Whats your gas mileage been like?
04-30-2013, 06:43 PM
#41
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 184
GTC... I got the pony package but my tires are 18 inch Pirellis. Maybe that's one reason my milage is still kinda low. At 70mph and 1700rpm my computer says 29.1 mpg (level ground/no wind). I only have 1300 miles on my car so far.
TCHS22...I agree there are several factors affecting gas milage but I'm pretty sure the farther down you push the gas pedal the more gas you are using. if the 3.73 is giving you better milage then maybe you should try a 4.56:1 gear ratio.
I'm not talking about daily driving and calculating mpg. I'm only concerned with one setting that everybody can compare their cars at. As I mentioned above I drove mine on the interstate level ground (near as I could tell). I drove for 1 mile and then turned around and drove the exact same mile in the other direction. I got 29.2 going and 29.0 coming back for an average of 29.1mpg. This was done with the cruise control set and then using the reset button on the return so both speeds would be exactly the same. Note I'm also talking about using the onboard computer for the mpg readiings. I have made about 3 measured fill-ups and checked my computer each time against the actual calculated milage. All three times the computer in the car read slightly below the actual calculated value by an average of 0.7mpg. The actual difference was 0.9 , 0.5 and last time 0.7 mpg below the actual calculated.
Anyway thanks to anyone who wants to participate in my experiment and provide info.
TCHS22...I agree there are several factors affecting gas milage but I'm pretty sure the farther down you push the gas pedal the more gas you are using. if the 3.73 is giving you better milage then maybe you should try a 4.56:1 gear ratio.
I'm not talking about daily driving and calculating mpg. I'm only concerned with one setting that everybody can compare their cars at. As I mentioned above I drove mine on the interstate level ground (near as I could tell). I drove for 1 mile and then turned around and drove the exact same mile in the other direction. I got 29.2 going and 29.0 coming back for an average of 29.1mpg. This was done with the cruise control set and then using the reset button on the return so both speeds would be exactly the same. Note I'm also talking about using the onboard computer for the mpg readiings. I have made about 3 measured fill-ups and checked my computer each time against the actual calculated milage. All three times the computer in the car read slightly below the actual calculated value by an average of 0.7mpg. The actual difference was 0.9 , 0.5 and last time 0.7 mpg below the actual calculated.
Anyway thanks to anyone who wants to participate in my experiment and provide info.
Controlled tests are great, but they are controlled. I can get my computer to read 45MPG if I coast downhill for a mile, but when I get to the bottom and have to drive back up, the computer is reading 24.5MPG.
Wind plays a factor, road grade plays a factor, fuel quality plays a factor, application of force to the accelerator plays a factor, cruising speed plays a factor. At the end of the day, an average is really just that, and is the easiest way to compare.
05-01-2013, 01:45 PM
#42
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 56
Your first sentence while basically correct only tells me a little about how you drive your car. I realize I can drive my car so I average about 20 mpg or 28 mpg. That says very little about what the car is capable of. At the moment I'm only interested in what most V6 mustangs do when cruising down the road at 70mph since it is a typical speed limit on most interstate roads. Just knowing that figure can tell a lot about what your car is capable of. It goes without saying that coasting downhill can give me more mpg than driving uphill or on level ground. Wind is certainly a factor so any test should be done with very low wind conditions. My 2007 GT/CS with 5 speed got around 26mpg at 70 mph but it also got around 33 mpg at 45 mph (again those are computer readings). I expect my V6 to do better than that. Every time I fill up I calculate my mpg and compare that to what the computer said. After 6 years with my GT/CS I had a very good feel for how accurate the computer was. I don't have a good feel yet for my new V6. One thing I don't like about the V6 automatic transmission is it feels "soft". I would like a firmer feel when it is shifting gears. I understand the Hypertech tuner can adjust that.
It's nice to hear from other mustang owners here on likes/dislikes about their cars.
It's nice to hear from other mustang owners here on likes/dislikes about their cars.
