Notices
2015 - 2020 Discuss the Current Generation

2015 Mustang Fuel Economy Leaks - Should the V6 Just Die?

Old 9/12/14, 08:09 AM
  #41  
Cobra Member
 
JoeMidnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: April 21, 2014
Location: Canada, Ontario
Posts: 1,100
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by IndustryLeech View Post
See, I don't get this. The Coyote V6 is pretty close to the 2005-2010 GTs in HP and torque numbers. To say that the current V6 Mustangs aren't performance cars would tantamount to saying those 2005-2010 MY GTs weren't performance cars either, which I doubt anybody would cop to. Right now there's a HP war in full effect because muscle cars are cool again. That shouldn't diminish earlier models or the current V6. I have a V6, and while I always wish it had more power I certainly consider it a performance car. I can feel pushed back into my seat when I need to.

I too am a V6 owner and am happy with the output of my car. I think it's just as capable no doubt! but... my statement was from the general consensus of what I've read about how some GT owners look at what the V6 is.

oh, the Coyote is the GT motor and the Cyclone is he V6 motor. I'm sure you know, just thought I would point it out so that everyone knows there is no confusion

Last edited by JoeMidnight; 9/12/14 at 08:10 AM.
JoeMidnight is offline  
Old 9/12/14, 08:11 AM
  #42  
Bullitt Member
 
Join Date: July 3, 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wink

Originally Posted by JoeMidnight View Post
I too am a V6 owner and am happy with the output of my car. I think it's just as capable no doubt! but... my statement was from the general consensus of what I've read about how some GT owners look at what the V6 is.

oh, the Coyote is the GT motor and the Cyclone is he V6 motor. I'm sure you know, just thought I would point it out so that everyone knows there is no confusion
Yep, and I agree with everything you said.

It's early. I meant Cyclone.
IndustryLeech is offline  
Old 9/12/14, 08:38 AM
  #43  
Play Date Madam
TMS Staff
 
laserred38's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 6, 2006
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 12,817
Received 162 Likes on 137 Posts
Those GT fuel ratings are probably a more realistic rating of the car. That said, I never top 18mpg in my combined driving, which consists mostly of highway driving, dodging Prii shooting their windshield squirters at me because they won't move out of the GODDAMMN left lane!!!!!, Corollas/Camries/Altimas/etc going 4 wide at 60mph because they're staring into the sun, mixed in with big rigs in 3 of the 5 lanes and sometimes they even move into the 2nd lane too. I cannot do my commute any more. I'm going to snap.
laserred38 is offline  
Old 9/12/14, 08:53 AM
  #44  
Cobra Member
 
JoeMidnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: April 21, 2014
Location: Canada, Ontario
Posts: 1,100
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by laserred38 View Post
Those GT fuel ratings are probably a more realistic rating of the car. That said, I never top 18mpg in my combined driving, which consists mostly of highway driving, dodging Prii shooting their windshield squirters at me because they won't move out of the GODDAMMN left lane!!!!!, Corollas/Camries/Altimas/etc going 4 wide at 60mph because they're staring into the sun, mixed in with big rigs in 3 of the 5 lanes and sometimes they even move into the 2nd lane too. I cannot do my commute any more. I'm going to snap.

This is where I'm fortunate! I can take the country side roads home and completely avoid the highway... it adds 15min to my drive, but well worth it!
JoeMidnight is offline  
Old 9/12/14, 09:05 AM
  #45  
Play Date Madam
TMS Staff
 
laserred38's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 6, 2006
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 12,817
Received 162 Likes on 137 Posts
Originally Posted by JoeMidnight View Post
This is where I'm fortunate! I can take the country side roads home and completely avoid the highway... it adds 15min to my drive, but well worth it!
We have one side road, it's only a 2-lane, and it's full of the same retards during commute times. The speed limit is only 55 on that road, and it's a double yellow, so you can't pass. People routinely go 50 on it. I hate it here. I can't do it anymore.
laserred38 is offline  
Old 9/12/14, 09:18 AM
  #46  
Cobra Member
 
JoeMidnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: April 21, 2014
Location: Canada, Ontario
Posts: 1,100
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by laserred38 View Post
We have one side road, it's only a 2-lane, and it's full of the same retards during commute times. The speed limit is only 55 on that road, and it's a double yellow, so you can't pass. People routinely go 50 on it. I hate it here. I can't do it anymore.

