MPG drop in 2015 V6. Cause (and fix)? - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > 2015+ Mustang Ecoboost (and V6)



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 01-05-2015, 04:27 PM   #1
Registered User
Newbie
 
davekro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Nor. Ca.
Region: California
Posts: 14
MPG drop in 2015 V6. Cause (and fix)?

I doubt he 5HP drop has much if any MPG effect. I wonder if they lowered the V6's rear axle ratio from 2.73 to 3.15 to 'force' an MPG drop to make the Ecoboost look better by comparison. It is obvious from several angles that Ford benefits from selling more EB's than V6'es. Better MPG rating for their overall product line EPA requirements AND there is much more profit in the EB (a dealer confided in me).

I am shopping for a 2015 V6 convertible and am bummed they gutted the options allowed (No Premium! w/ leather ((
Have to settle for the 051A Group $995 with just 18" wheels, spoiler, (cloth) power driver's seat w/ adjustable lumbar. I gotta have that lumbar. ;o)

Anyone know any real info on this MPG drop? I am curious if a 2.73 ring and pinion set from a 2014 would be a direct bolt into the 2015's IRS axle.
Any insights or thoughts on THIS idea is greatly appreciated. )
davekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-05-2015, 04:50 PM   #2
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: 00
Region: Other
Posts: 1,198
Trust me you will not want to go from 3.15 to 2.73. With a heavier car and a lil less hp 3.31 or 3.55 would be a better option. I get an easy 29-32mpg with my 14 6spd manual and have the 2.73. The 3.31 geared cars get 28-29 mpg. My car would be perfect with the 3.15 gears. The new cars will get better mpg as you put more miles on them. Mine took around 3k before it started getting in the 30s.
Bigshow14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 07:04 PM   #3
Registered Member
Regular
 
Aggiesrok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bryan
Region: Texas
Posts: 1,883
They are setting up to dump the v6 option. It's cheaper to offer 2 engines and not 3. Which might be a mistake, I think a lot of non GT buyers will want a v6 and not a turbo.
Turbo option will appeal to people not wanting to or able to shell out for a GT.


Chevy runs deep, don't step in Chevy.
__________________
chevy runs deep, Don't step in chevy!

289 - Holley 4150 570cfm; Performer intake; mild cam; MSD HEI; 302 heads; Roller Tips; Hedman Tri-Y headers; H-pipe w/Flowmaster 40's; 9 in posi 3.50; 205/50-17F; 225/50-17R.
Aggiesrok is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-05-2015, 07:12 PM   #4
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 66
They really should do a v6 turbo edition. I mean look at how many companies go with that option. I know a lot people hate on the Sixer thing and say there is no replacement for displacement but i beg too differ. Defining line... Engineering

one day i hope to have something pretty damn witty here
jake01roushv6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 07:19 PM   #5
Registered Member
Regular
 
dave73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Mechanicsville
Region: Maryland
Posts: 1,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jake01roushv6 View Post
They really should do a v6 turbo edition. I mean look at how many companies go with that option. I know a lot people hate on the Sixer thing and say there is no replacement for displacement but i beg too differ. Defining line... Engineering

one day i hope to have something pretty damn witty here

I have heard there will be a turbo V6 in the mustang possibly in 16 with the ecoboost 4 as the base engine and the V8 will become an option in the GT. Unless the gov changes the new regulations they are going to have to minimize how many v8's are sold.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
dave73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 07:25 PM   #6
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 66
Well i heard Jerry Brown out I California said he wants to try to cut fuel consumption down almost fifty percent inn his next term. All things epa related always seem to follow California's lead. I would honestly be really bummed if they did that. Im jazzed they brought the five oh back though!! If only there were enough clever words to talk the wife into letting me get on lol

one day i hope to have something pretty damn witty here
jake01roushv6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 08:32 PM   #7
Registered Member
Regular
 
Aggiesrok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bryan
Region: Texas
Posts: 1,883
MPG drop in 2015 V6. Cause (and fix)?

GT sales are only about 1/3 of Mustang sales. With a turbo 4 option, not sure they would need to have the V8 as an option. It's not just one model, it's an average across the board.
Ford sells more trucks than anyone else and so having an ecoboost truck made a lot of sense and and helps their average a lot.

Plus Jerry Brown is a turd burglar.


Chevy runs deep, don't step in Chevy.
__________________
chevy runs deep, Don't step in chevy!

