The Official Mustang Thread

[GoCougs]

Let's see... You state your average mileage is 21mpg in the G.  Mine is 30mpg in the Alfa.

30mpg is wait for it... A 42% improvement!

It's also see.  Motor Trend got 0-60  mpg run of 5.4 sec.  My best is 4.3 sec.

4.3 sec is wait for it... A 20% improvement!!!


How the hell do you live with yourself spending 42% more in fuel for a 20% slower car??

Oh, right, I forgot, the tune. Not only is it way faster than stock, it gets way better mpg than stock. Of course. That's how that always works, because engineering.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

I actually got 29 MPG highway in my C6 Corvette rental. I did not do a burnout.

I see 26-27 all the time!

[GoCougs]

C&D recorded 24 mpg @ 75 mph in a 10AT EB Mustang.  If you were only going 60, you should have been getting better than that (more like 27-28).  Even assuming you got the same 24 mpg, then you were only getting 13 for the rest of the time.  I don't get 13 around town in my GT unless I'm driving like a jackass.  My brother gets better than 13 mpg in his 5,500 lbs 3.5TT F150 driving around town.

In that article (https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a24847025/2018-ford-mustang-automatic-transmission-performance/), 24 mpg @ 75 mph was actually noted for the 10sp Mustang GT, not the Ecoboost. Plus of course, that is at constant speed, not a mix. In that same article, overall average was noted as 20 mpg for the Ecoboost Mustang, though there was no split noted of city/highway driving, and it did have some sort of performance package.

The verdict is in. Turbos do not improve mpg, but they do allow automakers to game the EPA test, and in some cases save money on manufacturing by pumping out a cheaper motor (such as a turbo-4 in place of a V6).

[MX793]

In that article (https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a24847025/2018-ford-mustang-automatic-transmission-performance/), 24 mpg @ 75 mph was actually noted for the 10sp Mustang GT, not the Ecoboost. Plus of course, that is at constant speed, not a mix. In that same article, overall average was noted as 20 mpg for the Ecoboost Mustang, though there was no split noted of city/highway driving, and it did have some sort of performance package.

The verdict is in. Turbos do not improve mpg, but they do allow automakers to game the EPA test, and in some cases save money on manufacturing by pumping out a cheaper motor (such as a turbo-4 in place of a V6).

Actually, it was this test https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a19862434/2018-ford-mustang-23l-ecoboost-manual-test-review/

I was mistaken in that it was a 6MT EB, not the 10AT.  Either way, the 10AT should do no worse, and at closer to 60 you should be getting a couple of MPG better than that (my GT gets around 28 at those speeds and 24 at 75).  Even if you were only getting 24 on your highway cruise, then that means you were getting like 13 around town.  13 around town in that car means you're flooring it at every traffic light.  If you were getting the 28 mpg that I would expect at 60 mph, then it's not physically possible to get under 22 mpg.  So either your driving mix was not nearly as highway biased as you claim (like, maybe it was more like 60%), or you were driving like you stole it.  Or some combination.

[GoCougs]

Actually, it was this test https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a19862434/2018-ford-mustang-23l-ecoboost-manual-test-review/

I was mistaken in that it was a 6MT EB, not the 10AT.  Either way, the 10AT should do no worse, and at closer to 60 you should be getting a couple of MPG better than that (my GT gets around 28 at those speeds and 24 at 75).  Even if you were only getting 24 on your highway cruise, then that means you were getting like 13 around town.  13 around town in that car means you're flooring it at every traffic light.  If you were getting the 28 mpg that I would expect at 60 mph, then it's not physically possible to get under 22 mpg.  So either your driving mix was not nearly as highway biased as you claim (like, maybe it was more like 60%), or you were driving like you stole it.  Or some combination.

You're sorta just making it worse for the Ecoboost Mustang - and that test notes 20 mpg average.

There are worse things in the world than a yet another turbo car underperforming on mpg.

[r0tor]

Oh, right, I forgot, the tune. Not only is it way faster than stock, it gets way better mpg than stock. Of course. That's how that always works, because engineering.

Might as well just push your pig off a cliff and get yourself something with a science wheel

[Eye of the Tiger]

I see 26-27 all the time!

Pooprods FTW?

well, except the AMC motor in my Dakota, which tops out at 23 MPG highway.

[MX793]

You're sorta just making it worse for the Ecoboost Mustang - and that test notes 20 mpg average.

There are worse things in the world than a yet another turbo car underperforming on mpg.

20 mpg with no indicated mix of driving.  Also, C&D drives their cars like they stole them.

