13th May 2009, 11:00
Yeah, thanks for the lesson in math there... I actually did it by hand, not with a calculator... you know back in the day when people knew how to do math without assistance? And since I got all "A's" in math back then, I figured I knew what I was doing.
15th May 2009, 07:58
Never did I say that racing a Mustang would produce 27 mpg. Nor did I say that Mustangs are meant to be drag raced at every light.
Magazines are a poor resource because the journalists that do the testing run the car as hard as they can for performance numbers, therefore the cars mpg is way less than normal driving habits would warrant.
Okay, now... my mileage was based on cruising on the highway at around 70 mph, NOT racing and trying to get the most out of the car. There is a huge difference. I am merely stating that it is possible to get those numbers on the highway as I did. Did I get 27 mpg all the time? HECK NO!! Around town I probably got around 18 - 20 mpg if I was driving civilized.
You had major problems with your car if you averaged 11-15 mpg. Sorry, but I would have had it in the dealer shop so they could explain to me why a car rated at 16-24 was getting roughly half of that. I know the ratings are not the word of God, but they are never off by that much unless driving habits come into play, which the dealer mechanic would have told you... lighten up on the lead foot!!!
Every car I have had has exceeded the ratings including both of my 5.0 Mustangs. Okay, I am done explaining this.
15th May 2009, 19:46
"Are you sure your calculator is working correctly?"
I had a friend in college who was always telling us what great mileage his Mustang got. We all finally got tired of it and insisted he tell us how he did the calculation. He said he figured fuel consumed by knowing how big the gas tank was and always filling up when the needle got to the half-way mark. He refused to believe that wasn't a good way to judge fuel consumed. If he ever got around to recording what the fuel pumps dispensed and figured his real mileage, he never told us.
16th May 2009, 13:45
I put more credence on personal experience with calculating gas mileage than with any other source, including magazines or even the official EPA estimates. I have beaten the published EPA estimate by 5 MPG on every vehicle I ever owned, and that is even the OLD EPA estimate, which was recently downrated because it was felt to be too idealistic. I could probably beat the new estimate by 10 MPG!
For instance, FuelEconomy.gov says my 2002 Ford Explorer gets 13 city/18 highway, while I routinely get 18-20 city/23-25 highway, with some values up to 27 MPG (U.S. gallons). These values are not based on one or two times, but dozens and dozens of times. I check every time I've filled up for the past two years.
Similarly, the same site says my 1985 Dodge Ram would get 10 city/12 highway, while I routinely got 15 city/18 highway.
My parents have had similar results with their vehicles, a 1997 Mercury Sable (EPA says 24 highway, while they get 28-29 MPG), 1993 Cadillac Seville (EPA says 23 highway, while they got 27-28 MPG), and 2008 Cadillac DTS (EPA says 23 MPG highway, while my parents get 27 MPG).
All values are calculated by hand (okay fine, using a calculator for division), zeroing the trip odometer at each fill-up, and consistently filling up until the pump clicks off with the handle on the lowest setting, so we know that the fuel tank is always starting at the same level.
Accept it, guys. Driving habits make it possible for people to beat mileage estimates shown in some magazine.
16th May 2009, 19:21
I've known people who used some very bizarre ways of figuring fuel mileage. Using the "half tank" method is certainly NOT effective, as most guages are not very accurate. The only really effective way to figure mileage is by dividing miles driven by gallons used. I don't trust Ford's computer mileage readouts either, as computers are notorious for errors.
Over the years I've gotten some great fuel mileage in various cars. Dodges of the late 80's and early 90's seemed to be the best. My Daytona got 37mpg on one trip and my Omni got 35 in town sometimes. My V-8 Mustang never got over 19.
16th May 2009, 19:50
I own a 2006 Mustang GT. I've seen 15 MPG a few times, but ONLY after very hard driving. I've also never seen 27 MPG to the best of my knowledge, but 25 MPG or more is not hard to do, even with an automatic transmission. I put anywhere from 220 to 330 miles on average on a full tank of fuel. I run the fuel down usually till the gage is halfway between 1/4 and E.
This usually equates to between 12.5 and 13 gallons of fuel added. These cars don't have very high cruising ranges even with a V6, only a 16 gallon tank. I always make sure the tank is FULL, till the pump doesn't pump anymore, till the fuel is just about running out of the filler neck. So you all can use the above four variables and do the math. 330/12.5 is not quite 27, but 220/13 is still above 15. And 220 miles on a full tank is about the WORST I have ever done on a full tank.
17th May 2009, 12:36
One reason we switched from Explorer to the far better GMC Envoy was fuel mileage. We owned three Explorers. None ever saw over 19.8 mpg on ANY trip on the interstate. The GMC with the much more powerful 275HP I-6 gets 24 highway and averages 19 in the city. It is smoother, MUCH faster than the V-8 Explorer and rides much better. I still love Fords but I can't for the life of me figure out where people are buying these specially prepped V-8's that get 27mpg while drag racing with 4:11 rear ends. Please cue me in. After reading some of comments, I checked to see if there were any claims of 40mpg out of the V-10 Viper, but didn't find any.
17th May 2009, 18:11
On older cars I think I was warned not to fill the gas tanks that full because liquid gasoline could make it up a charcoal canister, part of the emissions control system, and ruin it so you couldn't pass an emissions check. Especially in the summer when cool gas from underground is then pumped up to a hot environment where it expands and gas to go somewhere. Was that true back then? Is that still true?
18th May 2009, 11:46
Go to Google and put in "5.0 carb vs. FI mpg" and see what the results are. Also ask the forums to see why Mustang guys switch to FI whenever they can... FI is much more efficient.
You are the one who got the same mileage with both FI and Carb right? Well, there is something major wrong with your FI car if that is the case. Again, I see many people getting in the mid 20's with their FI Mustangs. Oh, but they are all just making up their numbers just to feel better about themselves right? Yeah, that's a good reason to spend thousands to change over to a FI system from a carb... And Ford should have saved the billions in research and development to come up with a multi-port fuel injection system that gets EXACTLY the same mileage as the old fashioned carb. Yeah, keep telling yourself they get the same mileage. Maybe you had a 4.10 rear end in your '90 and you drove on the highway in 4th gear.