2010-2014 Mustang Information on The S197 {GenII}

2011 V-6 EPA certified 31MPG!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 7, 2010 | 02:54 PM
  #81  
PolishAmericanMustang's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: October 4, 2008
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
From: The South Carolina Lowcountry
Originally Posted by FordBlueHeart
You guys are hilarious! Does even 2 mpg make THAT much of a difference anyways? 20,000 miles a year equates to 45 gallons more a YEAR! (Difference between 31 and 29mpg). At $3 per gallon that's $135 a year!
How about a whopping 5 mpg! (25 versus 30mpg). That's $1.09 a day.
How about the difference between 20mpg and 30? Now we are talking real money! A whopping $2.75 more a day. Not bad admission price to 412 horsepower!
'Nuff said.
You're hilarious too. You want to talk about price of admission? There is a $7,000 difference between the 2011 V6 Premium Convertible and the 2011 GT Premium Convertible. THAT'S the price of admission, not the fuel mileage analysis! If you can afford the car, you should **** well be able to afford the gas.

I don't think anyone would say, "I can afford the $7,000 difference, but can't justify the extra $100 a year it will cost to operate over the V6."

I can only speak for myself, but I don't buy a car unless I can pay cash for it. When it comes down to it, I know for sure I could swing the V6 Premium vert later this year. The GT would be a financial stretch unless I get a nice mid-year bonus, but more than that, it would be just plain difficult for me to justify the V8 (as freakin' awesome as it is) considering just how impressive the new V6 is.

Unless gas hits $4 a gallon again this summer and stays there, fuel mileage isn't going to be the main selling point. The fact that the new V6 gets 30MPG is just icing on the cake in light of it producing 305HP and revving to 7000RPM.
Reply
Old Mar 7, 2010 | 08:51 PM
  #82  
FordBlueHeart's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: July 24, 2008
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
From: Traverse City
Originally Posted by PolishAmericanMustang
You're hilarious too. You want to talk about price of admission? There is a $7,000 difference between the 2011 V6 Premium Convertible and the 2011 GT Premium Convertible. THAT'S the price of admission, not the fuel mileage analysis! If you can afford the car, you should **** well be able to afford the gas.

I don't think anyone would say, "I can afford the $7,000 difference, but can't justify the extra $100 a year it will cost to operate over the V6."

I can only speak for myself, but I don't buy a car unless I can pay cash for it. When it comes down to it, I know for sure I could swing the V6 Premium vert later this year. The GT would be a financial stretch unless I get a nice mid-year bonus, but more than that, it would be just plain difficult for me to justify the V8 (as freakin' awesome as it is) considering just how impressive the new V6 is.

Unless gas hits $4 a gallon again this summer and stays there, fuel mileage isn't going to be the main selling point. The fact that the new V6 gets 30MPG is just icing on the cake in light of it producing 305HP and revving to 7000RPM.
Chill out. These guys were talking about gearing differences on the V6 and how much it might change gas mileage numbers. Glad you can pay cash. I'm so proud of you.
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2010 | 05:28 PM
  #83  
orange3.9stang's Avatar
Legacy TMS Member
 
Joined: September 20, 2004
Posts: 883
Likes: 4
From: N.E. Wisconsin
Per this Ford media release, the V6 MT is going to get 19/29 MPG ...
http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=32160
... but the majority of the other news releases say 19/30 like Motor Trend.

Quite possible Ford has a typo in their official release, but if not where did all these other media outlets get the line "you lose 1 MPG highway when you select the MT" ??

I just find it interesting that someone got the facts messed up.

Doug
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2010 | 06:29 PM
  #84  
Falchion's Avatar
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
 
Joined: October 12, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 1
The EPA certified it as 31. Ford didn't want to overstate the figure.

Originally Posted by orange3.9stang
Per this Ford media release, the V6 MT is going to get 19/29 MPG ...
http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=32160
... but the majority of the other news releases say 19/30 like Motor Trend.

Quite possible Ford has a typo in their official release, but if not where did all these other media outlets get the line "you lose 1 MPG highway when you select the MT" ??

I just find it interesting that someone got the facts messed up.