289 - Holley 4150 570cfm; Performer intake; mild cam; MSD HEI; 302 heads; Roller Tips; Hedman Tri-Y headers; H-pipe w/Flowmaster 40's; 9 in posi 3.50; 205/50-17F; 225/50-17R.
Aggiesrok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 08:50 PM   #8
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 66
Omg a turd burglar!!! 💦💦💦 Thats an awesome way to describe that guy

one day i hope to have something pretty damn witty here
jake01roushv6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 09:17 PM   #9
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Charlotte, NC
Region: North Carolina
Posts: 1,045
ford does not rate the MPGs for their cars the epa does who have no vested interest in what the ratings are. The fact is its an ESTIMATE not guaranteed. I've owned 13 cars and some got extremely better or worse then the epas estimates. So many factors go into fuel economy it's unrealistic that the estimate is going to be perfect.

With that said the 1-2 difference is more then likely due to additional weight or options from the new mustangs opposed to some conspiracy theory that ford lowered it to sell more of the EBs.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
StarzTA17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 09:17 PM   #10
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: alturas
Region: California
Posts: 73
Aggiesrok, you are so right. I didn't like him the first time he was governor and he certainly hasn't gotten any better. IMHO anyone that voted for that dbag is a F***Tard.
stangs4me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2015, 01:52 AM   #11
Registered User
Newbie
 
davekro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Nor. Ca.
Region: California
Posts: 14
Well I thought I was just test driving a Magnet Metalic V6 Conv. tonight. Because the only color I'd consider (for me) is Deep Impact Blue. There is only one DIB Conv. V6 In Califand it is 330 miles south of me. L.A. qouted a bit bellow MSPP so I thoght that I'd just see and drive a 2015 before commiting to fly down south to get the car I want.

When I confessed that the Magnet was a longshot second choice color and after seeing it, I realized I had to have the blue the dealer tonight kept dropping the price. When he was finally convinced I was a no go on his car, he said he would give me a similar deal if I ordered a blue one thru him. I ended up with an OT door price $450 below the Blue LA Conv,, and that was after adding $650 more in options!! I'll wait ten weeks for THAT savings and save having to Fly AND work with a dealer that had a very bad reputaion on AUtoTrader reviews.

Oh, and back on topic... I would not likely decide to compromise my warranty by changing the drive change on a new car. doooh!
davekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2015, 02:04 AM   #12
Registered User
Newbie
 
davekro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Nor. Ca.
Region: California
Posts: 14
Your avg mpg is 29-32?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigshow14 View Post
Trust me you will not want to go from 3.15 to 2.73. With a heavier car and a lil less hp 3.31 or 3.55 would be a better option. I get an easy 29-32mpg with my 14 6spd manual and have the 2.73. The 3.31 geared cars get 28-29 mpg. My car would be perfect with the 3.15 gears. The new cars will get better mpg as you put more miles on them. Mine took around 3k before it started getting in the 30s.
Are you saying that your avg mpg is 29-32? Or that you calculate 'just freeway' driving gets you 29-32? I may misremember, but I thought V6 '15's were only 100 (or 200?) lbs heavier than '14s. I am comparing convertibles, so they may be different.

I did order the spare tire, which I believe is a donut type) so that will add even more weight.
davekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2015, 09:15 AM   #13
Staff

Regular
Staff
 
Strange Mud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Small Town
Region: Connecticut
Posts: 5,022
from a v6 owner. Don't buy a V6 Stang (or Eco-boost) for mpg. I bought my 12 V6 for the bargain performance reason. IMHO any other reason is foolish.

mpg is dissapointing with the 3.31 I get 22-24 semi-rural back roads. Highest ever all hwy 70-80mph was 26.
__________________
2012 V6 with suspension, shifting, stopping and sound mods.
Strange Mud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2015, 12:36 PM   #14
Registered User
Newbie
 
davekro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Nor. Ca.
Region: California
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Mud View Post
from a v6 owner. Don't buy a V6 Stang (or Eco-boost) for mpg. I bought my 12 V6 for the bargain performance reason. IMHO any other reason is foolish.

mpg is dissapointing with the 3.31 I get 22-24 semi-rural back roads. Highest ever all hwy 70-80mph was 26.
Other than to push buyers to the more profitable Ecoboost, it blows me away to see a model/engine get worse mpg ratings than it's prior year predessor!

