• Aug 21, 2014
Thinking about buying a new Mustang, but want to know what kind of fuel economy it'll get? Well we have our first indication as the pony-car enthusiasts over at Mustang6G.com have gotten a hold of the Monroney window stickers for a few of the new 2015 Mustang models.

Although the V8 model is not among them, we can now see how the EPA has rated those models with a half dozen pistons or less. The Mustang EcoBoost with the turbo four and a manual transmission has been rated at 22 miles per gallon in the city and 31 on the highway. The V6 manual gets 17 city and 28 highway, while the V6 automatic squeezes out a bit more in the city at 19 mpg but carries the same 28 highway rating.

By way of comparison, the latest Chevy Camaro with the V6 and a stick shift gets the same 17/28 EPA rating as a similarly equipped new 'Stang, and the V6 automatic Camaro gets 18/27 (slightly behind the Ford, but if you opt for the Camaro 2LS with its V6, automatic and 2.92 rear axle ratio, you'll be looking at 19 and 30).

Dodge doesn't offer a manual on the six-cylinder Challenger, but with the new eight-speed automatic, it gets the same 19/30 rating as the Camaro 2LS, both better than the six-cylinder, automatic Mustang on the highway – though the EcoBoost has, as expected, emerged as the most fuel-efficient pony car on the market.


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
  • 67 Comments
      Matt
      • 4 Months Ago

      Either they are sandbagging the V6's ratings, overestimated the older V6's, or they actually made this setup less efficient.  

      2014 Mustang V6 Manual 19/29, Auto 19/31.

        EXP Jawa
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Matt

        Last year's V6 car got that MPG rating with a 2.73:1 axle ratio.  The new cars use a 3.15 ratio, so its a pretty easy difference to explain...

          Matt
          • 4 Months Ago
          @EXP Jawa

          Nice find!  The 2014 V6 rating included the mix of 2.73's and the performance pack's 3.31 (or at least is supposed to have), but unless they really didn't sell many with the perf pack I wouldn't think going to a 3.15 would have that much effect.  With the 2.3T picking up the non-V8 performance end, I'd have thought they would stick the V6 with a wimpy final drive too.

        Chris
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Matt

        they really want to make the turbo look worthwhile

      Kyle Rohde
      • 4 Months Ago
      Like others have said, I'm shocked how close the EcoBoost motor is to the pre-2015 V6 and have a hard time understanding why that fantastic V6 motor makes less power and gets worse mileage. It's not just the axle ratio, I don't think. On the flip side, I'm not that impressed with the EcoBoost's mileage; I figured there would be a bigger jump than it's getting.

      As far as guys saying, "it's a Mustang, it doesn't matter!"...it does. For the Mustang to get higher sales and broader appeal, it needs to be bought by people who will daily drive it, not just by weekend cruise baby boomers that have multiple other cars. And if people are going to buy it as a daily driver, it needs to get decent mileage. I own a 2011 GT that I drive about 20K miles per year, so I'm that person I'm describing exactly. The fact that I get 22 MPG overall or better, and 25-27 on the highway, is one of my favorite things about my car.
        oRenj9
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Kyle Rohde

        The V6 loses the dual exhaust and the only rear end available is the 3.15.  The former reduces power and the latter reduces fuel ecomony

          Winnie Jenkems
          • 4 Months Ago
          @oRenj9

          @Anonymous.

          Yes. It's BS. Though I have seen no evidence the V6 will lose dual exhaust, it looks like there will be no premium trim available, it has less power and gets worse fuel economy. I understand the need to have some space between it and the four banger, but it frankly isn't much and Ford is going the wrong way! IMO given what the 2.3 is putting out, they should have ecoboosted the six to 350-375 hp or so for a nice mid-range option. Instead, it just looks like they are setting it up to do poorly so they have an excuse to drop it.

          Bandit5317
          • 4 Months Ago
          @oRenj9

          Why would they ditch the dual exhaust on the V6? Are they intentionally crippling the V6 to make the ecoboost look better?

