Search



Go Back   MustangForums.com > Ford Mustang Tech > The New S550 2015 Mustang
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Search

The New S550 2015 Mustang Discussions on the upcoming next generation of the Ford Mustang - expected to arrive in 2014 with the platform name S550. Sponsored by American Muscle


Welcome to Mustang Forums!
Welcome to Mustang Forums.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!


Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-20-2014, 07:26 PM   #21
jz78817
3rd Gear Member

 
jz78817's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Vehicle: 2012 Ford Mustang GT
Location: Michigan
Posts: 547
Default

Quote:
Pascal is right on this one. Believe me, I know from experience that FoMoCo underrates the advertised EPA mileage on just about all (if not all) of their cars. The Fusion hybrid you are talking about will get 47MPG across the board; Ford cut back on that MPG to appease the lead-footed drivers so they can't cry "My hybrid don't get 47MPG!" when they drive like bats out of hell.
no, they re-rated the fuel economy because they used incorrect values for road-load horsepower. There were a ton of articles written about it, if you missed them here are a few:

https://autos.yahoo.com/news/ford-ad...195334977.html
http://gas2.org/2014/06/13/testing-e...-six-vehicles/
http://www.thetorquereport.com/2014/...omy_ratin.html

Quote:
Case in point: I have the older 2011 GT 5.0 Coyote with 3.31:1 rear gears. This is rated only at 26MPG highway on stock factory tune. I observe well in excess of that 26MPG highway when I hit my freeways; oftentimes easily breaking 28MPG and also 30MPG.
yeah, so? The EPA highway fuel economy test is not a steady cruise. All you're saying is that your notion of highway driving doesn't resemble the procedure of the EPA fuel economy test.

Quote:
Ford has always underrated to account for the more critical customers. When they actually drive normally, and get higher MPG readings, they are put in their place with facts of higher fuel mileage sitting right in front of their faces.
nope. I know more than a few people who bitch about the "poor" fuel economy of their Fusions and Escapes. If I ride with them, I immediately see why. They drive just like I described above, they stomp on the gas until they need to stomp on the brake.

Quote:
You have to be stomping on the gas often to drop below the advertised MPG; that's the way Ford rates their cars.
che cazzo dici? The mpg numbers that go on the window sticker are supposed to come from a clearly defined test routine from the EPA. Ford can't just test their vehicles however the hell they want to and submit those numbers.

Quote:
Correcting my error and doing the dimensional analysis, I did some quick mental calculations and realize that when you add 2 gallons to the miles per gallon, what happens is the advertised MPG numbers are cut down to only a third.
So the Fusion hybrid which was originally advertised at 47 miles / 1 gallon, the arithmetic gives:
47 miles / (1 gallon + 2 gallon) = 47 mi / 3 gallons
which means you are only getting 15.667 MPG.
neither of you are making sense.
This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members.
Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!
jz78817 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2014, 08:09 PM   #22
pascal
S197 Section Modder-ator
 
pascal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Vehicle: 06
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 13,107
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JIM5.0 View Post
Rereading back, I misunderstood what you originally wrote. When you said add 2 gallons on top of the EPA mileages, I though you meant add 2 MPG to those figures.
But what you are saying is the advertised MPGs are really much less.
Guys I apologize for my moronic statement.
I meant 2 miles off per gallon, not 2 gallons!!
So when it stipulates 47mpg it's more like 45 or worse.
Like you just said Jim, add 2MPG to their figures basically.
__________________
pascal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2014, 05:59 PM   #23
JIM5.0
5th Gear Member

 
JIM5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Vehicle: 2011 GT 5.0 Coyote
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,319
None, Facebook is the Devil! None, Twitter is for Twits! None, I hate it when my boss snoops the net about me
Default

Wow...where do I even start? What a mess...I apologize for calling it a mess but I'm just saying....

Its one thing to have a debate, but how you responded to me is disrespectful.

You brought out one fact with this quote and your links, and that's perfectly fine because I learned something new.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
no, they re-rated the fuel economy because they used incorrect values for road-load horsepower. There were a ton of articles written about it, if you missed them here are a few:...

