2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[Kent]

Thats going to make it a huge success.

 

[YSSMAN]

Is it possible to make the V8 a fuel-sipper? Or does it just breathe too much?

niky hit the nail on the head, GM is spending a ton of money to make their next-generation V8s as fuel-friendly as possible. It sounds like they're moving to all-aluminum, direct-injection, variable-valve timing, cylinder deactivation and start/stop technology to get those numbers up as high as possible.

It'll come down to what kind of tuning they give it, and what kind of transmissions they offer. Getting 30 MPG out of a V8 isn't impossible, technology is getting to a point where it can happen. I believe this is the year that Chrysler is supposed to be matching their 8-speed automatics with their V8 options in the LX cars and the Ram pickup, this will likely set the standard going forward with GM and Ford.

I know Ford gives you a few options with the Mustang in terms of rear axle ratios. I wonder if that'll be something they continue doing in search of high fuel economy...

 

[niky]

You don't really need eight ratios. Just need to make 5th and 6th high enough. Variable displacement will need to be mega-aggressive for customers to appreciate them. Perhaps a standard drive mode which runs on 4 cylinders as often as possible will get it to 30 mpg easily. 40 might even be possible, but would take a lot of work.

 

[CodeRedR51]

It'll come down to what kind of tuning they give it, and what kind of transmissions they offer. Getting 30 MPG out of a V8 isn't impossible, technology is getting to a point where it can happen.

Weight plays a HUGE factor as well. In fact, a stock LS3 crate motor from GM swapped into a 2500lb Miata will pull 30+ MPG on the highway very easily. I think the original LS1 that we had in the FM shop car pulled 34mpg on a trip to California a few years ago. It practically idled down the freeway at 80mph in 6th gear.

 

[Omnis]

Depends on what "fuel-sipping" is to the individual.

For a V8 I guess around high 20s to mid 30s is fuel sipping.

By fuel-sipper, I mean <275 gallons per 10,000mi.

 

[ND4SPD]

Is it possible to make the V8 a fuel-sipper? Or does it just breathe too much?

It all depends on how it's being driven. I can see upwards of 30mpg on the highway in my C6. It's seriously quite surprising.

And for trololo factor, I took this while in the city.....

 

[Omnis]

Lol. My car idles higher than that.

 

[Slash]

My low idle is right around there, high idle is higher too.

 

[sumbrownkid]

It all depends on how it's being driven. I can see upwards of 30mpg on the highway in my C6. It's seriously quite surprising.

And for trololo factor, I took this while in the city.....

And they said sports cars can't be frugal with their juice.

 

[Keef]

My car idles at 35 mph in 5th gear and it STILL gets crappy mileage.

 

[Famine]

My car idles at 35 mph in 5th gear and it STILL gets crappy mileage.

That's because you're labouring the engine. At 35mph you should be in 4th gear for fuel economy.

And if the Mustang does sell in the UK, I don't think it'll start at anything less than £35k for the V8.

 

[Omnis]

Is 2k rpm really the sweet spot for a slotary?

 

[Famine]

General driving technique - 10mph per gear. Works for just about any car and I'd imagine that things that rev high like dragging a car along at tickover even less.

 

[homeforsummer]

General driving technique - 10mph per gear. Works for just about any car and I'd imagine that things that rev high like dragging a car along at tickover even less.

Does depend on the car. My Panda was more than happy enough to toddle along without labouring in 5th or 6th gear at 30mph. MX-5 was happy in 5th at that speed too. Both had very close gearing and were light cars, and admittedly would need a change to the gear below with any slightest incline (and another again if you wanted actual acceleration) - but on a level surface they'd barely be ticking over. Needs only a handful of horsepower to do 30mph on a smooth, level surface.

Most diesels I've driven recently are fairly unhappy in anything more than 4th at 30mph, whether they have five or six gears.

As a general rule in terms of fuel economy, <2k rpm is best in diesels, <2.5k rpm in petrols. But does depend on the car.

Most V8s, like the pic from the Corvette above, are happy to chug along at tickover doing amusingly high fuel figures as they can happily pull their long gearing. Though tickle the throttle harder and it'd immediately drop to 20mpg...

 

[Famine]

You'd be surprised - I know that Aston Heritage teach that technique to their drivers, regardless of whether they're in a DB3 or a V600 (which, I'm told, is brutality personified). It's also how I drive the BMW (and hammer my wife's fuel economy) and how I drove daan's RX-8 (I had a play at the end, but still got 24mpg).

