Has anyone else noticed the 2013 Mustang GTs now have a fuel economy rating of 15/26 MPG. While the 2011-2012s had a rating of 17/26 MPG. Did the EPA rating system change again for 2013 or did ford make these new cars less efficient? This only applies for the manual transmission cars.

A change of 2mpg in the city is a big deal. What's is the difference???

 

I don't what has changed but nobody buys a mustang for fuel economy, nobody.

 

Of course no one buys the car for fuel economy, but if I could get 20MPG driving back and forth to work with my 2011 and I only get 18 MPG in a 2013 that is a problem! Ford in a sense made the car worse and increased the price at the same time.

I wonder if it's the higher viscosity of the oil causing this..

 

Where did you find this? I only ask because the Ford website still shows a rating of 17/26 for the '13?..

 

The GT still uses 5w-20.. That post about going to 5w-50 on the GT was incorrect.

 

From window stickers.

http://www.inventory.ford.com/servic...07673&refid=FV

and the EPA

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....n=sbs&id=32247

 

If you have to spend $35.00 more dollars a month on the 2013 are you out?

 

Probably not But it is more money out of my pocket, so I'd like to know what I'm paying for.

Of course in reality non of us ever get anywhere near the EPA estimate with these cars.

 

WTF.. That does suck!

 

Truth be told, it would probably be closer to $10.. The EPA still rates the auto 18/25, and the annual fuel cost is $150/yr less than the manual (assuming 45% City/ 55% highway @15k mi/yr)..

 

 

Yeah you're right. I accidentally did the math on 2 gallons of gas and not a 2 mpg lose.

 

With the bump in HP to 420 with the new pistons/oil squirter delete, maybe they tweaked the tune also for better top end - which took a bit from low end. Just a thought.
Assuming the 15/26 is correct and not another bad rumor like the oil story.

 

So obviously this change isn't due to the updates that were made on the engines, since the auto still has the same rating.. Maybe just an update due to new test results?.. Who the **** knows!

 

Maybe it was the notorious (Jim Cramer) 'fat finger' error by data entry.

 

I am getting pretty close to the epa estimate with my 2012

 

I would bet that you will get the same FE with the '13 that you get with your '11.. Just because the EPA changed the rating doesn't necessarily mean that the car is getting worse mileage.

 

with the motor changes it would only make sense that the mpg went down.

 

Probably not, but on way i justified trading in my 2010 for a 2012 was that i would be saving more on gas, which i am. A whopping 4 mpg gain.

 

Well, maybe.. But 1) the fuel economy of the auto is unchanged.. 2) the BOSS was rated the same 17/26 last year, and it is rated @ 444 hp.. You would think that the BOSS would get worse mileage than the GT (which I would guess it does).. The EPA does not test every different configuration (rear end ratios, equipment groups, etc) that are known to have an effect on fuel economy, and instead uses an "average"..