5.0 or Ecoboost, which is better for Highway MPG?
6/11/15, 07:02 AM
#1
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
5.0 or Ecoboost, which is better for Highway MPG?
I am about to go buy a new 2015 and torn between getting a stripped out GT or a fully loaded Ecoboost. I am on the highway all the time. Some day I am sitting on the highway in stop and go traffic and some days it is 65-70+ cruise.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Powe...ng&srchtyp=ymm
Anyone got some real data on which engine in the long run is better for MPG. I will be getting an automatic transmission so this is a engine vs engine discussion in regards to maxing out MPG.
Fight!
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Powe...ng&srchtyp=ymm
Anyone got some real data on which engine in the long run is better for MPG. I will be getting an automatic transmission so this is a engine vs engine discussion in regards to maxing out MPG.
Fight!
Last edited by SpeedCostsMoney; 6/11/15 at 07:18 AM.
6/11/15, 07:58 AM
#2
Member
Join Date: April 17, 2015
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the EcoBoost is rated at 31mpg highway vs 25 for the GT. I test drove both and was very disappointed with the EcoBoost in automatic. It seemed like it was constantly hunting for the correct gear to be in. I wound up ordering the EcoBoost with the 6 speed manual and hope to be sitting in it within a week. Good luck with your shopping.
6/11/15, 10:37 AM
#3
THE RED FLASH ------Moderator
If your strictly concerned about fuel economy ? I would select the V6 over both the Eco-Boost and GT.. IMO the Eco-boost 4 doesn't provide much of an advantage over the GT in fuel economy after going into boost, also from my understanding the Eco-Boost requires 91 octane fuel and above where as the V6 is designed to run on 87 octane fuel..
At any rate, I wouldn't recommend the Eco-Boost 4 for fuel economy unless you intend to keep your foot off the accelerator thus preventing from going into boost
At any rate, I wouldn't recommend the Eco-Boost 4 for fuel economy unless you intend to keep your foot off the accelerator thus preventing from going into boost
6/11/15, 01:06 PM
#4
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
If your strictly concerned about fuel economy ? I would select the V6 over both the Eco-Boost and GT.. IMO the Eco-boost 4 doesn't provide much of an advantage over the GT in fuel economy after going into boost, also from my understanding the Eco-Boost requires 91 octane fuel and above where as the V6 is designed to run on 87 octane fuel..
At any rate, I wouldn't recommend the Eco-Boost 4 for fuel economy unless you intend to keep your foot off the accelerator thus preventing from going into boost
At any rate, I wouldn't recommend the Eco-Boost 4 for fuel economy unless you intend to keep your foot off the accelerator thus preventing from going into boost
6/11/15, 06:11 PM
#5
My 2015 GT 5.0, Ingot Silver, with 1900 miles, is at 21.3 mpg so far. That is, of course, going a little easy on her so far. Personally, the luscious sound, and pull of that Coyote V8 is worth a few mpg's, but that's just me.
6/11/15, 10:29 PM
#7
6-speed manual ecoboost here with about 1000 on the odometer, and I can tell you that I have seen right about 32 on the highway and 24.5 in the city. As time goes on I only see those numbers increasing.
On my 2013 Fusion 2.0 ecoboost, I started noticing marked improvement in MPG at around 20000 miles.
On my 2013 Fusion 2.0 ecoboost, I started noticing marked improvement in MPG at around 20000 miles.
6/12/15, 07:14 AM
#8
Everyone will have their own opinion and in the end, will buy what they want. For me, the visceral effects of the Coyote are just too great to ignore. If you can justify owning a car as impractical as a Mustang, Why not buy the v8? they will be gone from everyday drivers soon enough- enjoy it while you can......
6/12/15, 09:44 AM
#9
V6 Member
Join Date: October 4, 2014
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone will have their own opinion and in the end, will buy what they want. For me, the visceral effects of the Coyote are just too great to ignore. If you can justify owning a car as impractical as a Mustang, Why not buy the v8? they will be gone from everyday drivers soon enough- enjoy it while you can......
6/12/15, 10:31 AM
#10
Everyone will have their own opinion and in the end, will buy what they want. For me, the visceral effects of the Coyote are just too great to ignore. If you can justify owning a car as impractical as a Mustang, Why not buy the v8? they will be gone from everyday drivers soon enough- enjoy it while you can......
You have to ask your self why you are buying a sports car? Then that will tell you which to buy. A Mustang is not a Mustang till I hear the famous V8.
