2011 V-6 EPA certified 31MPG!
3/4/10, 09:48 AM
#21
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 11, 2009
Posts: 1,774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mainly cuz I like to use the 1-3 gears every now and then.
3/4/10, 10:13 AM
#22
Cobra Member
3/4/10, 10:29 AM
#23
GTR Member
Doesn't really matter, I'd be happy just to have a new 2011, whatever the fuel mileage ends up being. I probably couldn't keep my foot out of it enough to even get the rated MPG.
3/4/10, 10:38 AM
#24
Cobra Member
the epa rating was 25 for my car. Not that it matters. I'm just as shocked as you are.. Like I said I hardly ever get under 20 mpg with it even in combined city driving..
Last edited by topbliss; 3/4/10 at 04:17 PM.
3/4/10, 11:46 AM
#25
FR500 Member
Join Date: July 1, 2008
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beginning with 2008 models, all fuel economy estimates based on new test methods, which EPA finalized in December 2006. The new methods better account for actual driving conditions that can lower fuel economy, such as high speed, aggressive driving, use of air conditioning, and cold temperature operation. The new estimates will give drivers a more accurate estimate of the fuel economy they are likely to achieve on the road. Because of the new methods, the estimates for most 2008 models will be lower than their 2007 counterparts. To aid consumers shopping for new cars, EPA has also redesigned the fuel economy window sticker posted on all new cars and light trucks to be easier to read and understand.
Last edited by PTRocks; 3/4/10 at 11:48 AM.
3/4/10, 11:55 AM
#26
FR500 Member
Join Date: July 1, 2008
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting detailed read of the new methods, with a comparison to older methods used since the 70's. One point of interest is that the actual new tests are only required starting in the 2011 model year, so the Mustang is one of the very first cars to be officially tested using the new methodology. From 2008 until 2010, the downward revised EPA mileage ratings have only been estimates.
3/4/10, 12:09 PM
#28
Legacy TMS Member
Join Date: September 20, 2004
Location: N.E. Wisconsin
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
I sort of thought the same thing, of course Ford in all of their ads has been quantifying this by emphasizing that the mileage has remained the same while power and torque numbers have increased dramatically. True. I do think, however, that better fuel economy could have been achieved if they went with a double overdrive transmission instead of the single in the MT82. But then of course we wouldn't have missed out on some good acceleration with the close ratios and taller 1-4 gears. We shall see. This is going to be an interesting spring.
or
With the optional 3.31 gears & 18" tires you'd be at 2211 or 2182 RPM in 6th.
With the 2.73 rear, you really don't want cruising RPM to be much lower than this with the torque limitation of a V6.
1st gear in my '04 was way too much torque for the factory open differential (one wheel peel was too easy and embarrasing) but just perfect w/ T-Lok and the '11 will be within 1% of this ...
2004: 3.27 rear, 3.350 1st gear & 25.744" dia tires = 4426 RPM @ 30 MPH
vs.
2011: 2.73 rear, 4.236 1st gear & 27.252" dia tires = 4413 RPM @ 30 MPH
However cruising at 75 MPH in my '04 the engine is turning 2246 RPM ... so in my mind the '11 with std. axle ratio will basically be a DOUBLE OVERDRIVE.
With the optional 3.31 axle a "double overdrive" would be beneficial, but Ford is not going to offer up 2 different trannies !!
Doug
3/4/10, 12:15 PM
#29
Legacy TMS Member
Join Date: September 20, 2004
Location: N.E. Wisconsin
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
I was really hoping that the official EPA ratings would surpass the preliminary estimates as this also happened with the new Camaro last year.
The orig. estimates for the Camaro (both V6 & V8) were not impressive at all, and the final EPA numbers were at least 2 MPG better from what I remember.
Doug
The orig. estimates for the Camaro (both V6 & V8) were not impressive at all, and the final EPA numbers were at least 2 MPG better from what I remember.
Doug
3/4/10, 12:36 PM
#31
Join Date: May 31, 2007
Location: Washington DC Metro Area
Posts: 1,201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best I've gotten, when taking it really easy, cruise control at 70mph on the highway, was about 20mpg combined.
(FYI to all you city-mpg quoters.. can't really call it "city" driving unless you're in a grid of tightly packed roads where there's a red light every 500 feet.. I get about 8-10 mpg in the city)
3/4/10, 01:57 PM
#33
Cobra Member
Join Date: February 14, 2005
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Half of the Motor Trend commenters are impressed and half don't believe that the EPA ratings are valid. I think a lot of people are mentally stuck in the 70's and 80's. A generation ago everybody complained that their cars made less mileage than the EPA rating. With today's cars, though, the EPA ratings are often surpassed in real world driving. Do you suppose there are a lot of people that just don't know that it's OK to put their car in it's top gear when they are on the highway? I'm afraid I have family members that often drive one gear down from top gear even though they're going 60+ on a flat highway.