My reasons for buying a new car were 1) Convertible! 2) style/ color, 3) Not willing to pay $10k+ for German choices, 4) MPG's. I know I am an outlier to most of the convertible buyers. But coming from my current 2000 2.5L 168 HP Sebring convertible getting 22 mpg's overall, I would have really liked (dreamed?) to be able to get at least 28 overall mpg from 14 year newer technology. Personally, I would have loved a 2.5L V6 with 200- 225 HP, but I know THAT would not be a fit for Mustang buyers. That said, I understand Mustang's marketing choice for the more powerful V6, But dropping 2 mpg's
(19/30 to 19/28) from the previous model year by lowering the gear ratio seems absurd to me. (End of rant ). I read somewhere the 5 HP drop was due to needing to reduce the height of the air intake slightly due to a lower hood.
__________________
Ordered 1/5/15: 2015 Convertible V6, Deep Impact Blue, 051A Group and almost all of the Brutally short list of options offered for Convertible V6. (no Premium package or leather seats offerred for V6 Convert.)
davekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2015, 11:39 PM   #15
Registered Member
Regular
 
JOberlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Region: California
Posts: 245
The reasons the Ecoboost is getting worse mpg than expected is due to a couple of factors. (sorry if this is a bit wordy)

First is the issue with how Ford rated them. The HP figures for the Ecoboost are with 93 octane gas. Due to the nature of how turbos work, you can't just adjust the timing a bit for lower octane gas. You also have to back off the boost in order to not cause problems with premature detonation. The combination of low octane gas and a turbo means a lot less power compared to a normal engine. And according to articles you can find online, Ford engineers have stated about a 11-13% loss in power. This is exactly what outside testing has confirmed. (math doesn't lie - there is no free lunch)

So 87 octane gas in an Ecoboost nets a much lower 270-275hp/280-285lb-ft torque. This is why the ecoboost gets beat by the 14 V6s if both are running 87 octane gas. Ford says that the Ecoboost can run on 87, and it probably could do so safely forever with most drivers unaware, but they also know that "requires premium fuel" would be a huge sales problem. Naturally MPG suffers a lot with lower octane gas. It's hard to get the rated MPG as a result. If you are in a place like California where 91 is the "premium" gas and it's all oxygenated, you're done for. Winter blend/oxygenated 87 gas will put out about 260hp from my calculations - ouch.

Now the 2011-2014 V6 also get their figures from premium (summer blend) fuel as do all manufacturers, really, though they don't state it in easy to find places. Manufacturers have been rating their engines for decades running the highest octane gas they can typically find.

What we have, though, is the 2015 V6 being tested with 87 octane fuel. It's the exact same engine. But by testing with the lower octane gas, it loses a bit of power. I don't have documentation on this, but the math works out almost exactly, so I'm positive it's what they did. Lowering the intake height won't do a thing to the power.

They're playing a numbers game. That doesn't surprise me one bit. They want to promote the ecoboost over the V6.

Also, there's a second wrinkle to this. The ecoboost is really Ford taking GM's idea of their mid 90s reverse speed superchargers (higher boost at lower mph and all but shutting off at highway speeds) and using it with a turbo. This works great - good power and good mpg. But there's a small catch. If you've ever driven either design, it's basically impossible to hypermill. More than the slightest throttle engages it and your mpg drops. Now, you can get away with it to a point in the V6 and V8 designs (GM and Ford) due to the basic engine's good torque (it's still driveable with an egg on the pedal and the supercharger/turbo off), but the 4 cylinder engines just struggle to keep a ~3600 lb car going without the boost engaging.

You can get the rated MPG, but it's almost impossible to exceed it by a noticeable margin. Getting 34mpg from Los Angeles to Vegas (my own car, last week) is possible in the V6, but the same mountains and high elevations in the ecoboost, especially on 87 octane gas, is not happening.

It's a shame that Ford is from what most people can tell, getting rid of the V6. It's a better engine overall. One can only hope that they make an Ecoboost version of the V6 for some future Mustang.
JOberlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2015, 09:17 AM   #16
Staff

Regular
Staff
 
Strange Mud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Small Town
Region: Connecticut
Posts: 5,022
Dave, good choices for your decision. I've also read the hood clearance reason. I know enough people with the V6 disliked the 2.73 stock gear choice I drove one and matting the pedal in 6th didn't do anything. On my test drive I actually looked to see if I was pressing the right pedal. We'll see how the new choices sell but my guess will be in the future the two choices will be either the 2.3 or 3.5 Eco-boost. I THINK the Stang is the only Ford vehicle with the 3.7 which I do like. There ain't much torque down low but once you get above 4k it's a hoot. The power to gallon is great. Enjoy the ride when you get it...let me guess they said 8 weeks.

