00Porsche 911 vs 12mustang

[bandit86]

THe 2012 mustang claims 30 mpg out of a 300 hp 3.7 l v6. The 2000 Porsche 911 gets has a 3.4 boxer 6 claiming 15 mpg city 24 highway yet looks way more aerodynamic. Should that number not be higher for the Porsche, or is the mustang never gonna see 30 mpg in real life? Under real conditions?

[mcrews]

either both are true or both are lies.
you can't have it both ways.

[SentraSE-R]

They're not mutually exclusive. Both can meet their performance claims. Fuel economy is much more than aerodynamics.

[tjts1]

The mustang has a decade of engine development on its side. It runs atkinson cycle most of the time. FE was never a high priority for the 911. Certainly not nearly as high as the V6 mustang which is the volume model.

[racerc2000]

might I ask why compare a 2012 to a 2000?

porsche never cared about economy but now they have hybrids. they are pretty sad compared to whats out there but...

3.0L 8spd auto hybrid panamera S
2012 Porsche Panamera S Hybrid - Review | Hybrid Cars

thats about as good as you would get from porsche.

30mpg is conservative for the mustang. I believe someone here could easily be 45+mpg

also one other thing about the 2000 porsche boxer..

it would lead me to believe it is setup more for downforce and performance rather then low drag. cars like that can be a handful over 150mph with no downforce. or lift even.

[kach22i]

Porsche has long been the king of doing more with less. Getting more performance per liter of gas is their claim to fame.

However, the eco-boost technology which Ford is bringing to their product line is a real game changer.

I've seen the bottom of the Mustang, it is less aero than the top, old fashion. The Porsche has all sorts of belly pans for smooth flow. In this debate, aerodynamics takes a back seat to engine technology.

[tjts1]

There is no ecoboost mustang.

[GRU]

porsche's look very aerodynamic but according to the coefficient of drag they aren't all that good. Another reason it gets worse mpg than the mustang is because the engine probably revs higher at highway speeds (i'm just guessing, not sure)

[pjbgravely]

I bet the Porsche has a lot more real power than the V6 Stang.

On the other hand my 2000 3.8L V6 Mustang got 29 MPG on real gas, and with mods I hope to break 30 MPG this summer on E10.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by tjts1

There is no ecoboost mustang.

Forgive me, I was watching Autoline Detroit last week when a VP said Ecoboost will eventually be offered though out it's entire line up.

Ford EcoBoost engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EcoBoost is a family of turbocharged, direct injected six-cylinder and four-cylinder gasoline engines produced by the Ford Motor Company.

Yep, no turbo on the all new 2011/2012 V6 Mustang engine.

2011 Ford Mustang V-6 First Test - Motor Trend

Unlike the old 4.0, which for 2010 still employs a heavy iron block, an archaic two-valve/cylinder single-overhead-cam valvetrain, and a measly 210 horsepower, the new 3.7-liter is a technological tour de force. From lightweight aluminum architecture and a four-valve/cylinder dual-overhead-cam valvetrain to twin independent variable cam timing (Ti-VCT) and a deep-sump aluminum oil pan that stretches oil-change intervals to 10,000 miles, the 3.7 boasts modern goods. More important, it boasts the goods that matter to enthusiasts: horsepower, as in 305 of them. And torque? Try a very healthy 280 pound-feet, or 40 more than that of the 4.0.

http://www.autozine.org/html/Ford_USA/Mustang.html
Mustang: 0.38 drag coefficient.

http://www.autobuyguide.com/2000/12-...ons/index.html
2000 Porsche 911 coefficient of drag 0.30

Like someone above said, attribute it to top gearing ratio.