05-01-2013, 06:41 PM
#43
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 184
I get 30+ MPG at 65MPH. The speed limit is 70MPH here. I drive 65MPH. I find it less stressful to let everyone else pass me while I poke along than to deal with morons that don't know how to drive or signal nursing the fast lane at the speed limit.
I just got done with a 600 mile road trip. With the cruise set at 65MPH for nearly the entire thing, I got 29.5MPG average. The majority of the mileage was done in the mountains of East Tennessee and Eastern Kentucky. The hills mess it up.
If I drive normally, which is a bit on the spirited side, for my 70 mile commute, which is 15 miles city/55 miles highway, with an average speed of 35MPH in the city and an average speed of 85MPH on the highway, I average 24.5 for the day.
That is about as scientific as I get with it.
Obviously, 65MPH is the better compromise for me.
I just got done with a 600 mile road trip. With the cruise set at 65MPH for nearly the entire thing, I got 29.5MPG average. The majority of the mileage was done in the mountains of East Tennessee and Eastern Kentucky. The hills mess it up.
If I drive normally, which is a bit on the spirited side, for my 70 mile commute, which is 15 miles city/55 miles highway, with an average speed of 35MPH in the city and an average speed of 85MPH on the highway, I average 24.5 for the day.
That is about as scientific as I get with it.
Obviously, 65MPH is the better compromise for me.
05-01-2013, 08:43 PM
#44
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Washington
Posts: 86
I live in Seattle area, it has a lot of Hills, and the terrain is non flat in many areas. I have only measured my MPG with the indicator in the dashboard and I usually get like 29-30 MPG on the highway if I don't have to go thru any mountain pass. And In the ciry, I usually get like 17 o 18 MPG, combined I am usually around 22 o 23. I have a V6 with 2.73 Gears.
05-03-2013, 08:14 AM
#45
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 56
05-03-2013, 08:43 AM
#46
Moderator
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Michigan again!
Posts: 8,579
My car displays pretty close to a hand calculation every fill up. I disagree that hand calculation is more accurate though. You assume that you are putting the same amount of fuel in the tank each time - but the volume can be affected by temperature, flow rate of the pump, the sensor on the pump, and humidity. So you may not have an accurate measurement of how much gas you actually used each time with hand calculation.
The computer on the car though is measuring how much gas was actually used since you last reset the computer. It knows how much was sent through the injectors and it doesn't matter how much you are putting in the tank and how conditions may affect that amount. It is giving you a read out based upon how many miles you drove and how many gallons of gas it ran through the injectors.
My opinion (and like any we all have one) is that the car computer is probably more accurate than hand calculation because of the variables that we can't account for. Hand calculation is at best an estimate of how much gas was actually used between fill ups.
The computer on the car though is measuring how much gas was actually used since you last reset the computer. It knows how much was sent through the injectors and it doesn't matter how much you are putting in the tank and how conditions may affect that amount. It is giving you a read out based upon how many miles you drove and how many gallons of gas it ran through the injectors.
My opinion (and like any we all have one) is that the car computer is probably more accurate than hand calculation because of the variables that we can't account for. Hand calculation is at best an estimate of how much gas was actually used between fill ups.
05-03-2013, 03:10 PM
#47
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 56
Hi JImC,
I think I would be very happy if we could measure mpg within +/- 0.5mpg. I believe cars use flowmeters to calculate how much gas is used and the computer calculates the mpg using fuel flow vs the speed or distance we are traveling. Both of those values have errors associated with them.
I'm just trying to get a feel for the mpg in todays V6 mustangs. The more people that offer numbers, I think the better feel I will have for what's "normal". My car was not doing very good when I first got it and it bothered me some that it was not any better than my old V8. It seems to be getting better as it gets "broke in" now.
I think I would be very happy if we could measure mpg within +/- 0.5mpg. I believe cars use flowmeters to calculate how much gas is used and the computer calculates the mpg using fuel flow vs the speed or distance we are traveling. Both of those values have errors associated with them.
I'm just trying to get a feel for the mpg in todays V6 mustangs. The more people that offer numbers, I think the better feel I will have for what's "normal". My car was not doing very good when I first got it and it bothered me some that it was not any better than my old V8. It seems to be getting better as it gets "broke in" now.
