• Mar 4, 2010
2011 Ford Mustang V6 at the 2009 LA Auto Show – Click above for high-res image gallery

The pony car wars are about one-upsmanship if nothing else. The Ford Mustang held court for years while Chevrolet and Dodge had their horses on hiatus, but times have changed. The new Camaro has been whaling on the Mustang ever since its return, beating the Ford in sales for nine months straight and offering a range engines that are at once more powerful and efficient than the Blue Oval's aging mills. Advantage: Camaro.

The Mustang, however, received a nicely executed redesign for its 2010 model year and, as is Ford's way, the automaker waited another model year to introduce its new range of engines. You already know all about the return of the storied 5.0 moniker on this year's new Mustang GT. You also know that the V6 model is replacing its Civil War era 4.0-liter engine with a more powerful and efficient 3.7-liter. Powerful as in 305 horsepower, but how efficient? We didn't know before but we do now. The 2011 Ford Mustang V6 will achieve 19 miles per gallon in the city and, more noteworthy, 31 mpg on the highway.

The V6 model's rating of 30 mpg highway (when paired with the six-speed auto mind you, the manual version achieves 30 mpg) is noteworthy because, well, it's 2 mpg more than the slightly less powerful 304-hp Camaro V6. Also, it's a record for being the first 300+ hp vehicle to be officially rated at 30 mpg or more. Wow, think about that. It's never been done before. Sure, the new Mustang V6 is only marginally more powerful and efficient than its Camaro counterpart, but clawing above that 30 mpg mark will no doubt get Ford's thoroughbred some extra ink in the press.

Follow the jump for Ford's official press release on the matter, in which it explains a little more how those magic numbers were achieved (Spoiler: aerodynamics, super smart six-speed auto and electric power assisted steering).



[Source: Ford]
Show full PR text
NEW MUSTANG WITH 305 HP CERTIFIED AT 31 MPG HIGHWAY; MAKES HISTORY AS FIRST CAR WITH 300+ HP AND 30+ MPG
  • New 2011 Ford Mustang V-6 final fuel economy certified by EPA this week at 31 mpg on the highway and 19 mpg in the city
  • On sale this spring, Mustang with new 3.7-liter V-6 achieves 305 hp with available six-speed automatic transmission; first car ever to achieve 300-plus horsepower and 30-plus mpg
  • New Mustang already has more than 11,000 orders, half for the new V-6

DEARBORN, Mich., March 4, 2010 – The 2011 Ford Mustang today breaks new ground, cracking the record books as not only the most fuel-efficient Mustang ever, but also the first production car in history to produce more than 300 horsepower and more than 30 mpg highway.

The Mustang's official EPA ratings – completed this week – certify that models equipped with the 305-hp 3.7-liter V-6 and available six-speed automatic transmission achieve 31 mpg on the highway and 19 mpg in the city. The standard six-speed manual transmission is rated at 30 mpg on the highway and 19 mpg in the city.

Mustang is powered by a lightweight, all-aluminum 3.7-liter dual-overhead-cam (DOHC) V-6 engine that uses advanced engineering to deliver its combination of power and economy. Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing (Ti-VCT) adjusts the valvetrain in microseconds depending on driver inputs, further contributing to the engine's overall efficiency.

The fact that Mustang achieves its top fuel economy rating with the convenience of an automatic transmission also marks a shift in conventional wisdom. Ford engineered a modern six-speed automatic transmission with carefully calibrated gear ratios and shift programs to maximize economy, while still delivering high-horsepower driving fun.

"Advanced powertrains like our Ti-VCT V-6 and six-speed automatic really speak to the future of Mustang," says Barb Samardzich, Ford vice president of Global Powertrain Engineering. "We've proven that, using technology, Ford can deliver both power and fuel economy."

