Mustang Ecoboost Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
Discussion Starter #1


While we're still flapping in the breeze waiting on Ford to release specifications on all three of the S550 engine choices, there are a few tidbits floating around that we can use to try and connect the dots.

Firstly the Lincoln MKC utilizing the same 2.3L Ecoboost engine was rated for fuel economy this week. In the MKC the 2.3L Ecoboost engine will pull down 18 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway, 21 mpg combined. However do keep in mind that the engine has been detuned in the MKC to 285 bhp and 305 ft-lbs of torque, we know the Mustang will have north of 305 bhp, expect torque figures to stay the same.

Also keep in mind that the MKC is a heavier vehicle, initial speculations have the Mustang tipping the scales some 300-400 lbs lighter than the MKC. So now a little bit of fun with numbers. The EPA says that for every 100 lbs of weight shaved off fuel economy will increase 2.1%. This is backed up by research from the Aluminium Association who claim that reducing weight by five percent leads to an increase in fuel economy of 2.1%. Reducing weight by 10% shows a 4.1 percent mileage boost and a 20% reduction improved fuel economy by 8.4%.

The Aluminium Associations figures are difficult to work with because they rated for a small car with a 1.6L I4 engine with a weight target of 2875 lbs, as well as offering similar figures for mid size vehicles with V6's and a weight target of 3625. Because the Mustang is a combination of both those figures it makes working with them a bit hairy and subjective. Perhaps its best if we focus on the EPA benchmark.

So in 2.3L flavour the MKC clocks in at 3,989 lbs, do keep in mind that the 2.3L is restricted to AWD drive models so that not only adds extra heft but also increases parasitic drive line loss. If the Mustang is actually 300-400 lbs lighter than the MKC we'll be looking at weight reduction of 7.5-10% certainly not insignificant.

Remember the EPA says that every 100 lbs lost translates to a 2.1% increase in fuel economy. That gives us a range of 6.3-8.4% fuel savings as per the EPA. Ok so now how does that relate back to the MKC's posted figures

MKC

City: 18 mpg
Highway: 26 mpg
Combined: 21 mpg

Plugging in the estimated 6.3-8.4% increase in MPG for the Mustang

6.3% Increase

City: 19.13 mpg
Highway: 27.63 mpg
Combined: 22.32 mpg

8.4% Increase

City: 19.51 mpg
Highway: 28.18 mpg
Combined: 22.76 mpg

2.3L EcoBoost Mustang Estimated Fuel Economy

City: 19-20 mpg
Highway: 27-28 mpg
Combined: 22-23 mpg


Thought? Everyone is welcome to add their estimates or conversions :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
470 Posts
Combined MPG isn't too bad at all, city could be better but this is a sports coupe after all, can't expect too much from it when it comes to efficiency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
Your estimation seems to be well though out and I could see these numbers being accurate. Its not the most fuel efficient car out there, but it is definitely acceptable. The fuel efficiency on the other trim levels won't be great though if they are all worse than this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
470 Posts
Your estimation seems to be well though out and I could see these numbers being accurate. Its not the most fuel efficient car out there, but it is definitely acceptable. The fuel efficiency on the other trim levels won't be great though if they are all worse than this.
that's right, people do need to keep in mind that it is still a sports car and while it needs to have great fuel economy it also needs to have good performance, have to find that medium
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
I think that is why people are a little surprised to hear that the Mustang actually gained weight. It just seemed to be the best way to both increase fuel efficiency and performance by shedding weight, and it seems like there is the technology and materials around to have done it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
470 Posts
That is how it's supposed to be, but sadly that wasn't the case, unless their saving themselves some future improvements to add, to have more reasons to make it better.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top