        Dean Hammond
        • 4 Months Ago *Edited*
        @Kyle Rohde

        so, does  mean when you decide to actually have some fun you complain your mileage drops?.....as for comparing the V6  and the eco-boost...the published tests will inform you about actual differences....read low end torque.... 

      Chris Westcott
      • 4 Months Ago

      My 2013 Mustang V6 Convertible actually gets 31 mpg highway at 75 mph which is surprisingly good in my opinion.  Especially for a convertible with the top up and all that nasty drag.

      Matt
      • 4 Months Ago

      That's better than I expected for the turbo-4. Those are Golf R numbers, in a heavier car with more HP. 

      BMW is still the turbo-4 MPG king, but Ford is catching up. 

        dohc73
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Matt

        The whole industry is catching, not just Ford. 

          Matt
          • 4 Months Ago
          @dohc73

          Hyundai/Kia didn't get the memo. Their turbos suck down fuel. 

        Dean Hammond
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Matt

        hopefully they arent catching up on service costs.......and thats after owning 3 BMW's....one word, OVERRATED....


         

          Dean Hammond
          • 4 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond

          the % of ECO issues is pretty minute, and therealways going to be some throwing lawsuits ( its America last i looked ) but you may wish to tread carefully there, one issue was the 3.5 intercooler being too efficient and causing moisture to enter the combustion chamber, TSB has that fixe, aside from that the 3.5 has been bulletproof. The Esacape 1.6 had scoured fuel lines from a supplier, once again, rectified, aside from that I agree, theres been some recalls but guess what, Ive yet to see any self destruct or leave a BUNCH of people stranded...and do you think BMW is spot free?.....google, I doubt you will be surprized, and include Mini in the as well...nothing stellar there.  The Powertrain issues you mention are absolutely NOTHING serious...unlike certain BMWs with COMPLETE engine swaps.... 

          Matt
          • 4 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond

          Dean, I choose "ownership" of appreciating assets (stocks/bonds) over depreciating assets (cars). The cash flow I free up from leasing instead of buying has allowed me to invest enough that the dividends from my holdings pay the lease. i.e., my BMW is "free". I think of the lease payment as just another bill for a service, like the cell phone bill or cable. In fact, the BMW lease is cheaper than my electric bill some months. You wouldn't pre-pay for a decade of electricity, why pre-pay for auto depreciation you haven't yet used? 

          On reliability, perhaps you missed all the lawsuits/recalls related to Ecoboost failures/stalling? It's not just Sync, Ford has serious powertrain problems. 

          Matt
          • 4 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          It's pretty foolish to buy and hold a BMW, with their hugely subsidized leases, especially since new BMWs carry free maintenance. There is almost no time period where buying a BMW is a cheaper alternative than leasing a new one every three years. My $38k MSRP 320i leases for $336/month, nothing down. 
          And Ford has performed worse than BMW on every recent reliability survey, FWIW. 
      JaredN
      • 4 Months Ago

      17 mpg city with the V6?  That seems rather low.

        Sean
        • 4 Months Ago
        @JaredN

        Shorter final drive ratio on the 2015 models.

        Chris
        • 4 Months Ago
        @JaredN

        Mileage has dropped since 2013 which is odder

        oRenj9
        • 4 Months Ago
        @JaredN

        That's what mine gets unless you start in second and skip-shift to fourth at 2,000 rpms.

      mumbojumbo
      • 4 Months Ago

      I don't see how it's possible that the V6 makes less horsepower than last years model, AND loses 2 mpg city rating.  A lower gear ratio would lower highway MPG, but isn't likely to matter at all in city driving.  They are blatantly gaming the MPG numbers to make the Ecoboost look like a more efficient engine to justify the higher price.  Silly but predictable ratings.  Take the V6, save your money on the purchase price and get the same (or better) MPG in real world driving without the complexity of the turbo.