6/15/15, 08:26 AM
#11
V6 Member
Join Date: March 18, 2015
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ecoboost manual with the 50th Appearance Package (wide 255 tires = higher drag) here. My commute involves about 50% stop and go and 50% go, go, go for 26.9 miles in one direction. I am now up to 2400 miles running nothing but 87 octane fuel so far; 93 octane is NOT REQUIRED. My overall running average for my drive cycle is 27.6 MPG and increasing (compared to the published 26 MPG overall average). I cannot say what my independent instantaneous city/highway numbers are precisely but I have seen as high as 31 MPG in some drive cycles. My city seems to be around 24 MPG. I am personally not seeing the 34-35 MPG that others see at 75 MPH on the highway most likely due to my wide tires. As with most rush hours the speed limit is what the rear bumper of the car is in front of you so I regularly see 75 MPH and at times 85 MPH trying to keep up. This car handles all this without breaking a sweat.
While the 27.6 MPG is my running average (since new) as computed by the trip computer (and steadily increasing) my average for the last tankful was 28.4 MPG and 28.6 MPG for the one prior to that. This is pretty surprisingly good considering my drive cycle and the power this car has on demand.
Power mapping has shown that the HP drops to about 290 on 87 octane vs. 310 with 93 but the torque remains at 320 lb-ft on either fuel. I have no need to generate full HP on my commute and actually need low end tractable torque for the stop and go portion. As a result I choose to pay 2.659 for 87 as opposed to 3.459 for 93. I have not heard any spark knock while running 87, even at WOT.
Welcome to the Ecoboost Mustang world and as I stated in another post this is the highest power Mustang I have ever owned. I test drove the 5.0L GT and it is an amazing powerhouse but as I have learned from my previous V8 Mustangs I cannot use more than 3 seconds of that power so it actually becomes frustrating. It is like being a pro golfer stuck playing putt-putt. If I raced the car I would have the GT or a GT350 but for a daily driver the EBM is a blast!
While the 27.6 MPG is my running average (since new) as computed by the trip computer (and steadily increasing) my average for the last tankful was 28.4 MPG and 28.6 MPG for the one prior to that. This is pretty surprisingly good considering my drive cycle and the power this car has on demand.
Power mapping has shown that the HP drops to about 290 on 87 octane vs. 310 with 93 but the torque remains at 320 lb-ft on either fuel. I have no need to generate full HP on my commute and actually need low end tractable torque for the stop and go portion. As a result I choose to pay 2.659 for 87 as opposed to 3.459 for 93. I have not heard any spark knock while running 87, even at WOT.
Welcome to the Ecoboost Mustang world and as I stated in another post this is the highest power Mustang I have ever owned. I test drove the 5.0L GT and it is an amazing powerhouse but as I have learned from my previous V8 Mustangs I cannot use more than 3 seconds of that power so it actually becomes frustrating. It is like being a pro golfer stuck playing putt-putt. If I raced the car I would have the GT or a GT350 but for a daily driver the EBM is a blast!
Last edited by wildsailor; 6/15/15 at 08:29 AM.
6/15/15, 02:18 PM
#12
Check out the R&T road test of the Ecoboost Mustang.....13 MPG in the test...yikes!! How bad could the 5.0 be? And the carbon build up on the intake valves with DI is enough nonsense to send you to a V-8 with no regrets.
6/15/15, 03:04 PM
#13
Impossible, I have a heavy foot and am always in the 23-24 range for city driving.
6/15/15, 04:15 PM
#15
It will be a while till they fix the DI draw backs. IE carbon build up. With all new tech there is always a draw back. Old Fashion V8. There is a reason the Big three still use them. If you want Gas Mileage buy a car that is designed for that. I have read plenty of threads where guys are getting great gas mileage in there V8. Get a tall gear and you will be fine. The Fun of the V8 is priceless to me.
6/16/15, 10:09 AM
#17
THE RED FLASH ------Moderator
While the 27.6 MPG is my running average (since new) as computed by the trip computer (and steadily increasing) my average for the last tankful was 28.4 MPG and 28.6 MPG for the one prior to that. This is pretty surprisingly good considering my drive cycle and the power this car has on demand.
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; 6/16/15 at 10:10 AM.
