Mustang 3.7 V6, a sleeper eco car?

[Saskwatchian]

Ford Canada is claiming up to 45 MPG (37.5 US MGP) highway on the 2014 Mustang. What do you guys think, is that even possible?

I don't see any numbers even close to that on the american sites but if it's even close to true I feel like trading in the Versa.

[apprentice1]

Do a search in the garage, there is a 2012 3.7L mustang on here getting over 40mpg US.

Sorry I can't post a link...I don't have enough posts yet

[UltArc]

Did someone call?

[Saskwatchian]

Hey UltArc

I did not think to search the garage as you never know what people do to get their numbers, but yours are properly impressive.

Looks like you did a "bit" of modifying. In your opinion do you think a stock base Mustang with the 3.7 / M6 could match my current vehicle's efficiency in steady state cruising (cruise control on)? If not what kind of mods would you suggest?

To save you the math here are my MPG/mph equivalents:
60 mph - 36 MPG
65 mph - 33 MPG
70 mph - 31 MPG


I am planning on selling the Versa in the spring while it still has under 90,000km on it, and if I could replace it with a Mustang that gets better fuel economy I would be happy indeed

[Flakbadger]

Originally Posted by Saskwatchian

I am planning on selling the Versa in the spring while it still has under 90,000km on it, and if I could replace it with a Mustang that gets better fuel economy I would be happy indeed

Hey, not sure what you're looking for in a replacement vehicle... I looked at the Versa when I was looking for an economy car and was not impressed, either with MPG's, lethargic acceleration, nor overall feel of the vehicle. I wanted a Fit, but couldn't afford it---same story with the new Fiesta... and ended up with the Yaris, which taller people do not like.

Point is, if you're really looking for something efficient, you might consider one of those. If you're looking for something that's also super fun, well the Mustang might be a way to get there.

Just my $0.02, good luck either way!

[UltArc]

I wrote a very detailed response, and accidentally hit the back key. Well, I did it intentionally, but was in the wrong tab. Ugh.

My mods are by date in my car profile. Mustang is a great balance between fun and fuel efficient, closer to fun. If you want closer to fuel efficiency while still fun, I suggest the Hyundai Velositer or Honda CRZ as possible alternatives. They are FF, but both come as standards and are good values. My MPG is not it's best- even the 46 mpg tank lost several MPG (3+) by near pegging and making beautiful music in the PA tunnels. Same in the city, I have a lot of fun, and enjoy the car- not just being careful.

Most important mods are front splitter, and underbody, followed by kill switch. Some calculations and data taken from the draft of my website:

The development of the AeroStang over time, and it’s affect on fuel economy. Each item has build instructions and a complete guide, in combination with it’s actual mileage gain, and it’s projected mileage gain for you.
Date
Miles Traveled
Fuel Used
$/G
MPG
2012-06-01
381
13.399
$3.46
28.43
100% Factory - Baseline MPG of 28.43

2012-06-18
395.3
13.509
$3.559
29.26
2012-06-25
420.2
13.154
$3.199
31.94
ScanGuage ii Installed. Average of 30.6, increasing

2012-07-02
216.8
7.608
$3.139
28.5
2012-07-05
319.9
10.517
$3.159
30.42
ScanGuage ii & increasing tire diameter by 2%.

2012-07-17
451
14.654
$3.369
30.78
2012-07-21
470
14.364
$3.329
32.72
2012-08-02
451
14.691
$3.899
30.7
2012-08-13
390
12.218
$3.64
31.92
2012-08-25
495.945
14.568
$3.529
34.04
2012-09-07
459
14.06
$3.749
32.65
2012-09-08
464.1
12.762
$3.799
36.37
2012-09-22
478.068
15.132
$3.609
31.59
ScanGuage ii, increased tire diameter by 2%, replaced exhaust (axle back), aerodynamic front fascia, front splitter, side splitters, partial lower grille block.

2012-10-04
355.44
11.32


31.4
2012-10-07
445.1
13.31
$3.599
33.44
ScanGuage ii, increased tire diameter by 2%, replaced exhaust (axle back), aerodynamic front fascia, front splitter, side splitters, partial lower grille block, cold air induction, rear valance.


2012-10-18
394.676
12.828
$3.339
30.77
2012-11-10
457.631
15.247
$3.269
30.01
2012-11-17
420.248
13.961
$3.368
30.1
2012-11-19
470.776
13.7
$3.359
34.36
2012-11-20
492.749
13.727
$3.369
35.9
2012-11-30
484.025
14.754
$3.439
32.81
2012-12-09
441.61
14.677
$3.289
30.09
2012-12-18
354.212
11.664
$2.929
30.37
2012-12-25
391.8
12.385
$3.149
31.64
ScanGuage ii, increased tire diameter by 2%, replaced exhaust (axle back), aerodynamic front fascia, front splitter, side splitters, partial lower grille block, cold air induction, rear valance, air dam, lower grille block.

2013-01-06
443.047
15.192
$3.199
29.16
2013-01-16
478.273
15.345
$3.089
31.17
2013-01-26
411.724
14.22
$3.099
28.95
2013-02-15
451.469
14.445


31.25
ScanGuage ii, increased tire diameter by 2%, replaced exhaust (axle back), aerodynamic front fascia, front splitter, side splitters, partial lower grille block, cold air induction, rear valance, air dam, lower grille block, antenna delete.