After that, the rest was disrespectful. You didn't have to say "Yeah so?" That was unnecessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
yeah, so? The EPA highway fuel economy test is not a steady cruise. All you're saying is that your notion of highway driving doesn't resemble the procedure of the EPA fuel economy test.
Moreover, I observe directly in my own car that I beat Ford's EPA, both according to the dash counter and my own hand calculations. And I do not always drive in steady load conditions; I also drive in stop-and-go rush hour bumper to bumper gridlocked traffic yet my combined average MPG is still nearly 21 MPG.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
nope. I know more than a few people who bitch about the "poor" fuel economy of their Fusions and Escapes. If I ride with them, I immediately see why. They drive just like I described above, they stomp on the gas until they need to stomp on the brake.
I trust Pascal's info; he actually owns a Fusion and he has been around Mustangs and Fords much longer than I have.
You're all over the place. You at first rebutted Pascal and said you got 51MPG from a Fusion H but now you flip-flopped and say Ford's MPGs are exaggerated and the actual MPGs are less.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
che cazzo dici?
This was completely unnecessary and patronizing. Your whole post did not did not even need these three words.


As you can tell, I'm offended. I can go on, but this argument is not worth a single word more.

With that, I close by giving you some Italian too...ciao, il mio amico
__________________

Squirrel of Death!
Do not **** off the SoD!!!!
JIM5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2014, 06:11 PM   #24
JIM5.0
5th Gear Member

 
JIM5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Vehicle: 2011 GT 5.0 Coyote
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,319
None, Facebook is the Devil! None, Twitter is for Twits! None, I hate it when my boss snoops the net about me
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pascal View Post
Guys I apologize for my moronic statement.
I meant 2 miles off per gallon, not 2 gallons!!
So when it stipulates 47mpg it's more like 45 or worse.
Like you just said Jim, add 2MPG to their figures basically.
Ah, gotcha now. I guess for me now, it's a mix. What I mean is out of the few Fords I have personally driven, I have always seen numbers higher than the advertised MPGs. But coming from you and your experiences, your observations temper what I have observed.

Granted, I rarely drive spiritedly, maybe once or twice a day max is when I stomp on the gas and rev to redline, but I admit the vast majority of my driving is daily driving in which I only hit just under 3K RPM in first gear to accelerate from a stop and never hit over 2K RPM in any other gear afterwards.
In my own Coyote, I drive the engine in almost always only daily driving conditions.

Its so tempting to stomp on the gas and feel the power, and the few times I do, if I do an instantaneous MPG reading using the dash counter, I see my MPGs are terrible; only around 12 MPG.
__________________

Squirrel of Death!
Do not **** off the SoD!!!!
JIM5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2014, 07:07 PM   #25
jz78817
3rd Gear Member

 
jz78817's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Vehicle: 2012 Ford Mustang GT
Location: Michigan
Posts: 547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JIM5.0 View Post
After that, the rest was disrespectful. You didn't have to say "Yeah so?" That was unnecessary.
I humbly submit that if "yeah, so?" offends you, you really shouldn't be on the internet.

Quote:
Moreover, I observe directly in my own car that I beat Ford's EPA, both according to the dash counter and my own hand calculations. And I do not always drive in steady load conditions; I also drive in stop-and-go rush hour bumper to bumper gridlocked traffic yet my combined average MPG is still nearly 21 MPG.
yes, I've already addressed that. Your notion (and probably most people's notions) of "Highway driving" is more or less a steady cruise at ~65-70 mph. Here is the detail of the EPA's highway drive cycle. A little more. The EPA test/rating procedure doesn't look much like what most people consider "highway driving." Even with stop-and-go here and there, most people's highway driving has a lot more steady cruising at speed than the 12 minute (!) EPA cycle.

There's a very good reason the phrase "your mileage may vary" or "YMMV" get tossed around so much.

Quote:
You're all over the place. You at first rebutted Pascal and said you got 51MPG from a Fusion H but now you flip-flopped and say Ford's MPGs are exaggerated and the actual MPGs are less.
I did no such thing. I said that people who drive aggressively (stomp on the gas until they stomp on the brakes) will get poor fuel economy from hybrid or downsized-and-boosted engines. I got 51 mpg in a Fusion Hybrid because I deliberately drove it as if it was a Prius. Gentle control inputs, get up to speed quickly without flooring it, use regenerative braking as much as possible, and once up to speed try to use EV mode as much as possible.

Quote:
As you can tell, I'm offended. I can go on, but this argument is not worth a single word more.
I'm sorry you're offended, but you posted absolute nonsense ("You have to be stomping on the gas often to drop below the advertised MPG; that's the way Ford rates their cars.") You claimed the numbers Ford puts on the Monroney sticker are from something other than the EPA mandated test, which is completely untrue. Doing so would get them some pretty stiff fines from the government and very likely invite more than one expensive lawsuit. Nonsense and fact do not carry equal weight.