remember that picture I sent you the day it was raining?? that day, I had a DB fly around me because the 2 car gap I left in front of me while merging onto an expressway from the highway on the right handside lane was too much for him. He flew around me to land in front of me and exit the expressway almost immediately. IF I had known he was going to do that, I would have tried to keep him in the left lane, forcing him to miss his exit
JoeMidnight is offline  
Old 9/12/14, 10:29 AM
  #47  
V6 Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Posts: 67
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by IndustryLeech View Post
See, I don't get this. The Cyclone V6 is pretty close to the 2005-2010 GTs in HP and torque numbers. . . . .
The HP numbers are close, but the torque numbers aren't really that close. Look at max torque, where max torque occurs, and the overall torque curve. There is a noticeable difference.

Having said that, I really like the V6. We have the 3.5 version in my wife's Edge. It's a very good engine.
CurtisH is offline  
Old 9/12/14, 01:29 PM
  #48  
Cobra Member
 
RandyW's Avatar
 
Join Date: October 23, 2009
Location: NW Minnesota
Posts: 1,312
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by JoeMidnight View Post
Yes... the EB on paper is "better on gas" and has more power and torque over the V6.... I'm just not sold on owning and wanting to drive a 4 cylinder muscle car. Turbo or not, its a 4 banger.

I wonder what the V8 guys think about this? is this a monstrosity? I already know that a lot of GT owners feel that the V6 model is not a performance oriented car (even though it really does have A LOT of potential and lines up pretty darn well against the older Model GT's)
Performance is relative. How fast is fast enough? If you're coming from a car that will do 160+ mph, yeah sub-GT Mustang is going to seem slow. But if you've just seen your last kid graduate high school and you've spent the last 30 years driving minivans and SUV's, a 300 hp Mustang is going to seem awfully fast and agile, regardless of how many pistons it has.
RandyW is offline  
Old 9/12/14, 02:09 PM
  #49  
Bullitt Member
 
Boss 0960's Avatar
 
Join Date: December 23, 2013
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by IndustryLeech View Post
See, I don't get this. The Cyclone V6 is pretty close to the 2005-2010 GTs in HP and torque numbers. To say that the current V6 Mustangs aren't performance cars would tantamount to saying those 2005-2010 MY GTs weren't performance cars either, which I doubt anybody would cop to. Right now there's a HP war in full effect because muscle cars are cool again. That shouldn't diminish earlier models or the current V6. I have a V6, and while I always wish it had more power I certainly consider it a performance car. I can feel pushed back into my seat when I need to.
This is what bugs me the most about the "Ecoboost is God' baloney. The V6 is a very good engine. It makes nearly as much power and delivers nearly the track performance as my '01 SVT Cobra did back in the day. I have the V6 in my F-150 and I have never needed more power, even with a capacity load in the bed going uphill on on-ramps to the expressway. They pushed the V6 backward in power AND fuel economy for what? All I can think of is to make the Ecoboost look better on paper. Then they deny the customer a nice interior in the V6 just to push Ecoboost sales some more.

Ford is the only manufacturer I can think of that is willing to take backward steps on existing product to make it's preferred alternative look better. With a fraction of the research and engineering budget that went into the Ecoboost, the V6 could have easily been upgraded to get better power AND better fuel efficiency but that's not what Ford wants. Even Hyundai is getting 348 hp out of it's similar displacement V6 in the Genesis.
Boss 0960 is offline  
Old 9/14/14, 08:31 AM
  #50  
Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2014
Location: Lake Stevens, Wa
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The 3.5L EcoBoost V-6 hasn't had a chance to show it's stuff in a Mustang. If Ford offered a 380-400hp V6 with 15-20% better fuel economy than a 5.0, performance fans might consider it. A turbo V-6 deserves a shot.

Last edited by Lagometer; 9/14/14 at 08:40 AM.
Lagometer is offline  
Old 9/14/14, 08:53 AM
  #51  
Play Date Madam
TMS Staff
 
laserred38's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 6, 2006
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 12,817
Received 162 Likes on 137 Posts
Originally Posted by Lagometer View Post
The 3.5L EcoBoost V-6 hasn't had a chance to show it's stuff in a Mustang. If Ford offered a 380-400hp V6 with 15-20% better fuel economy than a 5.0, performance fans might consider it. A turbo V-6 deserves a shot.
The problem is the 3.5 TT does NOT get 15-20% better fuel economy than the 5.0, in the real world.
laserred38 is offline  
Old 9/14/14, 02:51 PM
  #52  
Bullitt Member
 
