[ChefBorOzzy]

Originally Posted by SuperSound

That's odd for sure. The GT autos had the 3.55 ratio (vs 3.15) as an option and 3.73 for the GT PP (vs 3.31). Wonder why Ford bothered to send only the EB PP in for testing.

Found this sticker for the '18 Bullitt with only A10 showing (no PP?). Has the same ratings as your original post. Could be Ford doing the same thing again and only rating M6 and A10 base GTs.

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91632

Look at that sticker price

Think it has to do with sales of the package. They didn't use to advertise PP mileage on GT trim prior to 2017 I believe. No matter which one you bought, highway sticker was 25 from what I recall.

[Skerj]

But with a 10 speed auto, the overdrive gear ratios will likely be very close, especially when compared to a 6 speed, and numerically higher gearing can actually help when driving in the city. Again, when it's not being driven hard, 10, and even 8 speed autos, offer that many more gears, allowing cars and trucks to stay in lower RPMs more often and theoretically save more fuel. My point there is that the ratings will probably be fairly close whether both are officially tested or not. Have to wait and see if those ratings are the base GT, or are specific to the performance geared auto. But most automakers only send the better for the EPA ratings model as far as I know.

All that said, unless it completely blows the SS out of the water from a performance standpoint, that rating is not impressive.

*Can someone confirm if that's regular or premium? I can't find it on there; don't know if that it's simply not on there or the image I'm seeing is just too blurry...

[ChefBorOzzy]

Originally Posted by Skerj

But with a 10 speed auto, the overdrive gear ratios will likely be very close, especially when compared to a 6 speed, and numerically higher gearing can actually help when driving in the city. Again, when it's not being driven hard, 10, and even 8 speed autos, offer that many more gears, allowing cars and trucks to stay in lower RPMs more often and theoretically save more fuel. My point there is that the ratings will probably be fairly close whether both are officially tested or not. Have to wait and see if those ratings are the base GT, or are specific to the performance geared auto. But most automakers only send the better for the EPA ratings model as far as I know.

All that said, unless it completely blows the SS out of the water from a performance standpoint, that rating is not impressive.

*Can someone confirm if that's regular or premium? I can't find it on there; don't know if that it's simply not on there or the image I'm seeing is just too blurry...

What do you mean if it's regular or premium? Ford says you can run 87 on the GT, but need to run 93 to get the claimed horsepower. All cars in EPA test are filled with same fuel for test.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

What do you mean if it's regular or premium? Ford says you can run 87 on the GT, but need to run 93 to get the claimed horsepower. All cars in EPA test are filled with same fuel for test.

Think what he means was what did they use in the GT for the test which would be 87 based on the fuel costs they are showing. Here's a comparison with '17 GT numbers. You can see Regular listed there. The EPA will use whatever is "required" by the manufacturer.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...39042&id=37580

[ChefBorOzzy]

Originally Posted by SuperSound

Think what he means was what did they use in the GT for the test which would be 87 based on the fuel costs they are showing. Here's a comparison with '17 GT numbers. You can see Regular listed there. The EPA will use whatever is "required" by the manufacturer.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...39042&id=37580

“The EPA and automakers use Indolene test fuel for all (gasoline) vehicle testing, for consistency purposes,” a spokesperson for the agency says. “Indolene is a high-octane fuel that meets a wide range of technical specifications.”

Ford confirmed this and added: “All our testing is done with an EPA certification fuel. The current certification fuel has no ethanol and has octane similar to pump premium.”

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

“The EPA and automakers use Indolene test fuel for all (gasoline) vehicle testing, for consistency purposes,” a spokesperson for the agency says. “Indolene is a high-octane fuel that meets a wide range of technical specifications.”

Ford confirmed this and added: “All our testing is done with an EPA certification fuel. The current certification fuel has no ethanol and has octane similar to pump premium.”

Well I have learned something new today. So the EPA uses a fuel that won't be used in the vehicle in consumer hands to test the ratings. Makes their testing that much more useless IMO.

[Skerj]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

What do you mean if it's regular or premium? Ford says you can run 87 on the GT, but need to run 93 to get the claimed horsepower. All cars in EPA test are filled with same fuel for test.

Originally Posted by SuperSound

Think what he means was what did they use in the GT for the test which would be 87 based on the fuel costs they are showing. Here's a comparison with '17 GT numbers. You can see Regular listed there. The EPA will use whatever is "required" by the manufacturer.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...39042&id=37580

Yeah that's what I was asking, although if they're using a whole separate 'certification fuel' then that changes the accuracy again... Given the rest of the EPA's shenanigans, this test fuel is probably ethanol free too.

*Reread your reply ChefBorOzzy, confirming it is ethanol free... I get ethanol free when I can for my current vehicles, and I definitely notice a bump in MPGs, and *maybe* some butt meter horsepower... But there's very few stations with in 200 miles of me that carry it, and I imagine it's the same way for the rest of the country, so very few people will see the ideal conditions for max fuel economy. Thanks EPA.

This doesn't apply to some who purchase sport/muscle/pony cars, but if I'm buying a modern vehicle, I expect modern fuel economy. The Camaro has had good specs for the 4th and 5th gen lineup, and great numbers for the 6th gen. Given the newly comparable price tag as well as the potentially unimpressive EPA bump the Ford's are getting, I bet the sales will be much more favorable for the Camaro once the initial must have Mustang sales die off.

[Sol4rfl4re]

Hard to get mpg and power with a small powerplant. Considering the cars we drive I'll take the power all day.

[vtirocz]

MotorTrend had an article on this topic:
http://www.motortrend.com/news/bette...-ford-mustang/

Looks like the manual trans sees no fuel economy improvement and auto looks the same as previously posted in this thread. I was really expecting the 10 speed to provide a significant effficiency benefit.

I also thought this was interesting:

"Funny enough, while all the bodywork from the firewall forward is new, the aero changes to the front end were allegedly set off when Gesek decided to tape up the lower gap on the pre-refreshed car’s grille. The way they tell it, when Del Zio liked the way that change improved the car’s high-speed handling, the duct taped grille ended up influencing the entire front end’s refresh."

I'm surprised the Ford engineers admitted to using duct tape for the aero optimization work!

[SpeedIsLife]

Originally Posted by vtirocz

MotorTrend had an article on this topic:
http://www.motortrend.com/news/bette...-ford-mustang/

Looks like the manual trans sees no fuel economy improvement and auto looks the same as previously posted in this thread. I was really expecting the 10 speed to provide a significant effficiency benefit.

I also thought this was interesting:

"Funny enough, while all the bodywork from the firewall forward is new, the aero changes to the front end were allegedly set off when Gesek decided to tape up the lower gap on the pre-refreshed car’s grille. The way they tell it, when Del Zio liked the way that change improved the car’s high-speed handling, the duct taped grille ended up influencing the entire front end’s refresh."

I'm surprised the Ford engineers admitted to using duct tape for the aero optimization work!

You'd be even more shocked at just how many innovations have come from similar accidents.

[FastCarFanBoy]

MPG LOL