In addition to engine improvements, upgrades to Mustang's body, powertrain and chassis design contribute to the higher fuel economy numbers for 2011. Examples include:
  • New Electric Power Assist Steering (EPAS) system eliminates the drag of an engine-operated hydraulic power steering pump
  • Six-speed manual and automatic transmissions allow lower cruising revs without sacrificing off-the-line performance
  • Aerodynamic changes include improvements like a new front fascia, tire spats on the rear wheels, modified underbody shields, a taller air dam and an added rear decklid seal

The new 2011 Mustang already has more than 11,000 orders. Half of all the nationwide orders are for the car's fuel-efficient 3.7-liter V-6 engine. The 2011 Mustangs are also being equipped with record levels of technology, giving customers the option of choosing navigation, high-intensity discharge (HID) headlamps and rearview cameras.

The new 2011 Mustang goes on sale this spring and will be built at the AutoAlliance International Plant in Flat Rock, Mich.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 130 Comments
      • 4 Years Ago
      The milestones keep happening. Ford's new products really are giving people a reason to visit their local showroom. And the numbers on the 5.0 litre? Who cares... it's 412 hp in a Mustang.
      • 4 Years Ago
      This account has only 4 posts and they're all ads for this device.

      He's a spammer and we're better off without him.
      • 4 Years Ago
      This should sell very well.
      • 4 Years Ago
      amazing that the first car to hit this milestone is RWD

      i never ever want to hear that BS about how car companies would like to make more rwd cars but cant because they need to hit their CAFE numbers

      never ever
        • 4 Years Ago
        thats true but then again why do rwd cars automatically have to be larger cars

        more proof that GM never should have stopped making the rwd impala ss
        • 4 Years Ago
        Just because you have a 54/46 weight distribution doesn't mean you have to use it all the time...
        Oh wait, it does.

        The Blizzak WS-70 aren't out yet.
        Leave the hardware traction control enabled [got open differential?], turn off the software traction control. Unfortunately too many companies don't give you the ability to choose.
        In the snow, you need a level of slip.
        http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=122
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydva0Ce3brk
        • 4 Years Ago
        If GM wanted to play the same axle ratio game Ford did, then GM could use the 2.84 axle ratio with the 4t80
        http://www.gmtuners.com/images/FWD_trans_ratios.pdf

        They already went the other way, using 3.71 instead of 3.11 in the 'sporty' Seville, at the cost of mileage. (didn't the Aurora use 3.48?)
        • 4 Years Ago
        mike, obviously ford has gamed the EPA system with the gearing

        GM could have (and probably should have) done the same thing

        the mustang gives customers the option to cruise at low engine speeds for good mpg OR shift late, drive the car hard and have some fun

        sure beats the hell out of GMs ridiculous 1-4 skip shift "feature". that takes the cake for the most outrageous attempt to game the epa test EVER
        • 4 Years Ago
        nelly, they are called snow tires

        even an awd car wearing all season rubber will suffer in the snow

        "Especially with a lot of horsepower."

        ...just because you have 300 hp doesn't mean you need to use it all the time. its called an accelerator pedal. unless its a toyota of course!
        • 4 Years Ago
        There aren't that many 300HP FWD cars. Especially nowadays, when the transmissions needed to reach these MPG figures are available.

        So is it really that surprising that the first 300HP 31mpg (highway) car is RWD?

        The only other 300HP FWD car I can think of is the Cadillac DTS and it's too big to make 31mpg.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Sorry, but when it's March and a third of the country is still covered in snow, RWD cars suffer. Sure, they handle great when the roads are bare but RWD in snow still sucks. Especially with a lot of horsepower. I don't care how many electronic nannies you add. In fact the nannies sometimes make it worse. I had to back a Chrysler 300 out of a parking space that had a 3" high plowed ridge of snow behind it. As soon as the tires hit that ridge and spun, the nannies kicked in and applied the brakes and kept me from moving. I was totally stuck in 3" of snow. It was embarrassing for me AND the car.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Good news for everyone who vacations and will be renting one of these. And with Ford's fleet sales rose over 74% last month compared to last February so that's where you know most of these will be headed (and probably a lot of GTs too).
        • 4 Years Ago
        What do you know about fleet sales of specific models? Ever tried finding a Mustang at ANY rental car office? If you're lucky, they might have one Mustang to rent out. But '10 Camaro V6 rental cars, incidentally, are all over the place.

