2011 V-6 EPA certified 31MPG!
All these MPG numbers you are giving, 46+, 33+, etc. Are these numbers taken from a mileage readout from the computer? If so, those numbers are only instant readings, not an average number. And an average number is what you have to look at. When I used to drive eighteen wheelers for a living, the last truck I owned had a mileage readout and I could make it go to 99 MPG when going downhill but it sure wasn't going to actually get anywhere near to that as an average.
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.
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.
fyi- the S197's computer gives average fuel mileage.
Well only the most recent to how you've driven though. I'd say its more of an instant calc than an average of that tankfull.
When I climb the pass to head to town I drop in 4th and play up the mountain. The computer shows lower than my average mileage. When I go down the other side coasting in 5th it shows higher than my average mileage. By the time I get to town and hit the gas station, I've been on level ground long enough that the computer comes back to average mileage.
Overall I find the computer pretty accurate to hand calculated for the entire tankfull (providing I zero out the parameters each fill-up) - usually within 1 mpg.
PS: If I don't zero out the parameters each fill-up, the computer starts diverging from hand calculation for that entire tank - with the computer erring on the high to very high side. Hence I learned to zero out.
When I climb the pass to head to town I drop in 4th and play up the mountain. The computer shows lower than my average mileage. When I go down the other side coasting in 5th it shows higher than my average mileage. By the time I get to town and hit the gas station, I've been on level ground long enough that the computer comes back to average mileage.
Overall I find the computer pretty accurate to hand calculated for the entire tankfull (providing I zero out the parameters each fill-up) - usually within 1 mpg.
PS: If I don't zero out the parameters each fill-up, the computer starts diverging from hand calculation for that entire tank - with the computer erring on the high to very high side. Hence I learned to zero out.
Last edited by cdynaco; Mar 4, 2010 at 04:51 PM.
In typical fashion though, normally in the past a 97hp increase and 55tq would result in a decrease in mileage. So along with increased displacement and a gain of ~40lbs... staying virtually the same mpg and still beating the numbers set out by camaro and challenger is good in and of its self...
to me at least.
Hell, if I set mine on cruise to the speed limit, I get 28-30 mpg easy. And it's rated at 23.
to me at least.

Hell, if I set mine on cruise to the speed limit, I get 28-30 mpg easy. And it's rated at 23.

If you reset the MPG meter while you're on the road, then that number is not your actual MPG.
The only way to get your actual highway MPG is to reset the meter when you're stopped, not moving at all. And then look at your MPG after having driven on the highway.
Otherwise, we get a very distorted picture of actual mileage, without factoring in the 5-20 seconds you spend at 4-8mpg while you accellerate to highway speeds.
The only way to get your actual highway MPG is to reset the meter when you're stopped, not moving at all. And then look at your MPG after having driven on the highway.
Otherwise, we get a very distorted picture of actual mileage, without factoring in the 5-20 seconds you spend at 4-8mpg while you accellerate to highway speeds.
If you reset the MPG meter while you're on the road, then that number is not your actual MPG.
The only way to get your actual highway MPG is to reset the meter when you're stopped, not moving at all. And then look at your MPG after having driven on the highway.
Otherwise, we get a very distorted picture of actual mileage, without factoring in the 5-20 seconds you spend at 4-8mpg while you accellerate to highway speeds.
The only way to get your actual highway MPG is to reset the meter when you're stopped, not moving at all. And then look at your MPG after having driven on the highway.
Otherwise, we get a very distorted picture of actual mileage, without factoring in the 5-20 seconds you spend at 4-8mpg while you accellerate to highway speeds.
I drove for 100 miles on the backroads carefully, but I had to stop at intersections etc.
Never went over 60, usually went about 45-50.
When I parked in my garage again it read 27 MPG.
FYI my meter reads a hair low. It always show less mpg than I calculate (@.1-.2).
I reset the meter in my garage after starting the car.
I drove for 100 miles on the backroads carefully, but I had to stop at intersections etc.
Never went over 60, usually went about 45-50.
When I parked in my garage again it read 27 MPG.
FYI my meter reads a hair low. It always show less mpg than I calculate (@.1-.2).
I drove for 100 miles on the backroads carefully, but I had to stop at intersections etc.
Never went over 60, usually went about 45-50.
When I parked in my garage again it read 27 MPG.
FYI my meter reads a hair low. It always show less mpg than I calculate (@.1-.2).
Karman is not even highway driving and hes getting 27 mpg. These cars are amazing
I reset the meter in my garage after starting the car.
I drove for 100 miles on the backroads carefully, but I had to stop at intersections etc.
Never went over 60, usually went about 45-50.
When I parked in my garage again it read 27 MPG.
FYI my meter reads a hair low. It always show less mpg than I calculate (@.1-.2).
I drove for 100 miles on the backroads carefully, but I had to stop at intersections etc.
Never went over 60, usually went about 45-50.
When I parked in my garage again it read 27 MPG.
FYI my meter reads a hair low. It always show less mpg than I calculate (@.1-.2).
I may have a dud..

