Go Back   Two Wheel Fix > General > Cage Hell

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-04-2010, 10:34 AM   #1
pauldun170
Serious Business
 
pauldun170's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York
Moto: 1993 ZX-11 2008 CBR1000rr
Posts: 9,723
Default 2011 Ford Mustang V6 rated 31 mpg highway

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/04/2...ficient-300-h/
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave View Post
feed your dogs root beer it will make them grow large and then you can ride them and pet the motorcycle while drinking root beer
pauldun170 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2010, 10:42 AM   #2
Homeslice
Elitist
 
Homeslice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Moto: Gix 750
Posts: 11,351
Default

Nice, but most of that is probably just gearing, seeing as how the city rating is only 19.

Having 6 speeds in an automatic is nice, but if it's anything like the Fusion, it will change gears twice before completing a simple right turn.

What happened to 20 years ago, when fuel economy wasn't considered impressive unless it was 30 city?

Last edited by Homeslice; 03-04-2010 at 10:48 AM..
Homeslice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2010, 11:41 AM   #3
goof2
AMA Supersport
 
goof2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeslice View Post
Nice, but most of that is probably just gearing, seeing as how the city rating is only 19.

Having 6 speeds in an automatic is nice, but if it's anything like the Fusion, it will change gears twice before completing a simple right turn.

What happened to 20 years ago, when fuel economy wasn't considered impressive unless it was 30 city?
Two things happened. First the EPA changed the way they rate fuel economy in order to make them closer to real world driving conditions. Look at fueleconomy.gov and see if the cars rated 30mpg+ city 20 years ago aren't given significantly lower numbers now.

Second, the cars today are much more powerful. This is a base Mustang. The most powerful factory Mustang in 1990 (the 5.0) made 225hp. In 1990 you couldn't get 300hp+ in a standard engined Corvette or Porsche 911. The Ferrari 348 came with an even 300hp. Power isn't free.
goof2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2010, 11:43 AM   #4
z06boy
Letzroll
 
z06boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lake Norman area, NC
Moto: 07 Red R1 & 07 Blue R6
Posts: 5,265
Default

^^^^What he said^^^^
z06boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2010, 01:11 PM   #5
Dave
Chaotic Neutral
 
Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cherry Hill NJ
Moto: GV1200 Madura, Hawk gt
Posts: 13,992
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goof2 View Post
Two things happened. First the EPA changed the way they rate fuel economy in order to make them closer to real world driving conditions. Look at fueleconomy.gov and see if the cars rated 30mpg+ city 20 years ago aren't given significantly lower numbers now.

Second, the cars today are much more powerful. This is a base Mustang. The most powerful factory Mustang in 1990 (the 5.0) made 225hp. In 1990 you couldn't get 300hp+ in a standard engined Corvette or Porsche 911. The Ferrari 348 came with an even 300hp. Power isn't free.
on a turbo its practically free
Dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2010, 05:01 PM   #6
goof2
AMA Supersport
 
goof2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave View Post
on a turbo its practically free
Not if you actually use the turbo. More air (what a turbo does) requires more fuel. There is no getting around that. One of the car magazines did a super group comparison test issue where they had 3 sets of group tests. To give you an idea of the cars involved the top group included a BMW M5 (V8), the mid group had an M3 (V6) and the bottom group had a Neon SRT-4. The worst observed mileage they recorded out of all the cars (7 or 8 total) was from the 2.4 liter turbo Neon.

Turbo cars do well in the EPA's test cycle because it doesn't require using the turbo much. When driven hard they don't do as well.
goof2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2010, 05:03 PM   #7
Rider
Moto GP Star
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 12,156
Default

Damn good mileage. I'm partial to GM but with numbers like that...... I could be lured into buying one.
Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2010, 10:58 PM   #8
derf
token jewboy
 
derf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Moto: CBR 900, KLR ugly ass duckling, Gas Man
Posts: 10,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeslice View Post
What happened to 20 years ago, when fuel economy wasn't considered impressive unless it was 30 city?
The environment
__________________
derf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2010, 10:48 AM   #9
smileyman
White Trash Hero
 
smileyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NW Arkansas
Moto: Buell 1125R Porco Rosso Edition
Posts: 4,895
Default

Class leading chassis, awesome mileage, and great performance. I'll take mine in white with the standard transmisson thank you very much! Shame about the tiny rear leg room but it is a sports car...
__________________

Arkriders.com
To be the best you must first be willing to risk the worst!
smileyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2010, 10:52 AM   #10
Amber Lamps
Moto GP Star
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 14,556
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smileyman View Post
Class leading chassis, awesome mileage, and great performance. I'll take mine in white with the standard transmisson thank you very much! Shame about the tiny rear leg room but it is a sports car...
Shut up! I'll have some pics later....Suffice it to say that I am looking at an example in white this pm...
Amber Lamps is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.