oh yeah welcome to Mustang Evolution
__________________
2012 V6 with suspension, shifting, stopping and sound mods.
Strange Mud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2015, 04:54 PM   #17
Registered Member
Regular
 
Diehard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: North Reading
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOberlander View Post

"What we have, though, is the 2015 V6 being tested with 87 octane fuel. It's the exact same engine. But by testing with the lower octane gas, it loses a bit of power. I don't have documentation on this, but the math works out almost exactly, so I'm positive it's what they did. Lowering the intake height won't do a thing to the power."
So are you saying the 2014 V6 was tested using a higher octane? Or am I misunderstang something?
__________________
____________________________________________________
14 V6 auto, MCA, PP, BBK Shorties, MMD Hood Struts, Borla Touring A/B's, MAC ProChamber, aFe drop-in Filter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lets not forget, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective.
Diehard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2015, 10:33 PM   #18
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: San Diego
Region: California
Posts: 168
Even if it was, we already know stock tune doesn't take any real advantage of higher octane fuel, or if it does you won't feel it.


SR Performance CAI, Diablosport Intune bama tuner, Roush Axleback, Matte black rocker stripes.
Quack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2015, 10:42 PM   #19
Registered Member
Regular
 
VTECLol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 48
Spent some time shopping and just bought a 15 GT that I pick up in about two weeks. All they have at the dealerships in my area are a few fully loaded GTs and a hell of a lot of ecoboost models.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
__________________
2015 Race Red GT 6MT
VTECLol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2015, 10:09 AM   #20
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Smyrna Beach
Region: Florida
Posts: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Mud View Post
from a v6 owner. Don't buy a V6 Stang (or Eco-boost) for mpg. I bought my 12 V6 for the bargain performance reason. IMHO any other reason is foolish.

mpg is dissapointing with the 3.31 I get 22-24 semi-rural back roads. Highest ever all hwy 70-80mph was 26.
I average 18 with 3.31s. If you have cruise control on at 55mph with wind blowing 20mph fail wind you might get 28.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
fission is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2015, 11:10 PM   #21
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: 00
Region: Other
Posts: 1,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by davekro View Post
Are you saying that your avg mpg is 29-32? Or that you calculate 'just freeway' driving gets you 29-32? I may misremember, but I thought V6 '15's were only 100 (or 200?) lbs heavier than '14s. I am comparing convertibles, so they may be different.

I did order the spare tire, which I believe is a donut type) so that will add even more weight.
Its on my weekly work commute 80% interstate
Bigshow14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2015, 01:53 AM   #22
Registered Member
Regular
 
Bear376's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Stillwater
Region: Oklahoma
Posts: 351
I have tested the Ecoboost 2015 against how my 2013 drives. It is about equal in power, but the Ecoboost has more bottom torque. It is hard to tell with the engine not fully broke in, but the Ecoboost does not look like it will show any gains over the 3.7L in actual gas mileage. If driven as they do at the EPA, maybe, but no one drives like that in a Mustang. When it was the 3.7L and the 5.0L as the engine choices, it was around 50/50 of the buyer's choice between engines. Ford is probably hoping for a 40/40/20 with the 2015.

The 3.7L is a great base engine for the Mustang. With mine at 36,000+ miles, I averaged 25 mpg. I have good records of everything. The average mileage has increased 2 mpg since I bought it. If I keep my foot out of it, I can get 32+ mpg. With the 2015 3.7L, they modified the cam for better economy at reduced HP. The 3.7L is going to be around for a long time. It is also the base engine for the F150, Edge, MKZ, and the Transit van. IMHO, the new 2.7L V6 Ecoboost would be a good choice for the Mustang. However, it needs to replace the current Ecoboost engine to give a larger performance gain over the 3.7L V6. It is a total redesign made with graphite infused blocks. It should actually weigh less than the 2.3L I-4, and incorporates automatic engine cutout when the vehicle stops.
__________________
2013 MCA Edition-Sterling Grey
Roush body kit - Splitters/hood scoop
Whiteline suspension w/Koni shocks
Bear376 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2015, 07:53 PM   #23
Registered User
Newbie
 
canadian.bacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: GTA, Ontario
Region: Canada
Posts: 10
when i picked up the car, it was at 17.5 mpg.
500 miles later, mixed highway, side streets, winter gas, winter tires, some short trips, im already at 21.3 mpg.
I will probably be around 24-26 with mine on summer gas and all seasons. Cant beat it for 300 HP.
canadian.bacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 10:05 PM   #24
Registered Member
Regular
 