Doug
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2010 | 09:53 PM
  #85  
orange3.9stang's Avatar
Legacy TMS Member
 
Joined: September 20, 2004
Posts: 883
Likes: 4
From: N.E. Wisconsin
Originally Posted by Falchion
The EPA certified it as 31. Ford didn't want to overstate the figure.
The AT (Automatic) is rated at 19/31 MPG ... YES ... no conflict here !!

But the MT (Manual) is either rated at 19/29 (official EPA) per Ford media or 19/30 (official EPA) per the Motor Trend article AND the majority of the other articles dated 3/4/10.

So which is it ??

Doug
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2010 | 09:58 PM
  #86  
jsaylor's Avatar
Team Mustang Source
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by orange3.9stang
The AT (Automatic) is rated at 19/31 MPG ... YES ... no conflict here !!

But the MT (Manual) is either rated at 19/29 (official EPA) per Ford media or 19/30 (official EPA) per the Motor Trend article AND the majority of the other articles dated 3/4/10.

So which is it ??

Doug
It looks like it was a typo and Ford fixed it. V6 manual gets 19/30.

http://www.ford.com/about-ford/news-...h-305-hp-32160
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2010 | 10:06 PM
  #87  
Ltngdrvr's Avatar
GTR Member
 
Joined: February 18, 2010
Posts: 4,990
Likes: 1
From: S.E. Texas
Good, now the controversy is finally over.

So, lets all go out and buy our economy car, MUSTANG!
Reply
Old Mar 11, 2010 | 07:54 AM
  #88  
Bert's Avatar
Legacy TMS Member
 
Joined: January 25, 2010
Posts: 3,971
Likes: 1,663
From: Massachusetts
Originally Posted by orange3.9stang
Here are all the comparison numbers between 2005-10 V6 and 2011 V6 w/ std. 2.73 & opt. 3.31 gears and std. 17" & opt. 18" tires ... . . . .In a nut shell ...
With the std. 2.73 gears, you get "similar" off-the-line performance but "gain" reduced cruising RPM's in OD compared to an 05-10.
or
With the opt. 3.31 gears, you "gain" off-the-line performance and get "similar" cruising RPM's in OD compared to an 05-10.

Hope this helps,

Doug
Thanks Doug! yes that helps a lot . . . right around 2000 RPM seems like a good cruise speed, so it looks like either rear end will work.

since you seem to be into this stuff, if it's not too much trouble, could you add the 2010 GT 75 mph cruising RPM to the list?

I'm curious how much lower RPM the V6 is turning at highway speed than the 2010 V8 . . . since I'm still thinking I might grab a good deal on a 2010 leftover and wondering about realistic fuel economy comparison . . . I've heard the 2010 with 3.73's is turning around 3,000 RPM at 70 MPH?

Last edited by Bert; Mar 11, 2010 at 07:55 AM. Reason: more
Reply
Old Mar 11, 2010 | 09:23 AM
  #89  
orange3.9stang's Avatar
Legacy TMS Member
 
Joined: September 20, 2004
Posts: 883
Likes: 4
From: N.E. Wisconsin
Bert, here you go


2010 GT vs. 2011 GT ...


1st gear @ 30 MPH:
2010 GT AT ... 4068 RPM w/ 235/50-18 , 3.22 1st & 3.31 FD
vs.
2011 GT AT ... 5014 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 4.171 1st & 3.15 FD

2010 GT MT ... 4270 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 3.380 1st & 3.31 FD
2010 GT MT ... 4579 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 3.380 1st & 3.55 FD
2010 GT MT ... 4812 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 3.380 1st & 3.73 FD
vs.
2011 GT MT ... 4623 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 3.660 1st & 3.31 FD
2011 GT MT ... 4950 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 3.660 1st & 3.55 FD
2011 GT MT ... 5210 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 3.660 1st & 3.73 FD

O.D. @ 75 MPH:
2010 GT AT ... 2242 RPM w/ 235/50-18 , 0.710 OD & 3.31 FD
vs.
2011 GT AT ... 2077 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 0.691 OD & 3.15 FD

2010 GT MT ... 2147 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 0.680 OD & 3.31 FD
2010 GT MT ... 2303 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 0.680 OD & 3.55 FD
2010 GT MT ... 2420 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 0.680 OD & 3.73 FD
vs.
2011 GT MT ... 2053 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 0.650 OD & 3.31 FD
2011 GT MT ... 2201 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 0.650 OD & 3.55 FD
2011 GT MT ... 2313 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 0.650 OD & 3.73 FD

I left out the 19" wheel/tire option to keep post shorter
(245/45-19 is slightly taller & reduces RPM by approx. 1.6%).