Let's look at the actual fuelly results for 10AT cars.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2018/c5vettels1/883536 - 28.8 average.  Owner indicates mostly suburban driving with occasional heavy traffic or interstate (no quantified drive mix listed)
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2018/michayla/947477 - 27.7, 91% highway
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2018/briandivacox/898461 - 23.3, 43% highway
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2018/mhuff/871906 - 20.7.  Driver indicates 67% highway, but their history is all over the map.  Bouncing between mid to high 20s and mid teens over the past 10 weeks and they list a best of over 40.  Their higher tanks were 80+% highway, their lower tanks were closer to 50/50 (claimed).
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2018/behler/939131 - 26.4, 85% highway
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2018/wrnascar/847305 - 23.6, 27% highway
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2018/95sw21/936399 - 26.3, 50% highway
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2018/cyruswv/776081 - 27.1, 75% highway
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2018/sean32/935769 - 20.6, 50% highway (only 3 data points for this car)
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2018/dabears19/816400 - 19.9, no mileage mix given
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2018/drtexas72/892248 - 23.1, 44% highway
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2018/hestonripoff/806741 - 24.3, 50% highway
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2019/cj_parks/840845 - 23.9, 63% highway
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2019/prestonium/962017 - 23.9, 50% highway
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2019/bundlebill/946505 - 23.2, 43% highway
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2019/richbrew/859253 - 21.8, 54% highway
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2019/_chris473/949882 - 17, 38% highway (they had 1 tank that was 90% highway and registered 27 mpg)
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2019/cheriepie/917741 - 19.5, 50% highway
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2019/flaxm/879551 - 30.8, 24% highway (I think they may have confused highway and city...)
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2019/abcks3/920439 - 24.7, no mix given
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/mustang/2019/darren5l/943488 - 29, no mix given (implied mostly highway).

Just average all of these, and you get 24 mpg, which is ~10% higher than you got.  Now only look at the ones that indicate predominantly (>70%) highway driving and the average is 27, which is way higher than what you got.

Like I said, either your driving mix was far less than 80% highway, you were driving like you stole it, or both, because your results do not align with the real world results of most other 10AT EB owners driving mostly highway miles.

[GoCougs]

Just making it worse...

[GoCougs]

Might as well just push your pig off a cliff and get yourself something with a science wheel

What is a science wheel? Does it by chance force people to tell the truth and to acknowledge facts, data and logic?

Infiniti G37x (this is a coupe, but it's the same weight as the sedan): https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a16579116/2009-infiniti-g37x-coupe-instrumented-test/
0-60: 5.3 sec
0-100: 13.3 sec
0-130: 24.7 sec
1/4 mile: 13.9 sec @ 102 mph
As-tested curb weight: 3914 lbs
As-tested mpg: 19 mpg (vs. fuelly.com's 19.2 mpg)

Alfa Romeo Giulia Ti AWD: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15082853/2017-alfa-romeo-giulia-20t-awd-test-review/
0-60: 5.5 sec
0-100: 14.1 sec
0-130: 27.4 sec
1/4 mile: 14.1 sec @ 100 mph
As-tested curb weight: 3,660 lbs
As-tested mpg: 23 mpg (vs. fuelly's 22.3 = 23.8 mpg - 1.5 mpg for the RWD bias of the sample set)

[12,000 RPM]

2018 Giulia Ti: 23.78 mpg - http://www.fuelly.com/car/alfa_romeo/giulia/2018?engineconfig_id=13&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=1578
Note that there is no distinction between AWD and RWD, so AWD will be a bit lower, so let's be generous and subtract 1.5 mpg, thus, your mpg is thus 22.28 mpg.

2011 G37x: 19.2 mpg - http://www.fuelly.com/car/infiniti/g37/2011?engineconfig_id=&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=93

So, 10+ years of development, less power, smaller car, more speeds, and a bit slower, and the advantage is ~16% improved mpg. This is THE definition of no improvement.

Come on man

328i with the 2.0T.... every bit as fast as your G, 26.32 MPG +/- 0.11.... http://www.fuelly.com/car/bmw/328i/2013
A4 Quattro.... same story, 26.98 MPG +/- 0.15.... http://www.fuelly.com/car/audi/a4_quattro/2017
Q50 3.0T non RS.... same shitty JATCO 7AT, 24.13 MPG +/- 0.37.... http://www.fuelly.com/car/infiniti/q50/2017?engineconfig_id=&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=6
ATS 2.0T... again not far off the G in a straight line.... 23.54 MPG +/- 0.25.... http://www.fuelly.com/car/cadillac/ats/2016

Etc. etc..... and again these aren't even clean direct comparisons like that 528i I showed. I almost feel like you enjoy getting torque tubed

[r0tor]

What is a science wheel? Does it by chance force people to tell the truth and to acknowledge facts, data and logic?

