5.0 or Ecoboost, which is better for Highway MPG?
6/16/15, 07:46 PM
#21
Just for the record ! The numbers posted were by the OP, and not from me.. According to his data, his MPG didn't even come close to 35-38 as yourself and others have posted, but rather his best MPG was around 27-28 MPG highway which is approx 3-4 MPG increase over the 2015 GT at 25 MPG highway as I previously stated..
6/16/15, 09:10 PM
#22
V6 Member
Join Date: March 18, 2015
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand corrected, as I should had stated RECOMMENDED not REQUIRED
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..
That's exactly why Ford recommends 93 octane
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..
That's exactly why Ford recommends 93 octane
Rocky,
I am not sure why you are trying so hard to justify the GT. If you want one you do not need to justify it or get the crowd's approval.
As for your 'points' you are using faulty logic.
1) You are comparing the combined city/ highway average fuel economy of the EB to the highway estimate of the GT. The GT is 'rated' at 25 and the EB is 'rated' at 32 for highway mileage and 16 and 23 respectively for city. So the GT is not 'only 2 MPG' less. One could just as easily compare the 25 Hwy and 23 city and say the GT gets 2 better; also invalid.
2) You state the EB is 'recommended' to use 93 octane fuel. Nowhere is that recommendation made by Ford. Your assumption that it needs 93 octane is incorrect.
3) You believe that you 'need' 93 octane in the EB to achieve the 320 HP because the 290 is lame and somehow slow. This implies your driving style would require all 320 HP yet you believe that driving a GT in the same manner would yield similar fuel economy between the two. You are making a lot of assumptions. The GT can deliver very good FE but you need to drive it like the accelerator pedal is made of egg shells.
To those of us who know how both of these cars perform and respond we know your assumptions are rather incorrect. As I stated; you like the GT and that is absolutely fine and no justification or rearrangement of the numbers are needed. The GT is a fabulous car but in daily use in stop and go traffic it would just be another 135 unused HP on top of what isn't getting used with the EB. Some of us do not need a GT and that is why Ford made both. The GT for you and the EB for me and that is perfectly fine.
6/16/15, 09:51 PM
#23
THE RED FLASH ------ Master-Moderator
Rocky,
I am not sure why you are trying so hard to justify the GT. If you want one you do not need to justify it or get the crowd's approval.
As for your 'points' you are using faulty logic.
1) You are comparing the combined city/ highway average fuel economy of the EB to the highway estimate of the GT. The GT is 'rated' at 25 and the EB is 'rated' at 32 for highway mileage and 16 and 23 respectively for city. So the GT is not 'only 2 MPG' less. One could just as easily compare the 25 Hwy and 23 city and say the GT gets 2 better; also invalid.
2) You state the EB is 'recommended' to use 93 octane fuel. Nowhere is that recommendation made by Ford. Your assumption that it needs 93 octane is incorrect.
3) You believe that you 'need' 93 octane in the EB to achieve the 320 HP because the 290 is lame and somehow slow. This implies your driving style would require all 320 HP yet you believe that driving a GT in the same manner would yield similar fuel economy between the two. You are making a lot of assumptions. The GT can deliver very good FE but you need to drive it like the accelerator pedal is made of egg shells.
To those of us who know how both of these cars perform and respond we know your assumptions are rather incorrect. As I stated; you like the GT and that is absolutely fine and no justification or rearrangement of the numbers are needed. The GT is a fabulous car but in daily use in stop and go traffic it would just be another 135 unused HP on top of what isn't getting used with the EB. Some of us do not need a GT and that is why Ford made both. The GT for you and the EB for me and that is perfectly fine.
I am not sure why you are trying so hard to justify the GT. If you want one you do not need to justify it or get the crowd's approval.
As for your 'points' you are using faulty logic.
1) You are comparing the combined city/ highway average fuel economy of the EB to the highway estimate of the GT. The GT is 'rated' at 25 and the EB is 'rated' at 32 for highway mileage and 16 and 23 respectively for city. So the GT is not 'only 2 MPG' less. One could just as easily compare the 25 Hwy and 23 city and say the GT gets 2 better; also invalid.
2) You state the EB is 'recommended' to use 93 octane fuel. Nowhere is that recommendation made by Ford. Your assumption that it needs 93 octane is incorrect.
3) You believe that you 'need' 93 octane in the EB to achieve the 320 HP because the 290 is lame and somehow slow. This implies your driving style would require all 320 HP yet you believe that driving a GT in the same manner would yield similar fuel economy between the two. You are making a lot of assumptions. The GT can deliver very good FE but you need to drive it like the accelerator pedal is made of egg shells.
To those of us who know how both of these cars perform and respond we know your assumptions are rather incorrect. As I stated; you like the GT and that is absolutely fine and no justification or rearrangement of the numbers are needed. The GT is a fabulous car but in daily use in stop and go traffic it would just be another 135 unused HP on top of what isn't getting used with the EB. Some of us do not need a GT and that is why Ford made both. The GT for you and the EB for me and that is perfectly fine.
