Fuel Economy Update for November: Awesome Exhaust, Awful Efficiency - 2015 Ford Mustang GT Long-Term

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,137
edited December 2015 in Ford
image
Fuel Economy Update for November: Awesome Exhaust, Awful Efficiency - 2015 Ford Mustang GT Long-Term Road Test

Another two months with our new Ford Racing exhaust has lowered the long-term Ford Mustang GT's fuel economy. It has been a fun two months, though.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • miata52miata52 Member Posts: 114
    Hmm, on my laptop (same Chrome and Adblock enabled as my desktop) no popup and the site is fully useable. I'm afraid if I turn Adblock off it'll mess the site up.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTMember Posts: 16,279
    Drove it in 3rd and 4th gear on the highway and it doesn't get the EPA average? Total surprise.
    I did find a benefit to driving the back roads in Drive instead of OD in my 1991 Mustang.
    That check engine light that flashed for at least 15 years, finally doesn't light up anymore.
    Also, putting the car on a trickle charger if I didn't drive it for a while, don't see the right front airbag sensor error flashing anymore either.
    2020 Ford Explorer XLT
  • defyant15defyant15 Member Posts: 74
    edited December 2015
    My average lifetime MPG as stated by the trip computer (commuting to work and back 99% of the time on a short 9 mile each way commute -50% city and 50% highway) is 15mpg. I've got 3500 miles on her and have done autocross one and one short road trip.

    And I DONT GIVE A DAMN. Especially with gas where it is. My last cars average was 12 mpg. Moving in the right direction with the Stang, LOL.

  • bankerdannybankerdanny Member Posts: 1,021
    Big 5.0 V8? LOL.

    My father's '71 LTD Convertible had a 429, my brother-in-law's '69 Coupe DeVille Convertible had a 472, my former roommate's 1990 F-350 Crew Cab 4x4 had a 460. Those were big V8's.

    Given that Dodge and GM both sell sedans and sports coupes with 5.7L, 6.0L, and 6.2L V8's, I think I would limit the description of the 5.0 to powerful.
  • daryleasondaryleason TexasMember Posts: 501
    @bankerdanny :
    Well, it is true that the 5.0 Coyote Modular Engine is significantly larger than the classic Small Block 302 Windsor. So I'd say, give them a pass on it. "Small Block" & "Big Block" are so subjective. With Ford, it used to be easy, the "Challenger" V8s, of which the 302/351 Windsor engine family was based off of was a small block. The 351 Cleveland and larger engines were big blocks. With GM, for the most part, you had your small block 350s and down, or the 400 and up Big Blocks. Pontiac was the odd-ball, because they only had one block casting, back when they had their own engines. So their "small blocks" were nothing more than an underbored engine. Their big blocks were over-bored. Nowadays? Well, it's harder to say. I guess for Ford, the 6.2 Liter V8 would be their big block, but its still a modular, so I'm not sure if there's a size difference. I know GM still has their "small block" 4.8 & 5.2 Liter V8s, but I'm not sure if the block size is any different from their big honking 6.0 and up engines.
  • wtgkb8wtgkb8 Member Posts: 18
    edited December 2015

    @bankerdanny :
    Well, it is true that the 5.0 Coyote Modular Engine is significantly larger than the classic Small Block 302 Windsor. So I'd say, give them a pass on it. "Small Block" & "Big Block" are so subjective. With Ford, it used to be easy, the "Challenger" V8s, of which the 302/351 Windsor engine family was based off of was a small block. The 351 Cleveland and larger engines were big blocks. With GM, for the most part, you had your small block 350s and down, or the 400 and up Big Blocks. Pontiac was the odd-ball, because they only had one block casting, back when they had their own engines. So their "small blocks" were nothing more than an underbored engine. Their big blocks were over-bored. Nowadays? Well, it's harder to say. I guess for Ford, the 6.2 Liter V8 would be their big block, but its still a modular, so I'm not sure if there's a size difference. I know GM still has their "small block" 4.8 & 5.2 Liter V8s, but I'm not sure if the block size is any different from their big honking 6.0 and up engines.

    If I remember correctly...the external block dimensions of all the 4.8, 5.3, 6.0, 6.2. and 7.0 GM small block V8s are similar to one another. The main differences deal with the internals...which are different dimensions (bore/stroke). They all have a 4.4" bore spacing...but different bore and stroke dimensions for the different displacements. This is why the largest of the bunch, the LS7 7.0L V8, requires pressed-in cylinder liners.
Sign In or Register to comment.