6/16/15, 12:03 PM
#18
So according to your own data ! Your Eco-boost 4 gets approx up to 3-4 MPG better over the GT right ? So if your data is accurate, that in itself confirms what I suspected all along.. Therefore I'd much rather have the performance and growl of the V8 as 3-4 MPG is hardly a deal breaker to switch over from the GT to the Eco-Boost 4..
Funny thing though, if I'm cruising at 65 and reset my fuel economy, the MPG runs at 38-39, if I do the same thing going 75, my MPG's run at 35-36
So, those of us with alot of highway driving will see much better MPG's then he GT can deliver anyday, which is why Ford has this option.
If Highway MPG's was not a consideration then I'm sure this conversation could go a different way, but the OP was asking about highway MPG's
Last edited by 2015turbostang; 6/16/15 at 12:10 PM.
6/16/15, 12:28 PM
#19
THE RED FLASH ------Moderator
The 2015 GT is rated at 16mpg city and 25mpg highway, soo.....not sure where your numbers come from.....
Funny thing though, if I'm cruising at 65 and reset my fuel economy, the MPG runs at 38-39, if I do the same thing going 75, my MPG's run at 35-36
So, those of us with alot of highway driving will see much better MPG's then he GT can deliver anyday, which is why Ford has this option.
If Highway MPG's was not a consideration then I'm sure this conversation could go a different way, but the OP was asking about highway MPG's
Funny thing though, if I'm cruising at 65 and reset my fuel economy, the MPG runs at 38-39, if I do the same thing going 75, my MPG's run at 35-36
So, those of us with alot of highway driving will see much better MPG's then he GT can deliver anyday, which is why Ford has this option.
If Highway MPG's was not a consideration then I'm sure this conversation could go a different way, but the OP was asking about highway MPG's
6/16/15, 07:04 PM
#20
The person I sit next to at work bought a 15 GT 6 spd manual and about 3 weeks latter I bought an Ecoboost Premium with the Performance Package, we are both around 8k miles now. We both drive in the same suburban environment.
He has been getting 20 mpg around town and 24-25 mpg on the hiway. I get 30 mpg around town and 31-32 on the hiway. In my 50 mile round trip suburban commute, if I drive it like a granny I have gotten as hi as as 38 mpg but can't maintain that for a full tank. My tank average will drop to 27-28 mpg if I do a lot spirited driving with lots of boost. My coworkers GT drops to 15-16 with a lot of spirited driving. I get over 400 miles out of a tank of gas, my coworker gets less than 300 from a tank.
If mileage is a major consideration then the Ecoboost is the way to go. Though it may not be the straight line performer the GT is it has 200lbs less over the front wheels that will make it a better and more nimble handler. And don' forget it has the same power as the 2005-2010 4.6 v8 and a lot more power than the 4.6 and 5.0 prior to then.
As far as direct injection is concerned I think people like to rehash stories from some of the early adopters of DI that had problems. Ford has a number of patents on the techniques they use to prevent carbon build up and have been putting DI in cars since 2009. Most all manufactuers are rolling it out and if the issues were as bad as the nasayers would like you to believe everyone wouldn't be heading that way.
My wife's 12 Focus that she got in early 2011 was direct injection and it had 50k trouble free miles on it when it was totaled by an inattentive driver.
He has been getting 20 mpg around town and 24-25 mpg on the hiway. I get 30 mpg around town and 31-32 on the hiway. In my 50 mile round trip suburban commute, if I drive it like a granny I have gotten as hi as as 38 mpg but can't maintain that for a full tank. My tank average will drop to 27-28 mpg if I do a lot spirited driving with lots of boost. My coworkers GT drops to 15-16 with a lot of spirited driving. I get over 400 miles out of a tank of gas, my coworker gets less than 300 from a tank.
If mileage is a major consideration then the Ecoboost is the way to go. Though it may not be the straight line performer the GT is it has 200lbs less over the front wheels that will make it a better and more nimble handler. And don' forget it has the same power as the 2005-2010 4.6 v8 and a lot more power than the 4.6 and 5.0 prior to then.
As far as direct injection is concerned I think people like to rehash stories from some of the early adopters of DI that had problems. Ford has a number of patents on the techniques they use to prevent carbon build up and have been putting DI in cars since 2009. Most all manufactuers are rolling it out and if the issues were as bad as the nasayers would like you to believe everyone wouldn't be heading that way.
My wife's 12 Focus that she got in early 2011 was direct injection and it had 50k trouble free miles on it when it was totaled by an inattentive driver.