Boss 0960's Avatar
 
Join Date: December 23, 2013
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Lagometer View Post
The 3.5L EcoBoost V-6 hasn't had a chance to show it's stuff in a Mustang. If Ford offered a 380-400hp V6 with 15-20% better fuel economy than a 5.0, performance fans might consider it. A turbo V-6 deserves a shot.
I have no doubt that that's the direction Ford wants to go. I'll have none of it.
Boss 0960 is offline  
Old 9/14/14, 03:06 PM
  #53  
Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2014
Location: Lake Stevens, Wa
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Boss 0960 View Post
I have no doubt that that's the direction Ford wants to go. I'll have none of it.
I agree, but a four banger, that's just.....wrong.
Lagometer is offline  
Old 9/14/14, 05:37 PM
  #54  
Bullitt Member
 
Rodsmustang's Avatar
 
Join Date: July 24, 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Lagometer View Post
I agree, but a four banger, that's just.....wrong.


I agree that's why I purchased a 2014 v6 premium because you can't get a 2015 v6 premium you have to get the 4 cylinder turbo. Not my bag baby!!!
Rodsmustang is offline  
Old 9/16/14, 05:27 PM
  #55  
TMS Staff
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 20, 2014
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The EPA Deflates the Mustang's MPG Figures



Things just got a bit less fun for the new 2015 Ford Mustang. Itís not because the line lock system will void your warranty, or because it still offers an automatic. No, itís less fun because the EPA just stepped in and told Ford to knock a few MPGs off its stickers on every single version.

For those who didn't catch the news a few months ago, Ford got into a bit of trouble with the EPA and the owners of a few different models throughout its lineup. Ford had stated way better fuel economy than actually existed, and ended up having to pay thousands in reparations to the owners of those models.

Read the rest on the Mustang Source homepage. >>
JonathonK is offline  
Old 9/16/14, 06:05 PM
  #56  
Bullitt Member
 
Rodsmustang's Avatar
 
Join Date: July 24, 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by JonathonK View Post


Things just got a bit less fun for the new 2015 Ford Mustang. Itís not because the line lock system will void your warranty, or because it still offers an automatic. No, itís less fun because the EPA just stepped in and told Ford to knock a few MPGs off its stickers on every single version.

For those who didn't catch the news a few months ago, Ford got into a bit of trouble with the EPA and the owners of a few different models throughout its lineup. Ford had stated way better fuel economy than actually existed, and ended up having to pay thousands in reparations to the owners of those models.


Although Iím a bit skeptical that the GT only gets 16 in the city, the EPAís findings once again prove my point that the V6 is a completely useless engine for Ford to continue to make. Sure, they have a lot of investment into the engine, but they can use it throughout the rest of its lineup. It no longer belongs in the Mustang.

Read the rest on the Mustang Source homepage. >>

I completely disagree with your highlighted statement, I for one don't want to pay for premium fuel, unknown reliability of the eco-tech turbo engine in comparison to the v6, smooth power delivery of the v6, sound the v6 makes in comparison to the turbo 4, turbo 4 is expensive as well. I'm 46 and have owned 6 other mustangs over the years ( all v8's) and I have to say the v6 performs very well. I'm not a turbo 4 guy and if you build one on fords site they want to charge a pretty penny for it.
Rodsmustang is offline  
Old 9/16/14, 08:13 PM
  #57  
Bullitt Member
 
Boss 0960's Avatar
 
Join Date: December 23, 2013
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by JonathonK View Post

Things just got a bit less fun for the new 2015 Ford Mustang. Itís not because the line lock system will void your warranty, or because it still offers an automatic. No, itís less fun because the EPA just stepped in and told Ford to knock a few MPGs off its stickers on every single version.

For those who didn't catch the news a few months ago, Ford got into a bit of trouble with the EPA and the owners of a few different models throughout its lineup. Ford had stated way better fuel economy than actually existed, and ended up having to pay thousands in reparations to the owners of those models.
http://www.ford.com/mpglabel/

Nice red herring that you've thrown into the mix. Ford states that it overrated the mileage on "2013- and 2014-model year hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles, as well as most 2014-model year Fiestas". Most 2014 models year Fiestas includes a lot of Ecoboost models. In doesn't say specifically but it sounds like Ford overrated it's Ecoboost models, not the 3.7L or 5.0L. Yet these are the engines that will take the brunt of the fallout from the exclusively Fiesta problem (where gas models are concerned).

