cold/oxygen rich air, because the oxygen will burn more completely, thus yeilding higher mpg. So I can now understand that I should reinstall the spacer to the front of the car, and change the synthetic oil back to perhaps 75/90 weight. Perhaps removing the K&N filter and duct taping the paper filter in place will assure that the car remains in the forum accepted mpg range of 14-18.
Can't thank you all enough for your insight and encouraging words.
Mtnman, don't take anything that I said the wrong way, I was just trying to throw in a quick explanation. I know I tend to not follow up after I originally post, but the sarcastic attitude towards someone over it is kinda ridiculous. If there's anything in this world I can tell you for sure, don't argue with science.. What you said didn't make sense, people informed you that a 10 mpg increase with what you did is not normal, I've been running full synthetic for the last month or so, and not much of a change, I run the JLT intake and tune and I did get a slight boost, but not a 10 mpg boost! That's excessive! Are you sure they didn't replace your engine and not just your oil? Good luck with defying physics!

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 AM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnman325 View Post
Ok, I will concede that I am not as knowledgeable as the rest of you, I don't have a NRA sticker.
The whole purpose of posting what I did and what I found was to explore the reason for the results being so dramatic. I now understand that cold air is denser than warm air. And the engine doesn't really change the amount of fuel that is injected into the engine, and that the route that I drive obviously suffered a dramatic elevation shift from sea level to mountaintop, which because of my uneducated background I failed to notice.
So now that I am better informed, I can see clearly that someone slapped a NRA sticker on my car, and that the same air/fuel ratio will mean that less dense air will require higher fuel content than the cold/oxygen rich air, because the oxygen will burn more completely, thus yeilding higher mpg. So I can now understand that I should reinstall the spacer to the front of the car, and change the synthetic oil back to perhaps 75/90 weight. Perhaps removing the K&N filter and duct taping the paper filter in place will assure that the car remains in the forum accepted mpg range of 14-18.
Can't thank you all enough for your insight and encouraging words.
Oh I forgot, try changing your oil to pebbles, that tends to give you a few mpg and a few horsepower!
Maverick2004054 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 11:13 AM   #20
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: washougal
Region: Washington
Posts: 99
Just pulled the car into the shop to install the latest forum suggested mod...cutting a hole in the floor to install the "Flintstone booster". Though it only works if coasting downhill, with a tailwind from a tornado, it is factory authorized to yeild higher mpg and keep the car "mainstream". It even comes with a "Science book reader" which is bluetooth.
Very cool.
mtnman325 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 09:49 PM   #21
The Blue Dragon
Regular
Supporter
 
GrabberBlue5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Louisville
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 5,661
Mtnman325, c'mon man. Don't be childish just because we are hitting you with facts here. There are lots of people with a wealth of knowledge on here, maybe instead of trying to ridicule everyone for keeping you honest and informed you could read and learn. It's IMPOSSIBLE that you gained that much fuel economy. With the way EPA regulations and fuel prices are, ford surely would not have left out something so small like this that would boost fuel economy. I do believe that you are getting 1-2, MAYBE 3 mpg better, but 10? That's ludicrous. There is something that has changed to create incorrect calculations on the vehicles part. Whether you had less of a lead foot, maybe different weather conditions. Maybe you hit less red lights and more green lights. Who knows? But don't be so naive to believe that you've magically increased your fuel economy by 10 mpgs with the same mods that everyone else has but yet your mustang is the only one that does it. Lets think about this logically instead of taking it at face value.
__________________
New quick exhaust video

AUGUST 2012 MOTM!!!!
GrabberBlue5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 10:38 PM   #22
Registered Member
Regular
 
Maverick2004054's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Cooper City
Region: Florida
Posts: 130
^ +1
Maverick2004054 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 10:53 PM   #23
Road Trip!
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Florida
Posts: 224
No your all wrong!!!

This guy is on to something..I'm going to do exactly what he did.

Wish me luck.. Also where can I get one of those fuel efficient NRA sticker?
racksteris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 11:57 PM   #24
Registered Member
Regular
 
Maverick2004054's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Cooper City
Region: Florida
Posts: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by racksteris View Post
No your all wrong!!!

This guy is on to something..I'm going to do exactly what he did.

Wish me luck.. Also where can I get one of those fuel efficient NRA sticker?
They are right next to those dragon decals that the ricers put on their cars that add 300hp!!! Check Pepboys!
Maverick2004054 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 07:41 AM   #25
Registered Member
Regular
 
Struego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Region: Illinois
Posts: 145
Ladies and gens!!! Just got of the highway after a 45 min run in Chicago on a 17 degree Sunday morning. My avg mpg's peaked to a lovely 19.8. 6 spd 4.10 gear, sct strat tune, and wms ram air intake. I hope that helps with this ridiculous thread.

