2011 Ford Mustang V6 rated 31 mpg highway
 

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. :scratch:

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

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...

That is impressive.

Yeah gearing probably is the difference...or most of it.

I know with my Vette when it was stock...it would get 28 mpg on the highway but 6th gear had no umph...and the car would lull down the road at around 1500 rpm.

I changed the gearing from stock 3:42's to 3:90's.

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

So you'll have to shift a bit to pass just like a 600...You could always throw in a deeper pinion/rear end gear and 'get by' with 'just' 25 mpg...

four seats doth not a sportscar make. Sport coupe or pony car would be acceptable monikers

I might have to test drive one of these things when they come out.

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.

^^^^What he said^^^^

Well I'm not a physics major, but if you take 2 engines with the same displacement but different HP, I don't see how more horsepower ALWAYS means less fuel economy UNLESS someone is actually taking advantage of it by accelerating harder. And I doubt the EPA test is doing that, does it?

Personally I think the increased weight of today's vehicles is more to blame.

That too in some cases for sure. I'm pretty sure that my 1992 Mustang LX 5.0 was lighter than the new Mustang. I did not look it up before posting this so I may be wrong and get slammed for saying it. :lol:

Cars today are also significantly heavier. My 89 CRX was 2200 lbs I think and the original Miata was around that too. These days you'd struggle to find a car under 3000 lbs.

By about 500 lbs, actually, according to Edmunds.

Sounds about right but I wasn't sure...thanks.


As far as the CRX mentioned...I'm pretty sure they were even less than 2200 lbs. I think one of my 4 that I owned was around 1800-1900 lbs...fun little car.

At its most basic more power from the same displacement requires more fuel and more air. When it gets more complex that trade off may no longer exist. One example is using aluminum for the block and heads vs. iron, better electronic controls, and requiring premium fuel allows a higher compression ratio in an engine before knocking occurs. That engine will create more power without increasing fuel requirements. It doesn't always mean anything, but it still stands as a good general guideline.

Increased weight is certainly a factor in lowering mileage, while increasingly more complex gearboxes help raise economy. There are a lot of things that will change mileage.

2010 Camaro 29 mpg

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.

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

Because you have to rev it higher to get more power from the same displacement, and then they likely gear it lower so you're riding at a higher rpm for a given speed.

Just an example, car a is a 3.5 litre, car b is a 3.5 litre. One makes 200hp, the other 250. The higher hp one likely makes more power by spinning faster. It'll also likely have a shorter stroke and wider bore due to it's higher redline, to keep piston speed down. This will usually mean less low end tq, so they gear it so you're at 3500rpm at 60mph as opposed to 2500rpm for the lower powered car.

3500rpm time 3.5 litres gives you 12,250 litres of air/fuel being pumped through that engine. 2500 times 3.5 litres gives you 8750 litres of a/f mixture.

I hope that's what you were getting at slice, because that was a lot of typing that made my head hurt if not.. :lol

HP is a function of Torque. Torque is measured and HP is calculated. If you build an engine that is capable of higher RPM of course it will make more HP but not necessarily more torque.

Agreed 100%. You can also change the tq curve by descreasing stroke and increasing bore and vice versa.

thats all fine and good, but whats it gonna get when someone actually drives it.:lol:

I'm a GM guy myself but the Camaro is high dollar and a clean Mustang V6 can be had for under $10,000...:idk: I missed my chance to look at it today, worked late but I'll try and check mit out before I leave for Daytona.

The environment

You are forgetting about emission output. The lower the NOx requirement, the more EGR dillution and less power. Also, if you have to heat the cat up faster, more fuel. Plus cars are heavier today then in 1980s.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of mpg are you getting out of it now?

I'd have to check...not sure to be honest but it's not too far off from where it was if I drive it normal. It's probably 2 or so mpg down but keep in mind it now has a blower...a different cam...and the 3:90's.

I'm sure there is a bigger drop during "spirited" driving.

My shift points are different since the change.