        Pulling assumed 'facts' out of your ass doesn't make them true, as Brian the Toyota troll could probably tell you. The Camaro just got owned... deal with it.
      • 4 Years Ago
      I've averaged 31.5 mpg for an entire tank of interstate driving in my lightly modified (intake/exhaust) 3.5L 306HP IS350. 30 mpg isn't that hard to achieve with the proper gearing and a relatively aerodynamic body.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Rake that 'stang front end back to more aerodynamic, take another look at the underbody stampings and the mirrors and pick up another mpg or two.
        • 4 Years Ago
        I drive a 2009 F-150 XL, which is EPA rated for 14mpg city/19 mpg highway. Almost all of my driving is city, and I regularly average upwards of 18.5 mpg. If I really try, i can average around 22mpg, but I'm slightly too addicted to the sound of that nice V8 to keep my foot out of the gas. Don't ever let someone tell you that trucks can't be efficient. EPA ratings don't mean crap when it comes to the real world. This is just the opposite of when I had my 06 Focus that I could barely keep above 23 mpg. It's all in how you wish to drive your vehicle.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Intake and exhaust will usually "increase" mpg by providing better airflow for a leaner burn (higher air/fuel ratio), making more power at a given RPM. I've never seen them decrease MPG if they are properly designed. I am will to bet your car gained 2 mpg with quality mods, especially on a 300hp Lexus.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Yeah, and i've got 35mpg hwy with my 2.8 BMW, but that doesn't mean anything. The car's '08 rating is 26mpg hwy :p

        EPA numbers are a good baseline. A good place to start.
        • 4 Years Ago
        I do think they deserve credit, I think the current rating system is conservative, it may well achieve 32/33 mpg in the real world. I'm just saying every car should be at that level, it's not that hard - but 19 mpg city isn't very good. With a direct-injected turbo 4 it would probably be 35 mpg or more. It takes very little to keep a car moving, 20-25 HP tops.
        • 4 Years Ago
        What an individual can achieve, in their own vehicle, has little to do with EPA numbers.

        Most people can easily beat EPA numbers. I have done so with all of my vehicles.

        Give credit where due.
        • 4 Years Ago
        The 2gr-fse V6 gets good mileage thanks to the direct (and port) injection combination. (and variable resonance manifold)

        In regards to 'tuning adds 2mpg', there is little to no pumping restriction in modern stock intakes. Plus when you are at steady state there is little air mass to be pumped, so a replacement air filter won't do anything, except pass more dirt.
        Since there is very little air mass passing through the engine, the stock exhaust is sufficiently free flowing.

        Tire pressure would make a far bigger difference. (and alignment too)
      • 4 Years Ago
      I don't know what it is---I like the styling of the Mustang, but they all look so plain. Having grown up in the 60's, maybe it's a chrome thing, but they all look like they just came out of a paint booth and nothing has been put back on yet. Same with the Camaro.
      • 4 Years Ago
      This argument makes no sense because "real world" driving and E15 gas drop the mileage of every single car. All we can do is compare EPA numbers, no one is suggesting you are guaranteed to achieve them. If another car gets an EPA 28 highway then theoretically the same driver would achieve more in this Mustang. That's all we are saying. No need to hate.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Hmmm, my 2005 Civic LX sedan gets me around 27 MPG on a tank, but it has a modest 4 banger engine. The 2011 Mustang looks like mixed driving should be close to the same, but it has Sync, over 300 hp, looks sharp, and should be solid quality, maybe I will be visiting a Ford dealer in 2011.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Man, you really have to try to get poor mileage out of a Civic. Are you hauling around gold bricks in the trunk?
        • 4 Years Ago
        yeah but it has 1/4 as many camshafts and half as many valves
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Gloria

        I sure hope the Camaro SS's 14hp advantage over the Mustang GT can make up for it being 200lbs.+ heavier.

        Pretty sad since Camaro has 76 cubes on the 'Stang....
        • 4 Years Ago
        Gold plated tungsten.
        • 4 Years Ago
        You're doing something wrong then...

