2011 Ford Mustang V6: The Power & the Fuel-Sipping Glory

[GoCougs]

I've picked 3 manufacturers who made cars whose main differences were turbocharging.

And lol @ BMW & Audi not beign at the forefront of engine performance. Seriously?

All those examples prove my point, especially as it concerns the weakness of EPA test procedure.

BMW and especially Audi build mediocre motors - Honda and Toyota have for quite some time built better motors (at a fraction of the cost, BTW).

[SVT666]

They build mediocre motors?  You should stick to politics Cougs.

[sportyaccordy]

You have not posted one result bit of viable 'evidence' backing your claim. An equally-powerfully turbo motor will not get appreciably better MPG.

I have posted evidence. Where's yours? A gut feeling that the EPA tests are rigged?

All those examples prove my point, especially as it concerns the weakness of EPA test procedure.

BMW and especially Audi build mediocre motors - Honda and Toyota have for quite some time built better motors (at a fraction of the cost, BTW).

Mediocre? By what metric? This is why I ask for something to substantiate your views as you just seem to make stuff up.

[MX793]

I have posted evidence. Where's yours? A gut feeling that the EPA tests are rigged?

It's not so much that EPA tests are "rigged" as it is the manufacturers can add "features" to the cars to make them perform better on an EPA test that don't have quite the same effect in real world driving.  For instance, the 1-4 skip shift feature that a number of cars use.  The EPA test has set shift points and does not allow for the skipping of accessible gears.  Lock a couple of gears out and now the next accessible gear is 4th, essentially creating a loophole in the test rules.  On cars with automatics, the manufacturers program their cars to shift in accordance with how the throttle is applied in the test (which is why you read so many complaints about many cars not downshifting unless you really put your foot into it).

[GoCougs]

I have posted evidence. Where's yours? A gut feeling that the EPA tests are rigged?
Mediocre? By what metric? This is why I ask for something to substantiate your views as you just seem to make stuff up.

Dude, you've posted examples of effectively same car with a more powerful engine using more fuel = EPA test is poor determinant and turbo motors are not more MPG friendly. If I wanted to play this game:

2010 Lexus LS460 AWD; 4,800 lb, 389 hp, 16/23
2010 Subaru Legacy H6; 3,500 lb, 256 hp, 17/25
2010 Subaru Legacy GT; 3,450 lb, 265 hp, 17/25

Mediocre by any metric - power, economy, NVH, cost, w/e - Neither BMW, Audi or even MB can build as good an engine as a Toyota or Honda I4 or V6; not as powerful (at least N/A), not as refined, not as durable/reliable, and much more expensive to boot.

[omicron]

I'm with Cougs on this one - a smaller turbo engine isn't the be all and end all of fuel efficiency as we're led to believe. Lean on the accelerator ever so slightly, and suddenly those sharp-looking official numbers don't look so good after all.

[SVT666]

I'm with Cougs on this one - a smaller turbo engine isn't the be all and end all of fuel efficiency as we're led to believe. Lean on the accelerator ever so slightly, and suddenly those sharp-looking official numbers don't look so good after all.

Yes, but every engine will suck back more fuel if you get on the gas.  But driven normally that Turbo 4 will definitely get better mileage than a V6.

[omicron]

Yes, but every engine will suck back more fuel if you get on the gas.  But driven normally that Turbo 4 will definitely get better mileage than a V6.

I don't think it's an absolute. I'd definitely want to have a test car for a day or two to see for sure.

[sportyaccordy]

Dude, you've posted examples of effectively same car with a more powerful engine using more fuel = EPA test is poor determinant and turbo motors are not more MPG friendly. If I wanted to play this game:

2010 Lexus LS460 AWD; 4,800 lb, 389 hp, 16/23
2010 Subaru Legacy H6; 3,500 lb, 256 hp, 17/25
2010 Subaru Legacy GT; 3,450 lb, 265 hp, 17/25

IIRC, the new Legacy has a big frontal area + isn't all that aerodynamic. Most importantly though, the Lexus has a new, highly efficient 8 speed transmission + transfer case vs the Subaru's old school 5 speed AT. The cars are in no way similar. Can you find some other fuel economy results that would more realistically reflect the inherent differences between the two cars?