FastFord13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Montreal
Region: Canada
Posts: 4,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear376 View Post
I have tested the Ecoboost 2015 against how my 2013 drives. It is about equal in power, but the Ecoboost has more bottom torque. It is hard to tell with the engine not fully broke in, but the Ecoboost does not look like it will show any gains over the 3.7L in actual gas mileage. If driven as they do at the EPA, maybe, but no one drives like that in a Mustang. When it was the 3.7L and the 5.0L as the engine choices, it was around 50/50 of the buyer's choice between engines. Ford is probably hoping for a 40/40/20 with the 2015.

The 3.7L is a great base engine for the Mustang. With mine at 36,000+ miles, I averaged 25 mpg. I have good records of everything. The average mileage has increased 2 mpg since I bought it. If I keep my foot out of it, I can get 32+ mpg. With the 2015 3.7L, they modified the cam for better economy at reduced HP. The 3.7L is going to be around for a long time. It is also the base engine for the F150, Edge, MKZ, and the Transit van. IMHO, the new 2.7L V6 Ecoboost would be a good choice for the Mustang. However, it needs to replace the current Ecoboost engine to give a larger performance gain over the 3.7L V6. It is a total redesign made with graphite infused blocks. It should actually weigh less than the 2.3L I-4, and incorporates automatic engine cutout when the vehicle stops.
A lot has happened since your post lol. The F-150 dropped the 3.7 along with the Edge. I'm afraid our 3.7 doesn't have a bright future but a pretty bleak one.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
FastFord13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2015, 05:20 PM   #25
Registered User
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8
The v 6 and the v 8 are the original mustang engines...I'm sick of this ecoboost crap they shove down our throats...my 2016 v 6 looks better than any ecoboost

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Musty20s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2015, 05:21 PM   #26
Registered Member

Regular
 
natestang07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Soap Lake
Region: Washington
Posts: 5,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musty20s View Post
The v 6 and the v 8 are the original mustang engines...I'm sick of this ecoboost crap they shove down our throats...my 2016 v 6 looks better than any ecoboost

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
That is the direction things are going though. Why have a v6 when you can have a more efficient and just as powerful 4 cyllinder?

Sent from my VS985 4G using Mustang Evolution mobile app
natestang07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2015, 11:28 PM   #27
Registered User
Newbie
 
canadian.bacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: GTA, Ontario
Region: Canada
Posts: 10
Huh? No.
On 87 is 278hp or something like that. On premium it's 310 indeed, but the price to fill up is higher. No matter how you put it, I either lose power or money.
Where is the efficiency for me? The V6 is the best compromise.
To be honest with you, I expect another V6, but nit Eco and V8 only.
And things don't "go that way". The V6 in the Camaro is pretty sweet.
I won't buy an ecoboost car. I will switch brands before that.
canadian.bacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2015, 11:33 AM   #28
Staff

Regular
Staff
 
Strange Mud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Small Town
Region: Connecticut
Posts: 5,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by natestang07 View Post
That is the direction things are going though. Why have a v6 when you can have a more efficient and just as powerful 4 cyllinder?

Sent from my VS985 4G using Mustang Evolution mobile app
The simplicity of non-turbo with all things being equal = more reliability & less up front $

Yep I'm guessing.

I had a rental Fusion for a week with the Eco-boost and that was an impressive car/engine
__________________
2012 V6 with suspension, shifting, stopping and sound mods.
Strange Mud is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > 2015+ Mustang Ecoboost (and V6)

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
05-09 GT mpg vs 99-04 GT mpg GP3GT 2005-2010 Mustang GT 10 05-03-2013 04:08 PM
Drop or no drop OzzyLiriano 2011-2014 Mustang GT 15 12-10-2012 01:04 PM
MPG drop! nick.go90 Pre-2005 V6 Mustang 23 08-03-2012 07:01 AM
MPG-MPG insidious_ruin 2011-2014 Mustang GT 26 07-19-2012 08:18 AM
What can cause older engine to misfire and have lack acceleration? llyr Classic Mustangs 7 12-23-2011 11:04 PM

» Like Us On Facebook



04:22 PM


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.