        My DD, a 2005 Civic DX sedan (manual) regularly gets over 40mpg on a tank, and once even averaged 50 (granted, this high number was from mostly freeway miles).
      • 4 Years Ago
      They should have made this around 200HP and have gotten well over 40 MPG...that would have been alot more impressive.

      In reallife, I'll venture to say this car gets nowhere near the figures they claim.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Power and fuel economy are not inversely related.

        What 200hp engine? a tuned naturally aspirated 2.5 I4 (mazda would have done it for the Mx-5)
        Bring back a 2.5 V6 (it was almost 200hp in the Jaguar x-type, so a shorter stroke version of the 3.0, say 89x67mm would easily be 200hp)
        An ecoboost 1.8 I4 (keeping the bore of the EB 2.0, but with a shorter stroke)

        What about transmission? Ford already gamed the system to hit 31mpg.
        Ford doesn't have a 7 or 8 speed automatic, they don't have a longitudinal double clutch.
        So to hit over 40mpg highway will require some hybrid hardware.
        • 4 Years Ago
        The Mustang is even more impressive when one compares it to smaller sporty cars with less HP.

        Nissan SER
        2.5L I4, 16 valves, 200 hp, 21 mpg city / 29 mpg hwy

        Miata
        2.0L I4, 167 HP , 21 / 28 mpg

        MazdaSpeed 3
        2.3L I4, 263 HP , 18 / 25 mpg

        Mini Cooper JCW (this one comes close)
        1.6L I4, 208 HP , 25 / 33 mpg

        V6 Camry
        3.5L V6, 268 HP, 19 / 28 mpg

        V6 Accord
        3.5L V6, 271 HP , 19 / 29 mpg

        Who would ever think a freaking Mustang would get better MPG than an Accord AND still be capable of laying down a strip of rubber!
      • 4 Years Ago
      Man, the dodge challenger needs to do something soon, besides looks, it doesn't have much in this war.
        • 4 Years Ago
        They need a 300hp calibration to their phoenix 3.6 V6.
        They need a real automatic transmission. The MB w5a580 has marginally more (5%) ratio spread than the 4 speed automatic. With the 5 speed automatic, the axle ratio was changed to compensate for the reduced overdrive (0.83 vs. 0.69), hence is NO faster than the 4 speed automatic (yes it is smoother and gets better mileage)
        The V6 needs a 6 speed stick. If Chrysler don't get their '8' speed automatic out, then a double clutch could replace both the torque converter planetary auto AND stick.

        V6: 245/60 17 & 13" brakes
        Hemi: 245/55 18 & 14" brakes (needs 400hp or better)
        SRT: 245/50 19 front, 275/45 19 rear (305/40 19 would be wishful thinking-nice drag size) 500hp or better. 15" brakes
        e-gerodisc differential standard.
        • 4 Years Ago
        I love the looks of the Challenger, but it's too d*** big, period. Both the Camaro, which has the worst visability of all three, and the Challenger weigh too much. LIke I said before, where did Gloria get the weight figures that she came up with. She's about 250 lbs. off on both six and v8. A road test that I read last fall had the V8 at over 4100 lbs. The actual weight of a 2011 Mustang that they did weigh actual, was 3650. Shipping weight will probably be in the 3500 range.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Vette you're a complete IDIOT

      2 TONS = 4409 lbs.

      The Mustang V6 weighs under 3450 lbs.
        • 4 Years Ago
        this is an american auto news sight

        you can go to autoblog.uk and everything is will be in your measurements

        idiot
        chopsui
        • 4 Years Ago
        I was going to uprate your comment based on the sentiment, but this here is America and our tons are exactly 2000 pounds. :)
        • 4 Years Ago
        @ chopsui , this here is America ? this here is the Internets !

        1 long (or gross) ton = 2240 pounds (UK)

        1 short (or net) ton = 2000 pounds (US)

        1 tonne (i.e., a metric ton) = 2204.6 pounds
    • Load More Comments