Mediocre by any metric - power, economy, NVH, cost, w/e - Neither BMW, Audi or even MB can build as good an engine as a Toyota or Honda I4 or V6; not as powerful (at least N/A), not as refined, not as durable/reliable, and much more expensive to boot.

BMW's motors have been pretty power efficient since the 170HP 2.5L M20 6 cylinder of the 80s and have pretty much had the same HP+TQ/L as their Japanese counterparts or better, so that's out. You have no standardized metric of fuel economy and have not, unless I'm mistaken, ever owned or driven a German car so I'm not sure how you can state that with such certainty either. Ditto to a degree for NVH- BMW's engines are world renowned for their combination of mechanical smoothness and enjoyable sounds. Honda has some smooth running engines but in my experience Toyota does not. Cost is not directly comparable either as none of the companies sell crate motors, and unless I'm mistaken do not publish the breakdown of component costs of their cars publicly.

The only metric by which you come close to having a point is in durability/reliability; but even in that we're comparing apples to oranges; a Honda Accord of the 90s generally had a pretty simple, low compression, low engine speed 4 banger. These were not complicated or highly stressed lumps. By contrast, during the same period BMW had engines of close displacement with more cylinders (more running $$$), more technology (some of which were industry firsts- VANOS for example was IIRC the first general production implementation of cam phasing), higher engine speeds and more HP/L (M50 2.5L I6 in '92 was putting down 76HP/L and was BMW's bread and butter motor; what non VTEC N/A Honda/Toyota/Nissan engines were doing that?). Let's not forget Toyota's sludge debacle, Honda's V6 head gasket woes on the C series and transmission problems on the Js. Cmon now

[GoCougs]

For all these assertions no one has posted any evidence and data that backs up these superior MPG claims about a turbo motor and basic fundamental engineering concepts point to approximately equivalency in MPG as well. Plus, the V6 will be more reliable and durable, have no turbo lag, and will be better in NVH.

IMO the turbo mill really only makes sense either when it comes to space constraints (e.g., 911 Turbo - there's simply no room for a 500+ N/A engine with today's engine technology) or development cost savings (turbo charging an existing engine family/architecture).

[SVT666]

2010 Ford Taurus SEL 3.5L V6 (263 hp) = 17/25 mpg

2010 Ford Taurus SHO Twin Turbo 3.5L V6 (365 hp) = 17/25 mpg

[GoCougs]

IIRC, the new Legacy has a big frontal area + isn't all that aerodynamic. Most importantly though, the Lexus has a new, highly efficient 8 speed transmission + transfer case vs the Subaru's old school 5 speed AT. The cars are in no way similar. Can you find some other fuel economy results that would more realistically reflect the inherent differences between the two cars?

I would say probably not on frontal area - the LS460L is a whale of a car that absolutely dwarfs the Legacy GT and especially the WRX (same MPG as the LGT). Plus, the Legacy GT has a 6sp M/T which will be more efficient than any torque converter-style A/T even like that in the LS460. I don't know the specifics on the two transfer cases, but I imagine it being that big of a difference. IMO, the two cars are very similar in the context you created. But we can also add others. The G37x and Acura TL SH-AWD also have identical or a bit better MPG ratings than the Legacy GT, all the while being larger, heavier, more powerful cars that are also use torque convert-style ATs.

I will say this however; Subaru really doesn't have to worry too much about MPG as it doesn't have SUVs, sports cars, or other MPG-unfriendly vehicle types can sink CAFE numbers. Plus its cars have a cult following and in general Americans don't care about MPG all that much (that's primarily politicians and certain sectors of society clamoring for power in various ways). This means Subaru doesn't care too much about MPG.

BMW's motors have been pretty power efficient since the 170HP 2.5L M20 6 cylinder of the 80s and have pretty much had the same HP+TQ/L as their Japanese counterparts or better, so that's out. You have no standardized metric of fuel economy and have not, unless I'm mistaken, ever owned or driven a German car so I'm not sure how you can state that with such certainty either. Ditto to a degree for NVH- BMW's engines are world renowned for their combination of mechanical smoothness and enjoyable sounds. Honda has some smooth running engines but in my experience Toyota does not. Cost is not directly comparable either as none of the companies sell crate motors, and unless I'm mistaken do not publish the breakdown of component costs of their cars publicly.