My MPG reads a little higher than real MPG - and whenever I fill up, my "Gallons used" always shows about 1-2 gallons less than what I've actually used. (i.e., what the pump shows)
I've had about 25mpg in strictly long distance highway driving, gas-station to gas-station, with me taking it up to up to 100 a few times. 27 is pretty nice.
man im seriously thinking about getting a 2011 v6 instead of a 08-09 gt. grant it the gt will prob edge out one of thes new v6. but my stang will be a DD with quite a few more mpgs over the gt...makes you think. Hard!
The point Im trying to make is that you could buy a used pre 11 gt with a v8 that is faster and gets almost as good gas mileage as the 011 v6 for a whole lot less. Unless you have to have the new body style..
I think the new automatic gets 30 and the 6 speed manual gets the 29.. First time I have ever seen an automatic gets better mileage then a manual trans! Ford musta really did a good job with the new 6 speed
Ford had projected that the highway mileage would be 29 for manual and 30 for automatic. The articles written in the last couple of days have the freshly official EPA numbers, which are 30 for manual and 31 for the automatic.
and topbliss makes a very good point . . . if I can actually get high 20's from a 2010 or earlier GT, then it changes the picture when I look at the 20110 V6 . . . it would be way cool to have the V8 rumble AND good fuel economy . . . of course with the V8 the temptation would be always there to have more fun and drink more gas . . . but it would be cool to have the choice . . . so it brings me back to what I already decided, which is if I can find a great deal on a 2010 GT I'll go for it, otherwise I'll wait for the 2011 V6
hmmmm. . . . then again, I really like the 08/09 Bullitts . . . I'm so confused!

(but it sure is fun)
Any 4.6 Mustangs that are ACTUALLY getting the fuel economy that some on here are claiming are NOT the norm. So if you are basing your decision on what to buy based on the fuel economy you think they are going to get then the 2011 V6 is the car to get if fuel economy is what you want.
And I also still maintain that if a 2010 or earlier car is capable of getting that much higher fuel economy than what they are EPA rated at, then the 2011 V6 cars should be just as capable of getting better economy than they are rated at.
If fuel economy is at the top of your list to decide which car to buy, hedge your bet and get the 2011 V6 car with the auto tranny.
And I also still maintain that if a 2010 or earlier car is capable of getting that much higher fuel economy than what they are EPA rated at, then the 2011 V6 cars should be just as capable of getting better economy than they are rated at.
If fuel economy is at the top of your list to decide which car to buy, hedge your bet and get the 2011 V6 car with the auto tranny.
Any 4.6 Mustangs that are ACTUALLY getting the fuel economy that some on here are claiming are NOT the norm. So if you are basing your decision on what to buy based on the fuel economy you think they are going to get then the 2011 V6 is the car to get if fuel economy is what you want.
And I also still maintain that if a 2010 or earlier car is capable of getting that much higher fuel economy than what they are EPA rated at, then the 2011 V6 cars should be just as capable of getting better economy than they are rated at.
If fuel economy is at the top of your list to decide which car to buy, hedge your bet and get the 2011 V6 car with the auto tranny.
And I also still maintain that if a 2010 or earlier car is capable of getting that much higher fuel economy than what they are EPA rated at, then the 2011 V6 cars should be just as capable of getting better economy than they are rated at.
If fuel economy is at the top of your list to decide which car to buy, hedge your bet and get the 2011 V6 car with the auto tranny.
On a side not, my '07 GT Automatic is EPA rated at 17 mpg city & 23 mpg highway. It only gets 19-20 mpg driven on the highway with the flow of traffic (70-75 mph). At 55-60 mph on cruise control on flat terrain it'll get 23-24, but who drives like that? The vast majority of my driving is around town (I live just a few miles from work, and it's all in town driving from light to light) and I average about 11-13 mpg.
I suspect that an '11 V6 will get 10 more mpg than my car under just about any circumstance - city or highway, and everything in between. However, the V6 will never sound as sweet as a supercharged V8, so it's the price I pay to play.
Actually, Ford is claiming 19/31 for the automatic, and 19/29 for the manual as per their press release.
Originally Posted by Ford Media
The Mustang’s official EPA ratings – completed this week – certify that coupe models equipped with the 305-hp 3.7-liter V-6 and available six-speed automatic transmission achieve 31 mpg on the highway and 19 mpg in the city. The standard six-speed manual transmission is rated at 29 mpg on the highway and 19 mpg in the city.
Plus we must remember that as fun goes up, fuel economy goes down, regardless of which engine it is!
Last edited by Bert; Mar 5, 2010 at 01:08 PM. Reason: typo



