Mustang Evolution Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,981 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
According to the window sticker, my 2015 GT is rated at 16 city and 25 highway.....the EPA ratings, I think, hurt the Mustang when those considering a purchase look at those mpg ratings.
I routinely get 21-22 in town and just today on a 250 mile highway jaunt (mostly two lane, with a couple of two gear kick-down passes, uphill and down at 65 to 75 mph) got an easy 27.5 mpg. I do put in only premium fuel, so compared to a car that takes regular gas at a lower price, you do need to make an adjustment, but still — 16/25 seems artificially low, doesn’t it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
Interesting topic! EPA ratings are tricky. There are a bunch of variables that affect gas mileage beyond just city or highway use. The EPA rating gives a couple of numbers generated by a standardized test that are useful for comparison against other vehicles, but will not be necessarily indicative of the vehicle's fuel efficiency for a given consumer due to varying circumstances.

I've driven my '17 GT all over the continental US - it has literally been in all 48 lower states, most of them this year - and I've seen my MPG all over the place. I've tracked every mile on Fuelly since the car was new (23.5 MPG overall). The highest recorded MPG (per tank) has been 29.95 MPG, the lowest MPG was 18.82. Having said that, the majority of my miles are highway, and I've never burned an entire tank of gas driving in the city. The car's computer tends to be 1/2 to 1-1/2 MPG optimistic on gas mileage compared to the actual calculated MPG. I know there have been times that I've filled the car, and driven a significant number of city miles with the car's computer claiming I'm in single digit territory for gas mileage.

With that in mind, I don't know that gas mileage in and of itself is a deciding factor when it comes to buying a Mustang GT. It may be part of the equation if someone chooses an Ecoboost or a different vehicle over the Mustang GT - for instance, a person may decide that they can't afford (or don't want to spend the extra money) for a GT due to the price difference + increased insurance + extra tax (both sales and property taxes) + more gas. For myself, when I purchased my previous V6 Mustang, I based the decision on the purchase price more than the other financial considerations.

I suspect that a person who is concerned about MPG would probably skip both the GT and Ecoboost and tend to get a different type of car that offered better gas mileage, anyway. I think that increasing the EPA ratings by 10% probably wouldn't sway a lot of buyers that are on the fence.

But, that's just my humble opinion... as they say, "Your mileage may vary"... :angel:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,325 Posts
The methods used by the EPA to test for fuel mileage are mostly conducted within a laboratory, so their results will not necessarily produce "real world" mpg figures for every vehicle.
On top of that, EPA testing does not take into consideration the possible different configurations of a particular vehicle. Such as, final drive ratios, wheel/tire combinations, etc.
I think that it was the EPA who coined the phrase "Your mileage may vary".
Their mpg ratings are probably on the conservative side in most cases. I would think that the auto manufacturers prefer it that way, to a certain extent. Consumers are less likely to complain if they are pleasantly surprised to be achieving better than advertised fuel consumption.

In the case of a Mustang GT, I think that the target demographic is more interested in the horsepower number, rather than mpg ratings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
On top of that, EPA testing does not take into consideration the possible different configurations of a particular vehicle. Such as, final drive ratios, wheel/tire combinations, etc.
Yes they do. The EPA hiway rating on my Ecoboost Mustang with the 6spd manual and performance package (3.55 gears) is 28 mpg hiway. Same car without PP (3.30 gears) is rated 30mpg. City stays they same.

The GT PP is rated 14/23 vs 15/25 for the non PP GT.



Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,325 Posts
Interesting.
Yes, it appears that I have not been staying current on the EPA testing standards, and they have been recently revised to more accurately reflect actual fuel economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
502 Posts
You don't have to run premium gas in the 2015 GT. I've tried both and there is zero difference in MPG. For the 10% HP gain I think running premium gas is a total waste of money. Ford recommend regular gas. It's in the manual.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,981 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
You don't have to run premium gas in the 2015 GT. I've tried both and there is zero difference in MPG. For the 10% HP gain I think running premium gas is a total waste of money. Ford recommend regular gas. It's in the manual.
Sorry, my baby gets only the best, so premium it is.....for what it’s worth, I can feel the difference 20-40 HP makes......premium will chirp second gear in “S” mode, regular will not.:lol:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
I really don't know that very many people pay that much attention to EPA ratings and for me that's about 8 on my list of 5 things when buying a new car or even a used car. My 2010 Mini showed more information on the window sticker than any of my other cars/trucks I have owned. It showed City MPG @ 19-29, Combined at 27 out of a scale of 12-32 and Highway at 32 in a range of 26-38...on a 1200+ trip I got between 37-40. The ATSV is rated at 17-25 with a combined of 20...on a 500 mile trip I got 27 and on occasion around town I've gotten as low as 14. The Silverado is 16-22 with a combinded of 18 and with noting in the bed I have consistently gotten 23+ on the highway. My old TrakPak 14 was 16-25 with combinded of 19, on a 375 mile trip I averaged 17 going down and 26 coming back...no, both ways were up and down and not level...375 miles in just shy of 4 hours when my Sister was in the hospital.
Getting off the subject just a little, on the Silverado when I installed the RX oil catch can system the in town mileage when around 17 to almost 19...the idle is now so smooth you can set a glass of water on the hood with little or no movement...proving to me that direct injection motors are pulling some amount of crud through the intake...IMHO
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
My initial SWAG for MPG on the sticker are MIN/MAX to cover a variety of conditions.


Personally, I'm am now tuned for e85 and I get about 14 MPG if I drive it like a grandma.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
2016 GT Conv with Perf Pack

My MPG is very close to 20 avg. Highway is normally 24-28 and city is generally 19-21. I use Mid grade fuel and dont have a heavy foot. Other than going through a set of Pirellis (uneven wear) - 23 mpg is what you should expect. Still better than my 2010 Edge (21 mpg) and my 07 Sport Trac (15-17 mpg).
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top