Keeping an engine down on tickover, dragging a tonne along, keeps it running rich and keeps the injectors running a very high duty cycle (compared idle at rest). Running it along on constant revs in one gear lower than the gear that gives you that road speed at tickover gives you a more favourable mix (slightly lean - 15-16:1 is the idea air:fuel mix for economy) and injector cycle. In the same, flat road conditions at 35mph, the difference between 1000 rpm in 5th and at 1400 rpm in 4th could be a 12:1 fuel mix and a 20% duty cycle to a 16:1 fuel mix and a 15% duty cycle.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm just going by what the insta-mpg readout was showing. Indicated silly numbers in high gears at low revs. One in the Panda was fairly accurate too, difference between average mpg calculating it after each tank and average mpg on the computer over 10k miles was a few tenths of a mile per gallon.

Must work too, as in Fiesta, Panda and MX-5 I didn't just match but consistently beat the official figures (by around 5 mpg in the MX-5) - not something doable in too many cars, as I'm discovering from all the press vehicles.

 

[Keef]

That's because you're labouring the engine. At 35mph you should be in 4th gear for fuel economy.

Mostly because it's a rotary. My morning routine is to use the engine's cold idle for most of the 1.5 mile trip to work down a slight hill. My choices are to trundle along at 25 mph in 4th at a certain rpm, or go 10 over the limit in 5th at a similar rpm for a shorter period of time. Same rpm + same throttle input + shorter time = less gas used.

Is 2k rpm really the sweet spot for a slotary?

I've never heard of this idea until the recent Mazda extended-range rotary discussion. Because rotaries can achieve very high rpm and therefore very high power you can get great acceleration by gearing them way high. They're actually better suited to a low rpm diesely design for fuel efficiency but that produces little speed.

General driving technique - 10mph per gear. Works for just about any car and I'd imagine that things that rev high like dragging a car along at tickover even less.

In my low gears I usually rev to 3k but getting on the highway even lazily I have to rev out 4th to 5k because the 4-5 gap is retarded huge. But no matter how I get there, if I don't cruise at as low an rpm as possible then there's little mileage benefit for acceleration techniques.

By the way, my 5th gear goes to the moon. Fourth tops out at nearly 140 and theres an 1800 rpm separation between it and 5th at 70. Fifth is virtually unusable under 30 mph for anything but a flat to slightly downhill cruise. Breaking the sound barrier through 25 mph zones might be a stupid idea but the huge benefit from the lower rpm plus less time spent in the 25 zone is a great idea for my gas tank.

 

[Azure Flare]

 

[Conza]

I like the look of the original and current mustang.

I like the look of this concept more.

But most important, trumping all of this 'no more live rear axle'! C'mon, its what every mustang (not modded by clever germans), has been begging for, forever.

"Also, Ford will finally eschew the live rear axle in favor of an independent rear suspension" - http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120823/CARNEWS/120829947

 

[sumbrownkid]

No live rear axle is too much progress for me to handle.

 

[Nish]

"Recently, two Mustang owners claim they got to see the 2014.5 Mustang in the flesh at a consumer clinic. They've leaked everything they know about the upcoming car and a lot of what you've heard so far may be wrong."

http://jalopnik.com/5949026/the-201...ource=jalopnik_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

[Slash]

Why do I really like that render...


Here are several that are said to be "spot on" with the real thing.

Also, according to that article, it won't have IRS, but likely to have the turbo 4, EcoBoost V6 and the 5.0. The car is also reportedly the same size as the current model and the interior has hardly changed.

 

[Omnis]

Holy crap that red one is hideous.

 

[Slash]

I actually thought that was the better looking one. They really need to pull a 1967 and run the roofline to the taillights and not just before them like 1964 did.

 

[Nish]

For once I agree with Slashfan, the red one looks better in my opinion. The green one just looks more bland somehow.

 

[Slash]

The red one has bad aero in the front though. I think that gives it a more aggressive and Mustang look.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Also, according to that article, it won't have IRS...

I read the article as saying that they weren't sure if it had IRS as it wasn't listed on the spec sheet...

 

[Slash]

I read the article as saying that they weren't sure if it had IRS as it wasn't listed on the spec sheet...

Wasn't on the spec sheet would mean it's not going to have it the way I see it. Although it likely will and what's been said could be BS because Ford isn't that stupid not to include it.

Then again how hard is it to crawl under the back of the car...

 

[Joey D]

Those renderings look pretty good, fairly modern looking and they ditched that stupid retro look. Turbo 4 is pretty cool though.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Modern, but still typical Mustang. I like the red one more because the small headlights and the big empty parts on the green one are bland and strange.