Infiniti G37x (this is a coupe, but it's the same weight as the sedan): https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a16579116/2009-infiniti-g37x-coupe-instrumented-test/
0-60: 5.3 sec
0-100: 13.3 sec
0-130: 24.7 sec
1/4 mile: 13.9 sec @ 102 mph
As-tested curb weight: 3914 lbs
As-tested mpg: 19 mpg (vs. fuelly.com's 19.2 mpg)

Alfa Romeo Giulia Ti AWD: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15082853/2017-alfa-romeo-giulia-20t-awd-test-review/
0-60: 5.5 sec
0-100: 14.1 sec
0-130: 27.4 sec
1/4 mile: 14.1 sec @ 100 mph
As-tested curb weight: 3,660 lbs
As-tested mpg: 23 mpg (vs. fuelly's 22.3 = 23.8 mpg - 1.5 mpg for the RWD bias of the sample set)

Now add 50hp with a simple tune and the Giulia gets better mpg and centimates it in acceleration thanks to its science wheel

[Eye of the Tiger]

Now add 50hp with a simple tune and the Giulia gets better mpg and centimates it in acceleration thanks to its science wheel

I can has science wheel, too?

[12,000 RPM]

Now add 50hp with a simple tune and the Giulia gets better mpg and centimates it in acceleration thanks to its science wheel

Don't be that guy

It's obvious the Giulia *generally* doesn't get great gas mileage and your driving habits are the differentiator here

Thankfully there are several broad examples from Cougs' approved data pools that blow his theory to smithereens. Not that he'd ever admit it of course, which makes it that much more satisfying

However, I don't think it's so much the turbos as much as it is the transmissions that are driving the big FE improvements. For example the F150 basically got a 10% FE bump going from the 6AT to the 10AT:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=31032&id=41020

But the turbo engines benefitted more than the V8

[GoCougs]

Now add 50hp with a simple tune and the Giulia gets better mpg and centimates it in acceleration thanks to its science wheel

You realize no one believes you, right? Thusly, I call pick yer shins - so please post more pictures.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Tuning for more power while using less fuel is a real thing.
Stop being so obtuse.
Of course, it usually comes at the expense of emissions and engine longevity.

[r0tor]

You realize no one believes you, right? Thusly, I call pick yer shins - so please post more pictures.

WARNING: FAKE NEWS 

Do you want this mornings drive in to work...


Or a summary since my last oil change?

[Eye of the Tiger]

photoshopped

[r0tor]

photoshopped

Science wheel'd

[GoCougs]

So weak.

[r0tor]

That's it?  Sad... My histogram clearly breaks 50 mpg

[12,000 RPM]

Someone clearly reset their fuel economy reading and coasted down a hill

I have a few pics like that from my G after getting gas lol.

[CaminoRacer]

Someone clearly reset their fuel economy reading and coasted down a hill

I have a few pics like that from my G after getting gas lol.

I got 16 mi/kwh in the Bolt one time by doing that.

[CaminoRacer]

I am entertained by this picture. I don't even know what car that is or who's alpha hand that is. Doesn't look like a G37 or a Mustang or a Guilia.

[GoCougs]

I am entertained by this picture. I don't even know what car that is or who's alpha hand that is. Doesn't look like a G37 or a Mustang or a Guilia.

Just enough vagueness to keep you thinking about it, and there I am (though to be a bit unfair to r0tor's Rough Day yesterday, it's not really why the heavier/quicker/more powerful car gets "better" mpg).

[r0tor]

Not vague, just worthless

[MrH]

So weak.

[GoCougs]

Another one for r0tor - bigger/heavier/faster/more powerful N/A vehicle gets better mpg than a turbo competitor: C&D Subaru Outback vs. Honda Passport.

[565]

WARNING: FAKE NEWS 

Do you want this mornings drive in to work...


Or a summary since my last oil change?

Wow I had no idea the Giulia 2.0 only revs to 5500 RPM, or is it 6000? That tach is confusing.  Either way it's lower than I assumed it would be. 

[MX793]

So, contrary to a lot of assumptions, the GT500 doesn't actually have a proper launch control mode in the same sense that Porsche and others have.  Per a recent MT article:

The one thing the GT500 does not have is launch control in the sense that Porsche and McLaren do. In Drag mode, you may select a launch rpm, press both pedals to the floor, and then release the brake, but then you're on your own to quell wheelspin. There's no closed-loop electronic system to optimize traction.

MT also noted that the strip they used for testing, while technically prepared, was a bit "torn up" and that their 11.3 quarter mile was not representative of what the car was truly capable up.  They felt it was at least an 11 flat car, which means an even better driver could probably get it into the 10s given optimal conditions.

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/mustang/2020/better-sports-car-2020-ford-mustang-shelby-gt350-gt500/