If I had it to do over again...with the blower...I may have gone with 3:73's if I was going to change from the stock 3:42's. Hard to hook on street tires but not that big of a deal since I rarely dump the clutch from a dead stop.

The reason I changed in the first place is due to my rear gear beginning to whine and since I needed to do something and was having to pay the $$ I went for more performance. I also had a hardened output shaft installed.

That's been the only mechanical issue with this car since I bought it in 02 so I feel pretty good about that.

A Z06 with a blower. I'm sure you've heard it before, but that's just fucking awesome :bowdown:

Thanks...it is a fun car to drive and has never even been back to the dealership since I bought it in 02.

Before Dave or someone else jumps in :lol:...yes you give up a little on the interior...although really not that bad but it sure makes up for it elsewhere...decent jams...COLD air...looks decent...handles and brakes well and is quick enough to play with sportbikes if you care to. Oh yeah...it sounds awesome too...you first hear the whine of the blower and then it's drowned out with the roar of the Borla Stinger exhaust...high flo cats and full length headers. :rockout:

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47b4...D550/ry%3D400/

How much power do you figure it is making? Did you lower the compression ratio at all to compensate for the blower?

ive never had a problem with zoeys lol my issues are specifically with the zr1 and internal politics surrounding the model in general

I'm the one who usually fusses about the interior. Doesn't seem on par with what you pay for the total package.
However, I'd drive one any day and deal with it... the fun & performance really does make up for it. :dthumb:

i cant wait on the new daily driver to hit my drive way.... 370 hp and >3000pounds of all wheel goodness

an evo?

ok, im waiting on the PO to figure out where the fuck his boost leak is coming from... then/if its mine... pics next week

hint: http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/i...8/IMG_1311.jpg

an sti then lol

Not a sti.... well, not exactly

370hp wrx?

I would seriously skip that. Sounds like a time bomb.

I know a Subi mechanic and I wanted a wrx/sti and he told me to stay away, the maintenance is insane on those things..

I'm thinking more on the lines of 395 hp and 735 ft/lb torque > 5500+ lbs of 4x4 goodness myself when I get back.

wrx trannys are grenades with the pin half out. Sti trans is respectably beefy

Subarus are one of the easiest vehicles to maintain. The oil/filter is right up front. The transmission has a drain plug as with the differential fluid in the front. Fuel filter is under the hood and the air cleaner is a piece of cake. The distance between changes might be less, but I seriously think that is just a marketing gimmic.

It's the service intervals he was talking about...

Most people do not understand why Japanese service intervals are tigher than the U.S. It is a combination of marketing for U.S. OEMs to lenghten the invervals as with a lack of Japanese understanding on exactly how much lower quality other markets have for fuel, oil and filters.

Most Japanese cars do not require a fuel filter because their fuel purity standards are higher than the U.S, but since many markets will plug up fuel filters in 5k miles, it's kinda a crap shoot on what interval to set certain items.

I wouldn't hail any car w/ a live axle rear suspension as having a class-leading chassis, nor would I call it a sports car!

In the class it is in, everything has a solid rear axle.

I will agree that they are not sports cars, but they are sporty cars.

what class is that? Other mustangs? :Lol:

That used to be the case. It isn't anymore.

The base WRX is fine until you start adding more power. The stock tranny is close to its limits (at least that used to be the case a few years back). Around 280HP is the "pin" on WRX transmissions...something with some gear or pinion being uber gay. I'm not sure what exactly is the weak part #'s but I'm not in a position to care enough to remember that kinda info.
STi transmission is beefier.

I guess not.

Meh, for the price, I would get a 2010 GT, I hear they are selling for low 20s, cause everybody wants a new 5.0 GT.

All accounts say that it handles surprisingly good. If someone uses it on perfectly smooth roads or tracks, they're not going to notice the difference between live axle or independant. You'd probably only notice the difference when you hit a bump mid-corner.

Is it a sports car, no....... A sports car is something that was built from ground up with its own chassis, not a chassis that is shared with sedans, like the Mustang's. Same goes for the Audi TT, it is not a sportscar either. It uses a Golf chassis.