The I6 architecture is old and limited technology, and as competition demanded more power BMW has been playing catch-up, having to result to F/I to keep pace. The Japanese Big 3's 300 - 330 hp N/A V6s are better motors in every regard save for maybe Toyota and Nissan's NVH.

The only metric by which you come close to having a point is in durability/reliability; but even in that we're comparing apples to oranges; a Honda Accord of the 90s generally had a pretty simple, low compression, low engine speed 4 banger. These were not complicated or highly stressed lumps. By contrast, during the same period BMW had engines of close displacement with more cylinders (more running $$$), more technology (some of which were industry firsts- VANOS for example was IIRC the first general production implementation of cam phasing), higher engine speeds and more HP/L (M50 2.5L I6 in '92 was putting down 76HP/L and was BMW's bread and butter motor; what non VTEC N/A Honda/Toyota/Nissan engines were doing that?). Let's not forget Toyota's sludge debacle, Honda's V6 head gasket woes on the C series and transmission problems on the Js. Cmon now

The M50 was a relatively low production, specialized engine. Sure BMW has had innovations but I'm not talking about technology for technology's sake per se, I'm talking about results - power, economy, NVH, reliability/durability and cost (of the overall vehicle). And when talking NVH I was primarily thinking of BMW's I4, of which they build plenty.

[sportyaccordy]

I would say probably not on frontal area - the LS460L is a whale of a car that absolutely dwarfs the Legacy GT and especially the WRX (same MPG as the LGT). Plus, the Legacy GT has a 6sp M/T which will be more efficient than any torque converter-style A/T even like that in the LS460. I don't know the specifics on the two transfer cases, but I imagine it being that big of a difference. IMO, the two cars are very similar in the context you created. But we can also add others. The G37x and Acura TL SH-AWD also have identical or a bit better MPG ratings than the Legacy GT, all the while being larger, heavier, more powerful cars that are also use torque convert-style ATs.

I will say this however; Subaru really doesn't have to worry too much about MPG as it doesn't have SUVs, sports cars, or other MPG-unfriendly vehicle types can sink CAFE numbers. Plus its cars have a cult following and in general Americans don't care about MPG all that much (that's primarily politicians and certain sectors of society clamoring for power in various ways). This means Subaru doesn't care too much about MPG.

Well mean the Subaru is using 15 year old engines with pretty much no efficiency technology besides VVT and turbochargers. I think both the H4 & H6 have relatively low compression ratios compared to the competition, whereas the Lexus has VVT, DI, and an 11.8:1 CR, along with an 8 spd auto that has efficiency close to an M/T (C&D did an article on it), and much smarter efficiency management than a cavedude with a stickshift...

I'm sure in the real world their fuel mileages are close as well. I'm sure it's less the Lexus being re-engineered to cheat the test as much as it is "Subaru not having to worry too much about MPG as it doesn't have SUVs, sports cars, or other MPG-unfriendly vehicle types [that] can sink CAFE numbers. Plus its cars have a cult following and in general Americans don't care about MPG all that much (that's primarily politicians and certain sectors of society clamoring for power in various ways). This means Subaru doesn't care too much about MPG.", which means their efforts to make their cars more efficient are nil...

All I need to be convinced is some evidence that cars are getting much lower real world gas mileage than EPA numbers suggest, as you assert that manufacturers are spending money on tech that boosts gas mileage on the EPA test, but not in real life (????).

The I6 architecture is old and limited technology, and as competition demanded more power BMW has been playing catch-up, having to result to F/I to keep pace. The Japanese Big 3's 300 - 330 hp N/A V6s are better motors in every regard save for maybe Toyota and Nissan's NVH.

BMW went the F/I route to save $$$ on developing a bigger block, as IIRC its I6 is at the outer limits of bore spacing and the bore/stroke ratio they want to keep vibrations low. It definitely worked.  The N54/N55 motors are just as powerful and efficient as the Japanese V6s, but deliver significantly more low end torque (and overall performance) and none of the ugly thrashy NVH. The turbo + DI combo is also much less complex than Valvetronic, or Nissan's incredibly complex infinitely variable valve lift system they have on their latest VQ (a one shot application).

In my personal experience, some of the Japanese V6s can get downright nasty. Never, ever, ever heard an ugly sounding/thrashy BMW engine.