Therefore if my logic is incorrect ? Then once again I misinterpreted the data you provided.. At any rate, I'm not attempting to bash your Eco-Boost 4 in favor of the GT in anyway, but rather stating a personal preference and nothing more..
The bottom line is this.. As long as your satisfied with your car, that's all that really matters.. As for myself, I don't need anybody else's approval to justify anything and perhaps down the road I may look into adding a S550 Mustang but for now I'm quite satisfied with my current Mustang and have no plans of upgrading at this time..
So once again, my apology for any misinterpretations on my part
6/16/15, 09:59 PM
#24
THE RED FLASH ------ Master-Moderator
6/16/15, 10:03 PM
#25
Cobra Member
It's a shame Ford doesn't offer the V6 w/ leather. Consider buying a V6 and getting after market leather seat covers. The difference in price between the grades of fuel should easily push you in that direction. I love my V6 and have no regrets about not buying a GT. It has plenty of power and gets great mileage.
6/16/15, 10:17 PM
#26
THE RED FLASH ------ Master-Moderator
I totally agree Tom.. As your 2014 V6 has plenty of HP at 305 for daily driving and great MPG to go along with it as well
6/17/15, 12:07 AM
#27
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
It's a shame Ford doesn't offer the V6 w/ leather. Consider buying a V6 and getting after market leather seat covers. The difference in price between the grades of fuel should easily push you in that direction. I love my V6 and have no regrets about not buying a GT. It has plenty of power and gets great mileage.
6/17/15, 11:51 AM
#28
DI is a problem in the most mid to high mileage cars. Check out You Tube and Google for more proof. In one video,the Ford engineers told one SAE mechanic at a Ford dealer to just change the heads since they had no solution to cleaning the intake valves in place without destroying the turbos down stream. Knock the carbon off the valves, into the turbo, and BANG! VW/Audi, Toyota/Scion and several others are slowly adding back port injection along with DI to solve the oily PVC / ERG gas issue that has developed the carbon build up with this new technology. No Ecoboost engines have this dual set up except for the new Ford GT. Ford knows the solution but has not put it in any of the current cars so good luck after the 3/36000 test drive.
6/18/15, 12:06 PM
#29
DI is a problem in the most mid to high mileage cars. Check out You Tube and Google for more proof. In one video,the Ford engineers told one SAE mechanic at a Ford dealer to just change the heads since they had no solution to cleaning the intake valves in place without destroying the turbos down stream. Knock the carbon off the valves, into the turbo, and BANG! VW/Audi, Toyota/Scion and several others are slowly adding back port injection along with DI to solve the oily PVC / ERG gas issue that has developed the carbon build up with this new technology. No Ecoboost engines have this dual set up except for the new Ford GT. Ford knows the solution but has not put it in any of the current cars so good luck after the 3/36000 test drive.
As I stated before the early adopters (DI goes back to the 90's) had issues but they are mostly solved on new DI engines these days.
6/19/15, 09:07 AM
#30
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 10, 2007
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The Fiancee drives ALOT.. she had 134k on her 2012 6'er when we traded it in.
The 15 Eco 6M is getting between 33-35 mpg and I believe she's around 4,500 miles on the clock already.
The 15 Eco 6M is getting between 33-35 mpg and I believe she's around 4,500 miles on the clock already.
6/21/15, 01:57 PM
#31
I just took a long drive that was primarily highway, but there was some stop and go and construction slow downs. I averaged 34 MPG with my Ecoboost. I noticed that while cruising just above 70 mph, the engine was only at about 2000 RPM.
6/21/15, 03:16 PM
#32
THE RED FLASH ------ Master-Moderator
Just curious, is your 15 Eco-Boost manual or auto ?
6/22/15, 08:58 AM
#35
Bullitt Member
It's a shame Ford doesn't offer the V6 w/ leather. Consider buying a V6 and getting after market leather seat covers. The difference in price between the grades of fuel should easily push you in that direction. I love my V6 and have no regrets about not buying a GT. It has plenty of power and gets great mileage.
6/23/15, 01:32 PM
#36
THE RED FLASH ------ Master-Moderator
6/23/15, 01:35 PM
#37
THE RED FLASH ------ Master-Moderator
6/23/15, 02:42 PM
#38
With my 2012 Focus, when I drove from Atlanta to Orlando, I always had to fill up just before I got to the Florida Turnpike which was right about 400 miles. With my 2007 and 2010 Mustangs, I had to fill up between Gainesville and Ocala. This fall when I do that drive, I have no doubt I will get to Orlando without stopping for gas.
6/23/15, 02:48 PM
#39
The Eco-4 is for the Euro market as it is for the US market. In a lot of European countries, you pay a lot more for more cylinders in both taxes and insurance. I like my Ecoboost 4 a lot better than the 6 in my previous Mustangs.