        Jimbo
        • 4 Months Ago
        @mumbojumbo

        New intake manifold, designed to clear lower hood, loses 5 peak hp. Low and mid-range torque remains the same. Basically, under 5,000 rpm engine has the exact same hp & tq figures. V6 is actually quicker due to the better final drive gear ratio. But Highway MPG suffers. At a steady 60mph engine spins a few hundred rpm more than '14. This is where extra gas is burned. Old V6 was a pig and required constant downshifts to accelerate. Real world '15 V6 will drive better. If you're worried about MPG. Buy get the 2.3l EcoBoost. It's only $1,500 more. Has better MPG and 50 more lb/ft of torque at low rpms (the rpms people actually use)

      Ryth
      • 4 Months Ago

      A lot of people here are forgetting all the lawsuits that occurred over the last year due to MPG claims of car companies, including Ford.

      With that in mind, all car companies are going to be on the opposite extreme now...giving you conservative estimates because they don't want to get sued.

      Add in the harder EPA tests and that is why the V6 MPG and others are lower and why the EB isn't better with what people expected.



      Greg
      • 4 Months Ago

      Why does the new Mustang V6 get worse economy than the prior one (19/28 compared to 19/31)? They even reduced the power output on the 2015 V6, so if they didn't pick up any better efficiency, WTF are they doing?


      Maybe they are just trying to create more room for the EcoBoost--lower the power of the V6 and understating its economy in order to make the EcoBoost appear more desirable.

        Dean Hammond
        • 4 Months Ago
        @Greg

        Greg's ( see what I did there...lol ) it reflects two , well actually 3 things, 1) the V6 is now the entry model, so cost cutting rears its head 2) as a result the dual exaust is no more an HP drops a tad, 3) rear end has been changed raising RPMs at cruising speeds.

          Greg
          • 4 Months Ago
          @Dean Hammond

          The V6 has always been the base model, so cost cutting shouldn't explain it. The other explanations are so bass-ackward that I doubt Ford is dumb enough to do them, so I still think there has to be a different reason.

      Chris Horner
      • 4 Months Ago

      Hilarious.  I drive a 2014 V6 manual, and the Ecoboost estimates are what I see from my car in real world driving.  My normal day to day city stop and go commute returns 21-22mpg.  I took a road trip to NY and got 31mpg. And I mean it when I say I do not drive with economy at the top of mind.   I will be surprised if the Ecoboost performs the same in real world. 

      johnb
      • 4 Months Ago

      As cool as the ecoboost is, I'm thinking jumping on a mustang right now without a V8 would be a mistake for historical reasons.    I'm really torn since I like the idea of a turbo mustang.  

        BipDBo
        • 4 Months Ago
        @johnb

        Go to a local car show and look under the hood of every 60s Mustang you see.  There should be quite a few of them.  Probably 4 out of 5 of those cars will have the straight 6, not the V8.

        Personally between the 4 and the 8, I think that taking the decrease in power of the turbo 4 when it's offered at a much lower price, lower weight, better weight distribution and much better mpg.  Besides, turbo + stick shift is a very fun combination.

        Brian
        • 4 Months Ago
        @johnb

        I'm with you on this, a Mustang to me = muscle car and requires 400+hp and a V8 burble that fills my ears with joy.  The 5.0L V8 is classic mustang and if I buy a mustang there is no other choice.  I love the Ecoboost for other applications such as the Flex and F150, but for a Mustang, I'll pass and go straight for the 5.0L V8!

        When I want to conserve fuel I have a TDI VW Sportwagen that nets 40mpg.  I'm not buying a Mustang to save the world, I'm buying it to have a blast behind the wheel and the music that burbles out of the tail pipe.  :)

      That Guy
      • 4 Months Ago

      "the EcoBoost has, as expected, emerged as the most fuel-efficient pony car on the market." 

      Until people actually start driving it and realize that Ford lied yet again. 

      And how is this progress when the V6 in 2014 with 300hp got 31MPG on the highway......the same as the 4 cylinder in 2015?

      Once again we have an egoboost 4 banger drinking fuel like a V6......just like how the egoboost 6s drink fuel like proper V8s.

      These fuel economy numbers are a massive failure for this pathetic automaker. 





      Mike
      • 4 Months Ago

      YAWN, these MPG figures are nothing to be proud about, Ford has got to step up to the plate, the 2015 Vette with a 450 HP 6.2 V8 will get 29 mpg.

    • Load More Comments