The M50 was a relatively low production, specialized engine.

The M50 is about as specialized as Toyota or Nissan's V6s. The architecture of the M50 was the basis of every BMW 6 cylinder from 1991-2005, including the ///M cars. In that regard it's actually less specialized than the Japanese 6s, as during the same period they delegated their thrashy V6s to lower end cars and used I6s for applications where higher power or lower NVH was more critical...

Sure BMW has had innovations but I'm not talking about technology for technology's sake per se, I'm talking about results - power, economy, NVH, reliability/durability and cost (of the overall vehicle). And when talking NVH I was primarily thinking of BMW's I4, of which they build plenty.

Again- not sure what metrics you're using but from what I know and have seen + read BMW is either on equal footing or only second to Honda as a general production engine manufacturer. Their mainstream I4s are nothing to write home about, but that's really the only place where they play second fiddle to Honda; their 6 cylinder engines are better and their 8-10-12 cylinder engines are better by default (outside of F1, which I know nothing about). There are reasons McLaren came to BMW over Lotus, Honda, etc to commission the building of the F1's V12, and much of that motor's tech was carried over from the M50. So claims of BMW being a second rate engine company are downright silly; it's right in the name- Bavarian Motor Works.

[MX793]

BMW went the F/I route to save $$$ on developing a bigger block, as IIRC its I6 is at the outer limits of bore spacing and the bore/stroke ratio they want to keep vibrations low. It definitely worked.  The N54/N55 motors are just as powerful and efficient as the Japanese V6s, but deliver significantly more low end torque (and overall performance) and none of the ugly thrashy NVH. The turbo + DI combo is also much less complex than Valvetronic, or Nissan's incredibly complex infinitely variable valve lift system they have on their latest VQ (a one shot application).

Only the N54 goes without Valvetronic.  When they went to a single turbo on the newer N55, they put Valvetronic (continuously/infinitely variable lift) back into the motor.  Both have Double-VANOS.

[GoCougs]

Sorry sporty, I don't agree on any level. Turbo motors will not be inherently much more efficient and the Japanese build better motors than ze Germans.

But you're right about a meatier powerband for a F/I motor; but what with 6 to infinite # speeds in most cars these days, that is basically a moot issue.

[Nethead]

'Hate to disrupt The Braying Ass diatribe about Japanese versus German engines--but since no one gives a shit, I will:

The Top 10 Cars of 2011: Auto Excellence Awards

PERFORMANCE VEHICLE OF THE YEAR:

Throughout the year, (the editors of Popular Mechanics) record the functionality, technology, value and feel of new cars from our test drives. Near the end of the year, we gather and argue for the best cars and trucks of 2011. Here they are, the year's top 10 cars and trucks. By The Editors

Ford Mustang
Base Price: $22,145

Last year, we picked the Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 as the best performance car, and we didn't expect to bestow the honor on the original ponycar again for quite some time. After all, the performance category is brimming with dynamic-handling, powerfully motivated competitors from around the globe?the BMW M3 and the Chevrolet Corvette were recent winners?and they're all improving, all the time.

But over the course of the past few months, Ford has re energized the entire Mustang lineup. First, the new (base Mustang) arrived with an astonishingly versatile V6 engine that developed 305 hp while attaining more than 30 mpg. Alongside that entry-level engine, we witnessed the rebirth of the 5.0, a nostalgic number that represents high performance?by virtue of its 412 hp?like none other.

Except, perhaps, for the 302. Ford reincarnated the Boss 302 nameplate for 2011 as a naturally aspirated 440-hp race car you can drive to the racetrack. You can manually tune the adjustable shocks to their hardest settings, win the race, and then revert to the softer street settings and drive home.

Finally, the 2011 Shelby GT500 still sits at the extreme side of the spectrum, featuring a new, lighter aluminum block for its supercharged 5.4-liter V8 (which makes 550 hp and 510 lb-ft of torque). Race ya' for pinks?

[hotrodalex]

They build mediocre motors?  You should stick to politics Cougs.

All I can say is

[FoMoJo]

I'm with Cougs on this one - a smaller turbo engine isn't the be all and end all of fuel efficiency as we're led to believe. Lean on the accelerator ever so slightly, and suddenly those sharp-looking official numbers don't look so good after all.