For the person here who reported 30 miles per gallon out of his 2010 GT, I've had other customers tell me they've gotten close to that, of course you are not enjoying the car driving it like that, but gas mileage and full throttle don't mix anyway.
If Ford claims 30 to 31 miles per gallon from the 2011 V6, I am betting people will easily achieve that.
3/4/10, 03:17 PM
#35
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Join Date: November 14, 2007
Location: Pacific NW USA
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
6 Posts
I agree, and personally in my experience with my 2006 GT and my Mercury Milan, I can easily exceed the EPA ratings for both vehicles when driven right. In fact the newer the Ford, the easier it seems to be to beat the mileage ratings. My 2008 Milan is rated at 26 highway, I can easily get around 28 without trying to hard. Even more if I really try, but that gets boring.
3/4/10, 03:26 PM
#36
GT Member
Join Date: December 10, 2009
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mustang
Kudos to all that are getting the V6, I ordered a GT so hopefully EPA specs will be out soon....but I know they wont be as good as that...oh well....
3/4/10, 03:27 PM
#37
GTR Member
My wife has a 2008 Mercury Milan Premier with the 2.3L and automatic. It's EPA rated at 28 mpg highway. I recently drove it from Seattle to Tacoma, WA on I-5 at 60 mph on cruise control and nailed 46+ mpg (fairly flat stretch of highway). On longer trips with more elevation changes we get 33+ mpg driving 60-65 mph. When I'm really trying to hustle somewhere (70-80 mph), it still manages to get 29-30 mpg. The 2008 EPA measurement changes have really made the mpg numbers more realistic - even a bit conservative and easy to surpass.
The EPA fuel economy numbers are average numbers, not written in stone, and they have a disclaimer that tells you that your mileage may vary.
3/4/10, 03:39 PM
#38
Legacy TMS Member
Join Date: January 25, 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,768
Received 1,504 Likes
on
1,027 Posts
I rented a V6 Camaro for a one-day test drive and got 25.9 MPG overall measured average, 30.5 according to the computer on a simulated commute . . . the mileage computer on the Camaro is average only, so I reset it before the simulated commute and read it when done, this was not an instantaneous reading and I believe the computer is very accurate . . . so yes it is possible to do better then the new EPA rating . . . in the past the rating was about the best you were ever going to do
(in case you are wondering, I liked the Camaro a lot . . . but waiting for the new V6 Mustang before I decide which to buy)
Last edited by Bert; 3/4/10 at 03:40 PM. Reason: correction
3/4/10, 03:52 PM
#39
Cobra R Member
Join Date: December 13, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1,708
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
My 2004 Mach1 with auto was rated at 22mpg, we drove down to MustangWeek in SC. And me and my brother achieved over 24, thats with a few spirited blast on some occasional spots..
3/4/10, 04:16 PM
#40
Legacy TMS Member
Join Date: September 20, 2004
Location: N.E. Wisconsin
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
they did -- preliminary estimate was 29 highway for the manual, 30 for the automatic . . . so they each went up by 1 . . . I think the Camaro went from 27 to 29, not that much bigger of a change
I rented a V6 Camaro for a one-day test drive and got 25.9 MPG overall measured average, 30.5 according to the computer on a simulated commute . . . the mileage computer on the Camaro is average only, so I reset it before the simulated commute and read it when done, this was not an instantaneous reading and I believe the computer is very accurate . . . so yes it is possible to do better then the new EPA rating . . . in the past the rating was about the best you were ever going to do
(in case you are wondering, I liked the Camaro a lot . . . but waiting for the new V6 Mustang before I decide which to buy)
I rented a V6 Camaro for a one-day test drive and got 25.9 MPG overall measured average, 30.5 according to the computer on a simulated commute . . . the mileage computer on the Camaro is average only, so I reset it before the simulated commute and read it when done, this was not an instantaneous reading and I believe the computer is very accurate . . . so yes it is possible to do better then the new EPA rating . . . in the past the rating was about the best you were ever going to do
(in case you are wondering, I liked the Camaro a lot . . . but waiting for the new V6 Mustang before I decide which to buy)
I'm hoping to pull off my 400 mi / week commute on one tank of gas. My '04 gets 25-27 MPG with my 80-90% of interstate driving and low-fuel light comes on between 320-360 miles. Usually drive 20-30 miles past the light and this can leave me with less than a gallon left upon fill-up, so it just does not cut it.
Doug