Last edited by jz78817; 08-21-2014 at 07:17 PM.
jz78817 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2014, 09:08 PM   #26
JIM5.0
5th Gear Member

 
JIM5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Vehicle: 2011 GT 5.0 Coyote
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,319
None, Facebook is the Devil! None, Twitter is for Twits! None, I hate it when my boss snoops the net about me
Default

You really don't know when to quit. I thought I made it clear that I really don't want to argue with you anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
I humbly submit that if "yeah, so?" offends you, you really shouldn't be on the internet.
So, just because Mustang Forums is an internet gathering is an excuse to be disrespectful...good luck with that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
I'm sorry you're offended, but you posted absolute nonsense... Nonsense and fact do not carry equal weight.
So my direct observations are nonsense and not facts? Sorry, you believe that, but direct empirical observations are facts. I only presented facts from my own direct experience.

THAT's IT! I'm through talking to you.
We drifted away from talking about anything that is remotely related to the Ecoboost S550 Mustangs.
I've already said too much to you and I should have already dropped it long ago.

Good Bye and Good Luck making friends on the internet.
__________________

Squirrel of Death!
Do not **** off the SoD!!!!
JIM5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2014, 09:23 PM   #27
jz78817
3rd Gear Member

 
jz78817's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Vehicle: 2012 Ford Mustang GT
Location: Michigan
Posts: 547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JIM5.0 View Post
You really don't know when to quit. I thought I made it clear that I really don't want to argue with you anymore.
yet here you are, continuing to argue.

Quote:
So, just because Mustang Forums is an internet gathering is an excuse to be disrespectful...good luck with that.
I've never met you, I don't owe you respect.

Quote:
So my direct observations are nonsense and not facts? Sorry, you believe that, but direct empirical observations are facts. I only presented facts from my own direct experience.

THAT's IT! I'm through talking to you.
We drifted away from talking about anything that is remotely related to the Ecoboost S550 Mustangs.
I've already said too much to you and I should have already dropped it long ago.

Good Bye and Good Luck making friends on the internet.

LOOK. the mpg ratings on the Monroney sticker are the result of a clearly defined, government mandated test procedure. Your "direct observations" are not the result of a controlled experiment or of a clearly defined test procedure. They WILL differ from the results of an EPA test. the nonsense you posted was your claim that Ford has their own test procedure to come up with those mpg numbers they put on the sticker, and I told you you were all wet. If you want to get all butthurt now, that's on you.

and I don't need friends. all they do is pretend to like you and stab you in the back later.
jz78817 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2014, 10:28 PM   #28
CharlieW
1st Gear Member

 
CharlieW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location:
Posts: 64
Default

In the news today:
A set of leaked window stickers provides the first fuel-economy data for the EcoBoost. If the stickers are genuine, the turbo four will be EPA-rated at 26 mpg combined (22 mpg city, 31 mpg highway) with the six-speed manual transmission (figures for the six-speed automatic weren't released).
CharlieW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2014, 06:10 AM   #29
pascal
S197 Section Modder-ator
 
pascal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Vehicle: 06
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 13,107
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JIM5.0 View Post
.... But coming from you and your experiences, your observations temper what I have observed.
Please DO NOT!! believe that I know it ALL and everything I say is coming out of the Bible.
My experiences are just that, my experiences. I never got the advertised MPG with any new cars I bought from Ford.
It doesn't mean that you'll have the same results than I do.
Facts negates anything different from anyone else including myself.
After all, the Coyote ratings might be spot on...

Also, use the ignore button with members that you dislike and don't take it too personally regardless.
As a Moderator if I took it personally, I'd wacked a bunch of members on these boards by now. Just sayin'...
__________________
pascal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2014, 05:36 PM   #30
kawasakiguy
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Vehicle: 2013 mustang GT
Location: Kansas
Posts: 163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kawasakiguy View Post
22 city 32 highway maybe.
Damnit I was so close! Face it guys 300hp, combined with the weight it's not going to be a prius.
__________________
2013 GT 6MT and the fastest color.
kawasakiguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2014, 05:36 PM
MustangForums
Ford Mustang




Paid Advertisement

 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump

Advertising

Featured Sponsors
Vendor Directory
New Sponsors
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:57 AM.

© Internet Brands, Inc.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company
Emails Backup