2013-02-23
466.14
15.438
$3.599
30.19
2013-03-02
479.502
13.186
$3.669
36.36
2013-03-12
414.324
12.691
$3.789
32.65
ScanGuage ii, increased tire diameter by 2%, replaced exhaust (axle back), aerodynamic front fascia, front splitter, side splitters, partial lower grille block, cold air induction, rear valance, air dam, lower grille block, antenna delete, UltraGuage.


2013-03-17
449.412
14.151
$3.699
31.76
2013-03-26
490.824
15.202
$3.699
32.29
2013-04-05
400.452
12.804
$3.589
31.28
ScanGuage ii, increased tire diameter by 2%, replaced exhaust (axle back), aerodynamic front fascia, front splitter, side splitters, partial lower grille block, cold air induction, rear valance, air dam, lower grille block, antenna delete, UltraGuage, kill switch.


2013-04-13
504.492
14.856
$3.389
33.96
2013-04-22
493.884
14.974
$3.879
32.98
2013-05-04
531.624
14.307
$3.939
37.16
ScanGuage ii, increased tire diameter by 2%, replaced exhaust (axle back), aerodynamic front fascia, front splitter, side splitters, partial lower grille block, cold air induction, rear valance, air dam, lower grille block, antenna delete, UltraGuage, kill switch, premium fuel.


2013-05-12
554.778
14.848
$3.639
37.36
2013-05-21
615.774
15.624
$3.979
39.41
ScanGuage ii, increased tire diameter by 2%, replaced exhaust (axle back), aerodynamic front fascia, front splitter, side splitters, partial lower grille block, cold air induction, rear valance, air dam, lower grille block, antenna delete, UltraGuage, kill switch, premium fuel, lower grille block.


2013-06-01
570.69
14.695
$3.739
38.84
ScanGuage ii, increased tire diameter by 2%, replaced exhaust (axle back), aerodynamic front fascia, front splitter, side splitters, partial lower grille block, cold air induction, rear valance, air dam, lower grille block, antenna delete, UltraGuage, kill switch, premium fuel, lower grille block, air dam removed, two piece air dam installed.


2013-06-07
564.162
14.522
$4.089
38.85
2013-06-18
597.414
15.111
$3.849
39.54
2013-06-28
643.008
15.368
$3.379
41.84
ScanGuage ii, increased tire diameter by 2%, replaced exhaust (axle back), aerodynamic front fascia, front splitter, side splitters, partial lower grille block, cold air induction, rear valance, lower grille block, antenna delete, UltraGuage, kill switch, premium fuel, lower grille block, two piece air dam, underbody complete.


2013-07-11
596.802
15.006
3.809
39.77
2013-07-22
600.474
15.396
$3.729
39
ScanGuage ii, increased tire diameter by 2%, replaced exhaust (axle back), aerodynamic front fascia, front splitter, side splitters, partial lower grille block, cold air induction, rear valance, lower grille block, antenna delete, UltraGuage, kill switch, premium fuel, lower grille block, two piece air dam, underbody. Underbody was destroyed from excessive speed in high water during a heavy storm, as was the air dam.

Formating did not carry over well...

[Saskwatchian]

I bought the Versa when my Explorer was starting to cost more to keep on the road than it was worth and wanted something that was cheeper for the 1300km round trip home and back from work. It was the best I could find with $10,000.

There are many things I don't like about it but the biggest thing is it sucks on gravel. I started researching heavier cars that would match the mediocre fuel efficiency that would feel more planted on the loose stuff (and on the highway) and stumbled on the 45MPG claim, Something I was NOT expecting on a Mustang.

I was mostly considering wagon type cars but a Mustang would be a lot more fun, and when I want it to be practical I can tow a small trailer. (something I wouldn't seriously consider with a FWD car)

I know, I know, fuel efficiency, gravel roads, and trailers; doesn't sound very Mustang-ish. I could be wrong but I think this car could be more than a one trick pony.


Wow, Thanks again UltArc, that is really encouraging numbers. At the moment I am sold but I have 7 months to come to my senses. (Going to Australia for the winter, not much point buying a new car until I get back)

[UltArc]

Well make sure you get a standard. They are also pretty cheap, and come decently equipped at total base. With just a few hours of work with coroplast, one can really make a difference. My early numbers are poor between the engine not being broken in, brand new tires, me having a brand new toy (after 7 years with a 95 auto, pink, Escort three door), and using the stock semi synthetic oil. The belly pan was easy, too. As the website is being completed further and further, the belly pan will be posted. When it's set I will direct there (not to be shameless, but because I can format how I want on an html page rather than the struggles of formatting a forum post).

I must caution, the v6 has a tow limit of 1,000 lbs, and it is very easy to get crazy with the car. Though, it was easier to be gentle before the exhaust- which adds close to nothing/nothing to efficiency. Please also note, my 46 mpg 440 mile trip at 63 mph average was all highway. In general driving, warm weather, I stay 38-42 depending on aggressiveness and environmental conditions.

[MetroMPG]

Saskwatchian, don't forget that our NRCAN fuel economy ratings are more or less on par with the "pre-2008" EPA ratings. That is, they're a lot more optimistic (most drivers would say unrealistically optimistic) compared to the EPA's current ratings system.

We're due to have our tests brought in line with the EPA's in the next year or so.

Of course a modded car with an attentive driver will beat the rating, as UltArc shows.

[UltArc]

I couldn't comment on NRCAN, but the Mustangs EPA was 19/29/22, City, Highway, Combined.