I would think that adding direct injection to the equation and a shitload of new software that the concept has been somewhat improved.  Ford has 125 new 'powertrain' patents on EcoBoost mainly involving minimizing fuel consumption and emissions as well as turbo plumbing to ensure the back side of the butterfly flap is always pressurized.   It's a far cry from the early turbo engines when, under boost, half of the fuel went straight out the tailpipe. 

Some may remember the F1 'turbo' era  with 4 pot bangers spluttering and popping with 10 foot flames shooting out of the back side.  Not only did they waste half of their fuel, the drivers had to time their acceleration to hit the gas pedal 2 seconds before they needed the power to the rear wheels in order to allow for the turbos to spool up.  Worst ever F1 engines; though they did serve, somewhat, to advance turbo technology. 

[sportyaccordy]

It's not so much that EPA tests are "rigged" as it is the manufacturers can add "features" to the cars to make them perform better on an EPA test that don't have quite the same effect in real world driving.  For instance, the 1-4 skip shift feature that a number of cars use.  The EPA test has set shift points and does not allow for the skipping of accessible gears.  Lock a couple of gears out and now the next accessible gear is 4th, essentially creating a loophole in the test rules.  On cars with automatics, the manufacturers program their cars to shift in accordance with how the throttle is applied in the test (which is why you read so many complaints about many cars not downshifting unless you really put your foot into it).

Good points. Even still though, I think a lot of the "all the time" features, like direct injection, better aerodynamics etc really do boost fuel efficiency, and their effectiveness is still reflected in long term road test mileage averages.

My whole thing is, if EPA ratings are essentially useless, and fuel economy is a meaningful stat for me to choose a car with, how can I figure out what range of mileage I should expect?

[Cobra93]

October 2010 sales figures:

Mustang: 5,317
Camaro: 5,013
Challenger: 3,182

[MX793]

My whole thing is, if EPA ratings are essentially useless, and fuel economy is a meaningful stat for me to choose a car with, how can I figure out what range of mileage I should expect?

At the bare minimum, EPA mileage gives you an indication of how fuel efficient one vehicle is compared to another when driven in the exact same fashion and conditions.  But since your driving conditions may not be the same as those used in the test, "your mileage may vary" when it comes to the actual mileage you may attain when you are driving the car.

That said, the EPA has been taking strides to make their estimated window-sticker numbers (which are indeed estimates, they apply a fudge factor to the actual measured mileage from the test) more reflective of what kind of mileage one could reasonably expect in the real world.

But Cougs' point is that vehicle fuel mileage is not dependent solely on the engine.  It is a measure of how fuel efficient the vehicle as a whole is, and this is a function of vehicle weight, gearing, transmission efficiency, aerodynamics, tire size, tire compound, etc...  It is possible to put a very fuel efficient engine in a not so fuel efficient package to produce a vehicle that gets terrible fuel mileage.  One can also put a not-so-fuel-efficient engine in an otherwise very efficient package and get very good fuel economy.  Thus, comparing fuel efficiency of engines by citing the EPA fuel economy of entire vehicles (particularly when you're comparing Engine A to Engine B by citing the fuel efficiency of Vehicle A to completely different Vehicle B) doesn't make much sense.  EPA mileage is a measure of the package, not the engine.

[sportyaccordy]

Thus, comparing fuel efficiency of engines by citing the EPA fuel economy of entire vehicles (particularly when you're comparing Engine A to Engine B by citing the fuel efficiency of Vehicle A to completely different Vehicle B) doesn't make much sense.  EPA mileage is a measure of the package, not the engine.

Well, I figured in comparing different engines in the same bodies (or relatively close ones) that difference would be wiped out. Obv it's silly to compare completely different cars, say, like comparing an LS460 to a Legacy; but I don't think it's fair to say the EPA figures between a Sonata 2.4 & 2.0T are not comparable; I'm pretty sure that outside of the engine they're the same exact car, so any variance in fuel economy has to be wholly due to the engine- which comes back to my point of EPA figures being completely meaningless.

[GoCougs]

2010 sales numbers through October:

Camaro: 71,512
Mustang: 64,1171
Challenger: 30,964

[SVT666]

Posting the same numbers in 3 threads again eh Neth......oh it's Cougs!