To compare to V6, go back to that post.

Doug
Reply
Old Mar 11, 2010 | 12:49 PM
  #90  
cinque35's Avatar
Cobra R Member
 
Joined: February 9, 2006
Posts: 1,776
Likes: 1
From: NY
Originally Posted by orange3.9stang
Here are all the comparison numbers between 2005-10 V6 and 2011 V6 w/ std. 2.73 & opt. 3.31 gears and std. 17" & opt. 18" tires ...

1st gear @ 30 MPH:
05-10 V6 AT ... 4082 RPM w/ 215/60-17, 3.220 1st & 3.31 FD
vs.
2011 V6 AT ... 4229 RPM w/ 215/65-17, 4.171 1st & 2.73 FD
2011 V6 AT ... 4346 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 4.171 1st & 2.73 FD
2011 V6 AT ... 5269 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 4.171 1st & 3.31 FD

05-10 V6 MT ... 4754 RPM w/ 215/60-17, 3.750 1st & 3.31 FD
vs.
2011 V6 MT ... 4353 RPM w/ 225/60-17, 4.236 1st & 2.73 FD
2011 V6 MT ... 4413 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 4.236 1st & 2.73 FD
2011 V6 MT ... 5351 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 4.236 1st & 3.31 FD

O.D. @ 75 MPH:
05-10 V6 AT ... 2250 RPM w/ 215/60-17, 0.710 OD & 3.31 FD
vs.
2011 V6 AT ... 1751 RPM w/ 215/65-17, 0.691 OD & 2.73 FD
2011 V6 AT ... 1800 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 0.691 OD & 2.73 FD
2011 V6 AT ... 2182 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 0.691 OD & 3.31 FD

05-10 V6 MT ... 2282 RPM w/ 215/60-17, 0.720 OD & 3.31 FD
vs.
2011 V6 MT ... 1798 RPM w/ 225/60-17, 0.700 OD & 2.73 FD
2011 V6 MT ... 1823 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 0.700 OD & 2.73 FD
2011 V6 MT ... 2211 RPM w/ 235/50-18, 0.700 OD & 3.31 FD

If you order your 2011 V6 w/ std. 2.73's & std. 17" tires ...
AT: you'll have 3.6% more RPM in 1st & 22.2% less RPM in OD (than an 05/10 V6)
MT: you'll have 8.4% less RPM in 1st & 21.2% less RPM in OD

If you order your 2011 V6 w/ std. 2.73's & opt. 18" tires ...
AT: you'll have 6.5% more RPM in 1st & 20.0% less RPM in OD (than 05/10 V6)
MT: you'll have 7.2% less RPM in 1st & 20.1% less RPM in OD

If you order your 2011 V6 w/ opt. 3.31's & opt. 18" tires ...
AT: you'll have 29.1% more RPM in 1st & 3.00% less RPM in OD (than 05/10 V6)
MT: you'll have 12.6% more RPM in 1st & 3.11% less RPM in OD


Doug
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2010 | 06:05 AM
  #91  
Bert's Avatar
Legacy TMS Member
 
Joined: January 25, 2010
Posts: 3,971
Likes: 1,663
From: Massachusetts
Originally Posted by orange3.9stang
Bert, here you go
thanks again Doug! great stuff . . . so the 2010 GT with 3.73's isn't really turning as fast at highway cruise than I read . . .
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2010 | 07:28 AM
  #92  
David Young's Avatar
legacy Tms Member MEMORIAL Rest In Peace 10/06/2021
 
Joined: September 16, 2009
Posts: 3,381
Likes: 125
From: Clinton Tennessee
Thanks Doug. I can rest easy with the 3.31 gears.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Infamous_blackbeard
Introductions
5
Oct 8, 2015 10:45 PM
MustangConvert11
'10-14 V6 Modifications
2
Sep 30, 2015 08:01 PM
mx5jhb
2005-2009 Mustang
3
Sep 30, 2015 04:44 PM




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:35 AM.