---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------

Oh, and at 70mph.
Struego is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 09:02 AM   #26
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: washougal
Region: Washington
Posts: 99
Not that I am being childish, it is important to note that the first mpg was 27, on highway. Then as you can see, I posted that the next one was closer to what we all expect at 24.5 or so. The purpose of posting was to explore and learn what the heck happened. My original thinking that the biggest change was the removal of the radiator spacer to allow engine compartment air into the engine. Perhaps now the forum can agree that it is more likely that the engine is reaching a break in state that the new synthetic oil accentuated, as well as a slight improvement in air flow from the K&N filter, which has a much larger surface area than the original filter? My response to some of the ridiculous statements are merely meant to bring humor to them. I really do appreciate the serious comments.
Thank you
mtnman325 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 12:08 PM   #27
Registered Member
Regular
 
Maverick2004054's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Cooper City
Region: Florida
Posts: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnman325 View Post
Not that I am being childish, it is important to note that the first mpg was 27, on highway. Then as you can see, I posted that the next one was closer to what we all expect at 24.5 or so. The purpose of posting was to explore and learn what the heck happened. My original thinking that the biggest change was the removal of the radiator spacer to allow engine compartment air into the engine. Perhaps now the forum can agree that it is more likely that the engine is reaching a break in state that the new synthetic oil accentuated, as well as a slight improvement in air flow from the K&N filter, which has a much larger surface area than the original filter? My response to some of the ridiculous statements are merely meant to bring humor to them. I really do appreciate the serious comments.
Thank you
Although I agree that the CAI did net some performance increases on your vehicle, it's not going to be due to filter surface area, after market intake systems provide a more laminar flow with sweeping bends and less restrictions, the stock air box has baffles, corrugated stress relievers, etc that are there to provide proper fitment and flex w/ with the vibration of the engine, as well as sound dampening; but with that being said, it produces a more turbulent flow. Your CAI will work best when looking at the whole system, it is just a part of the air intake system as well as exhaust. For example: upgrading your intake is ok, but then you have a restriction at the throttle body, so that has to upgraded, the the restriction is at the intake manifold so upgrade that! Then cams, long tube headers, XPipe, and cat backs. When all of these are done in conjunction with each other, you will net the least amount of restrictions in the system, this will provide the best horsepower and when driven responsibly, gas mileage! So you have to look at it as 1 step of many in the ultimate goal! Most people want the here and now performance or increase in mpg, so they swap the gears either higher or lower depending on what they want, swap out to a lighter driveshaft which reduces the amount of efficiency losses through the drive train!
Maverick2004054 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 10:29 AM   #28
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: washougal
Region: Washington
Posts: 99
Ok, the latest update...the car gets a predictable 24.4 mpg, have made three runs to Portland (30 miles one way) and it is darn predictable. So...I think the car was relearning the changed airbox/filter on the first run that produced that high 27.5 number. In any event, the mpg did improve from 18-21 to 21-24. Still worth the effort and though I am in a fog as to exactly why, I like the results.
mtnman325 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 11:52 AM   #29
Registered Member
Regular
 
Maverick2004054's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Cooper City
Region: Florida
Posts: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnman325 View Post
Ok, the latest update...the car gets a predictable 24.4 mpg, have made three runs to Portland (30 miles one way) and it is darn predictable. So...I think the car was relearning the changed airbox/filter on the first run that produced that high 27.5 number. In any event, the mpg did improve from 18-21 to 21-24. Still worth the effort and though I am in a fog as to exactly why, I like the results.
That does sound about right, I average about 24.7 on the highway, but on long back country roads I do get as high as 27.7 but that is cruising at 45 mph, in 6th gear, I've been trying to break the 28 MPG ceiling, but it hasn't happened yet!
Maverick2004054 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 12:04 PM   #30
Registered Member
Regular
 
Venomouz831's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Seaside
Region: California
Posts: 8,133
Click image for larger version

Name:	image-3439072624.jpg
Views:	155
Size:	150.8 KB
ID:	93284
__________________
)02 Gt, Founder of WE2G
Venomouz831 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 12:47 PM   #31
The Blue Dragon
Regular
Supporter
 
GrabberBlue5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Louisville
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 5,661
Lol
__________________
New quick exhaust video

AUGUST 2012 MOTM!!!!
GrabberBlue5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:03 PM   #32
It's not me, it's you.
Regular
Supporter
 
primer2tone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Corpus Christi
Region: Texas
Posts: 6,752
Yeah, when you reset the mpg meter it gives you more of an instant mpg and over time it'll level out over the next few days. My most common mpg's according to the meter is right around 19 mpg and that's with about equal hwy/city miles. I haven't reset my counter in months.
primer2tone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 01:58 PM   #33
Registered Member
Regular
 
iLLRedGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Alton
Region: Illinois
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by primer2tone
Yeah, when you reset the mpg meter it gives you more of an instant mpg and over time it'll level out over the next few days. My most common mpg's according to the meter is right around 19 mpg and that's with about equal hwy/city miles. I haven't reset my counter in months.
That's exactly what mine stays at. I have 3.55 gears. Kinda depressing considering my old 2004 auto with 4.10s got 20 lol.
iLLRedGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 02:59 PM   #34
Registered Member
Regular
 
nosympathy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: none
Region: Ohio
Posts: 3,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLLRedGT View Post
That's exactly what mine stays at. I have 3.55 gears. Kinda depressing considering my old 2004 auto with 4.10s got 20 lol.
I have 3.73s and sit right at 19.2 to 19.4 depending on how much I feel I have to speed to get to work on time.

People who drive 55 in the fast lane on a 4 lane highway with a speedlimit of 65 deserve to have their DL revoked.
__________________
MustangEvolution ROCKS MY SOCKS!!!
nosympathy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 03:02 PM   #35
Registered Member
Regular
 
wheelman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Region: Connecticut
Posts: 1,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLLRedGT View Post

That's exactly what mine stays at. I have 3.55 gears. Kinda depressing considering my old 2004 auto with 4.10s got 20 lol.
Don't feel bad. I get ~13.5!
wheelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 1979-2015 Mustang GT || Tech and Talk > 2011-2014 Mustang GT

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 On
Refbacks are Off


» Like Us On Facebook



01:23 AM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.