Last edited by Moronix; 05-03-2013 at 03:21 PM.
05-03-2013, 07:56 PM
#48
Moderator
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Michigan again!
Posts: 8,579
Moronix, you are are right, there are so many factors that affect the MPG calculations either by the computer or by hand calculation, that all we are doing is getting a close approximation.
But I do see some wild claims. Guys saying that they are getting 37+ MPG for example, considering that the EPA estimates are based upon ideal conditions pretty hard to accept that someone is getting way over the EPA estimate. Now with the "instant MPG" option I can get some great numbers; just crest a hill at 60 or so, let off the gas and coast down the other side and I can get a read out of 99 MPG and can post up the picture to prove I get that kind of mileage. The high MPG people I suspect are doing something like that, looking at the instant MPG to see what they are getting rather than using the on board computer or hand calculation to come up with an approximation of the true MPG.
But I do see some wild claims. Guys saying that they are getting 37+ MPG for example, considering that the EPA estimates are based upon ideal conditions pretty hard to accept that someone is getting way over the EPA estimate. Now with the "instant MPG" option I can get some great numbers; just crest a hill at 60 or so, let off the gas and coast down the other side and I can get a read out of 99 MPG and can post up the picture to prove I get that kind of mileage. The high MPG people I suspect are doing something like that, looking at the instant MPG to see what they are getting rather than using the on board computer or hand calculation to come up with an approximation of the true MPG.
05-03-2013, 09:15 PM
#50
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: IL
Posts: 200
I know this is a 3.7L forum but can't help but chime in here. Lots of good points all around but the last three posts really worked for me.
One of the things that Ford did to get the "numbers" they wanted to sell the 305HP, 31MPG claim was put 2.73 gears in an 8.8" rear end, lean the snot out of the engine while running it hotter and run thinner motor oil. That's what my Ford dealer mechanic told me anyway (haven't looked it up to verify).
That said I don't really think the new 3.7 is actually THAT much more fuel efficient than the previous 4.0. Its a great engine in many ways but not really in efficiency IMO.
My 4.0 is EPA rated 28 MPG HWY with 3.31 gears and the T-5 manual. Generally if I reset the computer at home and baby it on the way to work (42 miles, 60% hwy) I can get 29-30 mpg on the way to work (60-65 MPH) and on the way home it will only drop down to around 27-28.
If I drive it normally (which includes a fair amount of heavy footwork) I can still get 24-25 quite easily and still have fun. When I had my 4.6 3v GT I could barely ever get over 20 MPG (car had 3.73s though) no matter how much I babied it or skip-shifted, but that was a damn fun engine FYI!
I would have to agree with Jim C., the computer in the car is pretty accurate. My car runs right about 1,700 RPM at 60 MPH.
Hope someone finds this helpful or interesting (4.0 perspective).
Tom
One of the things that Ford did to get the "numbers" they wanted to sell the 305HP, 31MPG claim was put 2.73 gears in an 8.8" rear end, lean the snot out of the engine while running it hotter and run thinner motor oil. That's what my Ford dealer mechanic told me anyway (haven't looked it up to verify).
That said I don't really think the new 3.7 is actually THAT much more fuel efficient than the previous 4.0. Its a great engine in many ways but not really in efficiency IMO.
My 4.0 is EPA rated 28 MPG HWY with 3.31 gears and the T-5 manual. Generally if I reset the computer at home and baby it on the way to work (42 miles, 60% hwy) I can get 29-30 mpg on the way to work (60-65 MPH) and on the way home it will only drop down to around 27-28.
If I drive it normally (which includes a fair amount of heavy footwork) I can still get 24-25 quite easily and still have fun. When I had my 4.6 3v GT I could barely ever get over 20 MPG (car had 3.73s though) no matter how much I babied it or skip-shifted, but that was a damn fun engine FYI!
I would have to agree with Jim C., the computer in the car is pretty accurate. My car runs right about 1,700 RPM at 60 MPH.
Hope someone finds this helpful or interesting (4.0 perspective).
Tom