It looks like they are free to play fast and loose with downgrades to convince people to accept the Ecoboost. This also means that they are still the only company I can think of that is moving backwards on existing product in both mileage and power. Except for the Ecoboost. All hail the Ecoboost.

P.S. Why does Ford need the V6? In my case, I already have a 5.0L Mustang. I don't need a second 5.0L and my wife does not need a 5.0L in her next convertible. I have no interest in an Ecoboost so if they cancel the 3.7L engine, guess what...I have no interest in a new Mustang. However, this point has already been rendered moot since they won't build the V6 Premium. Let the V6 hate rage on. As it rages, I'm not seeing an S550 in my future.
Boss 0960 is offline  
Old 9/16/14, 08:19 PM
  #58  
Banned
 
Join Date: August 25, 2010
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Boss 0960 View Post
http://www.ford.com/mpglabel/

Nice red herring that you've thrown into the mix. Ford states that it overrated the mileage on "2013- and 2014-model year hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles, as well as most 2014-model year Fiestas". Most 2014 models year Fiestas includes a lot of Ecoboost models. In doesn't say specifically but it sounds like Ford overrated it's Ecoboost models, not the 3.7L or 5.0L. Yet these are the engines that will take the brunt of the fallout from the exclusively Fiesta problem (where gas models are concerned).

It looks like they are free to play fast and loose with downgrades to convince people to accept the Ecoboost. This also means that they are still the only company I can think of that is moving backwards on existing product in both mileage and power. Except for the Ecoboost. All hail the Ecoboost.

P.S. Why does Ford need the V6? In my case, I already have a 5.0L Mustang. I don't need a second 5.0L and my wife does not need a 5.0L in her next convertible. I have no interest in an Ecoboost so if they cancel the 3.7L engine, guess what...I have no interest in a new Mustang. However, this point has already been rendered moot since they won't build the V6 Premium. Let the V6 hate rage on. As it rages, I'm not seeing an S550 in my future.
This X 1000

21 and 32 is what I get in my current V6 that delivers 305 hp and I don't have to burn premium fuel to get it. I know everyone wants to pretend the ecoboost is the latest and greatest thing because it's new but here's reality. It's untested. We still have yet to see any actual performance numbers, just claims that it's "all that" and what little information we have seen is by no means impressive or an improvement over what the car already had. But is sure does cost more money doesn't it?


PS, my local dealer has had two 2015 Mustangs on the lot for over a week and nobody has bought them yet. So much for the mad rush.
White2010 is offline  
Old 9/16/14, 08:46 PM
  #59  
Banned
 
Join Date: August 25, 2010
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Okay the math of it.

This is based on city mpg of the ecoboost, vs the V6

Assume that most poeple do not take their tank all the way to E before a fill up. It's a 16 gallon tank for the V6 and GT and a 15.5 gallon tank for the ecoboost. So let us base the fill up on a 12 gallon fill for both cars.

12 gallons in the V6 at 19 mpg gets you 228 miles. It runs on 87 octane and assuming a per gallon price of $3.20 that's about $38.40 to fill up 12 gallons.

12 gallons in the ecoboost at 21 mpg gets you 252 miles. It runs on 93 octane and assuming a per gallon price of $3.40 that's about $40.80 to fill up 12 gallons.

The difference in mileage between the 2 is 24 miles. You can travel a total of 24 miles further on the ecoboost than the V6 on 12 gallons of gas in city driving. That's barely over a gallon of gas difference.

Now it costs the ecoboost $2.40 more to put that 12 gallons in the tank. So if you subtract the price difference from a gallon of 87 octane you get a total savings for the ecoboost of 80 cents per fill up vs the V6. At best you get a savings of $1.00 per fillup. At that rate you would have to put about 500K miles on the car to make up the difference in price tag that you paid to buy the ecoboost over the V6.

Still sound like a good deal?

It better be a stellar performance difference otherwise I don't see any advantage here.







PS I seriously question the credibility of the author of an article who suggests the V6 should be dropped from the Mustang because there is an engine option that saves an owner about a gallon per tank full. Stupid.

Last edited by White2010; 9/16/14 at 09:15 PM.
White2010 is offline  
Old 9/17/14, 11:51 AM
  #60  
Cobra Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
If you are that concerned about the cost, just put 87 in the Ecoboost. It's designed to take it without causing damage.
AWmustang is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: 2015 Mustang Fuel Economy Leaks - Should the V6 Just Die?


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.