2011 Ford Mustang V6 rated 31 mpg highway

[pauldun170]

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/04/2...ficient-300-h/

[Homeslice]

Nice, but most of that is probably just gearing, seeing as how the city rating is only 19.

Having 6 speeds in an automatic is nice, but if it's anything like the Fusion, it will change gears twice before completing a simple right turn.

What happened to 20 years ago, when fuel economy wasn't considered impressive unless it was 30 city?

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Nice, but most of that is probably just gearing, seeing as how the city rating is only 19.

Having 6 speeds in an automatic is nice, but if it's anything like the Fusion, it will change gears twice before completing a simple right turn.

What happened to 20 years ago, when fuel economy wasn't considered impressive unless it was 30 city?

Two things happened. First the EPA changed the way they rate fuel economy in order to make them closer to real world driving conditions. Look at fueleconomy.gov and see if the cars rated 30mpg+ city 20 years ago aren't given significantly lower numbers now.

Second, the cars today are much more powerful. This is a base Mustang. The most powerful factory Mustang in 1990 (the 5.0) made 225hp. In 1990 you couldn't get 300hp+ in a standard engined Corvette or Porsche 911. The Ferrari 348 came with an even 300hp. Power isn't free.

[z06boy]

^^^^What he said^^^^

[Dave]

Originally Posted by goof2

Two things happened. First the EPA changed the way they rate fuel economy in order to make them closer to real world driving conditions. Look at fueleconomy.gov and see if the cars rated 30mpg+ city 20 years ago aren't given significantly lower numbers now.

Second, the cars today are much more powerful. This is a base Mustang. The most powerful factory Mustang in 1990 (the 5.0) made 225hp. In 1990 you couldn't get 300hp+ in a standard engined Corvette or Porsche 911. The Ferrari 348 came with an even 300hp. Power isn't free.

on a turbo its practically free

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Dave

on a turbo its practically free

Not if you actually use the turbo. More air (what a turbo does) requires more fuel. There is no getting around that. One of the car magazines did a super group comparison test issue where they had 3 sets of group tests. To give you an idea of the cars involved the top group included a BMW M5 (V8), the mid group had an M3 (V6) and the bottom group had a Neon SRT-4. The worst observed mileage they recorded out of all the cars (7 or 8 total) was from the 2.4 liter turbo Neon.

Turbo cars do well in the EPA's test cycle because it doesn't require using the turbo much. When driven hard they don't do as well.

[Rider]

Damn good mileage. I'm partial to GM but with numbers like that...... I could be lured into buying one.

[derf]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

What happened to 20 years ago, when fuel economy wasn't considered impressive unless it was 30 city?

The environment

[smileyman]

Class leading chassis, awesome mileage, and great performance. I'll take mine in white with the standard transmisson thank you very much! Shame about the tiny rear leg room but it is a sports car...

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by smileyman

Class leading chassis, awesome mileage, and great performance. I'll take mine in white with the standard transmisson thank you very much! Shame about the tiny rear leg room but it is a sports car...

Shut up! I'll have some pics later....Suffice it to say that I am looking at an example in white this pm...