[Cobra93]

2010 sales numbers through October:

Camaro: 71,512
Mustang: 64,1171
Challenger: 30,964

Yearly sales numbers 1965-2001

Mustang: 7,899,556
Camaro: 4,821,768

[SVT666]

Yearly sales numbers 1965-2001

Mustang: 7,899,556
Camaro: 4,821,768

Yearly sale numbers 2002-2009

Mustang:  A shitload
Camaro:  0

[GoCougs]

Hmmm. My Internetry has a challenger...

[Nethead]

sportyaccordy:  Why take a chance?  Get a 2011 Mustang V6 that is the only car the EPA has ever tested that has over 300 HP and gets over 30 MPG.  And it turns the quarter-mile in under fourteen seconds at over 100 MPH .

No other new car you can buy in North America can do that--nothing from GM, nothing from Chrysler, nothing from Germany, nothing from Japan, nothing from Italy, nothing from Korea...

Except the one this thread is about.  

Now you know

[MX793]

sportyaccordy:  Why take a chance?  Get a 2011 Mustang V6 that is the only car the EPA has ever tested that has over 300 HP and gets over 30 MPG.  And it turns the quarter-mile in under fourteen seconds at over 100 MPH .

No other new car you can buy in North America can do that--nothing from GM, nothing from Chrysler, nothing from Germany, nothing from Japan, nothing from Italy, nothing from Korea...

Except the one this thread is about. 

Now you know

Been over this many times.  A Mustang equipped to get 30 MPG won't run a sub-14 1/4 mile.  You can have a Mustang that runs a sub-14 OR you can have a Mustang rated at 30 MPG highway.  You won't get both.

[Nethead]

Been over this many times.  A Mustang equipped to get 30 MPG won't run a sub-14 1/4 mile.  You can have a Mustang that runs a sub-14 OR you can have a Mustang rated at 30 MPG highway.  You won't get both.

MX793:  Y'know, methinks you CAN get over 30 MPG and under fourteen seconds in the same V6 Mustang.

Why?
 Motor Trend's four-way comparo of V6s used a 3.31:1 differential Mustang V6 six-speed manual, which in 6th gear was pullin' 2.32:1 as a final drive ratio.  That's pretty stingy for a vehicle that used these gears to turn the quarter mile in 13.7 seconds @ 102.0 MPH!  AND it only needed 1800 RPM to maintain 60 MPH, which is stingy, too.
 Consider that a regulation Mustang V6 Premium with fairly typical fluff (including, IIRC, the glassroof option) drove 770+ miles on one tank of gas (about 16 gallons) on a NASCAR oval--which means averaging over 48 MPG on regular fuel.  And they changed drivers every hour so time & fuel were lost hourly.

Soooooooo:
Take a base Mustang V6 coupe with no options but the 3.31:1s and whatever wheels/tires equipped the Motor Trend test car.  If necessary, add cruise control (Maybe standard--I dunno.  Cruise control is standard in our Flex).  In the sub-fourteen-second Mustang and in the 48+ MPG Mustang, the engines were the same 305 HP V6s.

Do the factory recommended break-in procedure, and change the oil if the manual says to do so after the break-in mileage is reached.  

Bring each tire up to its recommended pressure.

Fill 'er up with unleaded regular (no racing gasoline or auto parts store additives--just a name-brand unleaded regular).

Get out on the open road and set the cruise control to five-over the speed limit.  Or simplify it and go with a setting of 60 MPH, which requires 1800 RPM with the sub-fourteener's 3.31:1s.

Then go.  That's all.

When a vehicle can get over 48 MPG under whatever conditions prevailed at that NASCAR track, switching to 3.31:1 gears and to whatever tires turned the 13.7 seconds ET ain't gonna drop that kinda mileage a whopping 18 MPG, IMO.  Remember, we ain't talkin' a V6 Premium with whatever fluff that entails and NO glassroof--just a base V6 with 3.31:1s, the tires and wheels that turned the 13.7, and cruise control (which may be standard on base V6 Mustangs, AFAIK).

I definitely think you'll get 31 MPG--or better.  Do you have evidence to the contrary?  Better still, do you have a base V6 2011 Mustang equipped as described above?  If you do, it's game on!

I wonder just what MPG a TiVCT DOHC 5.0L V8 Mustang GT could get under similar circumstances?