Ford GT: Fuel Economy, Then and Now

"way2blu does a rev update" (way2blu) 01/06/2017 at 16:16 • Filed to: $kaybait

3

44

Photo taken by //AMG = AutoMatic Gearbox (San Diego Auto Show)

The EPA has released the 2017 GT’s fuel economy. Let’s see just how the march of progress and efficiency has improved the halo car’s environmental impact...

Yes, you’re reading that right. Same 14 combined, MPG, but city and highway are actually worse. Yup, 5.4 liters of supercharged V8 just got better (or at least equal) economy to 3.5 liters of turbo V6.

I just don’t know what to say. The new GT is supposed to be lighter. More aerodynamic. Small displacement turbo engines are supposed to do really well in standardized testing! How exactly it got a lower score is open to speculation of the highest degree. Just, wow.

Eco boost? Or just Boost ? Discuss.

Sam > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 16:18

2

I think in this case, the Eco part really is just advertising. It’s all about DAT BOOST YO.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 16:19

9

Egoboost

HammerheadFistpunch > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 16:19

4

Just about to post this. Exactly this. Eco or Boost, pick one. I suspect the results are due to the fact that the 5.4 produces more off boost power and so for the standardized test you are less in boost than with the turbo 6.

way2blu does a rev update > Sam 01/06/2017 at 16:20

0

Better make more power than the 488 if it’s gonna be getting worse fuel economy. The Italian gets 15/22.

Stephenson Valve Gear > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 16:24

1

The ‘17 makes more power. That takes more gasoline. And looking at the gorgeous red GT in the lead photo, I can’t imagine driving it around without having my right foot firmly planted in the “boost” all the time...

way2blu does a rev update > HammerheadFistpunch 01/06/2017 at 16:24

2

I find it hard to believe that a 3.5l turbo engine is boosting at all under the EPA cycle. GT is supposed to be class-leading in terms of weight, which I’d think would mean the engine shouldn’t have to work hard at all in city driving.

way2blu does a rev update > Stephenson Valve Gear 01/06/2017 at 16:26

1

The EPA has a standard testing procedure, usually leading to discrepancies between their MPGs and actual MPGs. I’d be in boost instead of eco all the time as well. I just don’t understand why the EPA got such low numbers.

For Sweden > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 16:27

0

Ten years ago Volvo engineers worked at Ford.

Think about it.

HammerheadFistpunch > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 16:27

1

¯\_()_/¯

Its just nice to know there are news cars out there using more fuel than mine does.

Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 16:27

2

How is it that bad? In EPA testing it should be off boost, a 3.5 V6 in a light aerodynamic car should do way better. A Corvette will trounce those numbers with a 6.2, hell, a Hellcat will as well! WTF Ford?!?!

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 16:28

1

At that price point...

You should be able to buy your own gas station ffs! Sure, the EPA cares, but I doubt any owner will care. I’ll have to ask the one I know. :p

way2blu does a rev update > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 01/06/2017 at 16:28

2

Ecodouche

Wobbles the Mind > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 16:29

1

Yeah, but the new GT has its fuel economy rated at wheels, not at the tank like the last car.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > HammerheadFistpunch 01/06/2017 at 16:30

0

Eh, I get better than the EPA average and I’m almost always in boost. Ecoboost exists, it’s just the engines on the smaller end of the spectrum.

way2blu does a rev update > HammerheadFistpunch 01/06/2017 at 16:33

0

I now want to hypermile a Ford GT to see if “Eco” even exists at that level...

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 16:35

1

Egodouche

Loping Camshaft > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 16:41

1

A few things (some already mentioned):

1. The new GT makes 10%+ more power.

2. Emissions regs are stricter today than 10+ years ago.

3. I wonder what effect gearing on both cars has on economy.

4. I’m not a big fan of the new car.

Rico > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 16:41

0

Have the EPA changed their testing in those 12 years? Could be much more strict now, like maybe the 2005 would score lower using today’s standards?

DipodomysDeserti > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 16:42

0

14 mpg is low for a car making 630hp?

way2blu does a rev update > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 01/06/2017 at 16:43

1

Eco Ego:

Boost Douche:

DipodomysDeserti > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 16:46

0

A modern twin scroll turbo setup will start “boosting” as low as 1k rpm. My wife’s grocery getter starts blowing at 1,200 RPM. You can alter that with tuning as well. It pretty much scrolls up as soon as you tap on the gas.

StingrayJake > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 01/06/2017 at 16:47

2

love marketing buzzwords

way2blu does a rev update > Rico 01/06/2017 at 16:48

1

I’ll admit I haven’t really researched how the testing has changed over the years :P

If the procedures and driving styles are different, that’d change everything to the extent of making the fueleconomy.gov comparison tool useless if you want to compare old and new cars...

Rico > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 16:50

0

I mean we all know the EPA numbers are pretty much shit anyway. It’s done under a way too controlled environment which is how VW managed to dupe them. I would hope eventually the testing becomes more realistic even if it means that site becomes useless.

way2blu does a rev update > Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) 01/06/2017 at 16:54

2

This is what I was getting at. All these V8s (Albeit the Corvette does have cylinder deactivation) get better economy than a smaller V6.

I can guarantee the one on the left is lighter and more aerodynamic. This is the manual Hellcat we’re talking about too. Almost twice the displacement and yet it takes almost a gallon less to drive 100 miles.

Tekamul > DipodomysDeserti 01/06/2017 at 16:59

0

But it’s not. During EPA testing, it’s making about 10-15hp.

It’s just surprising with the ‘ecoboost’, that it doesn’t have a better shot at efficient operation. Not that it really matters in a GT. The only time it’ll be out of boost is on the way to the track garage, or in a parade.

Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 17:03

0

Yeah, this makes no sense at all, my LS1/4L60e combo in the TA gets better mileage and it’s certainly not state-of-the-art.

I’d have guessed 28 highway an 15-21 in town for around 21-25 combined

FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com > DipodomysDeserti 01/06/2017 at 17:09

0

It’s not low, but it is 2 MPG lower than a 707 hp Hellcat, which you think it would be at the very least equal to.

DipodomysDeserti > Tekamul 01/06/2017 at 17:10

0

But it’s not. During EPA testing, it’s making about 10-15hp.

Where are you getting this value from?

It’s just surprising with the ‘ecoboost’, that it doesn’t have a better shot at efficient operation. Not that it really matters in a GT. The only time it’ll be out of boost is on the way to the track garage, or in a parade.

The only time it will be out of boost is when it’s turned off or idling. Modern turbo engines spool as soon as you tap the gas.

Danimalk - Drives a Slow Car Fast > DipodomysDeserti 01/06/2017 at 17:12

0

Don’t the Z06+Hellcat both have more power and I’m pretty sure get better combined numbers?

The 5 year old 700 hp Aventador is only 1 mpg worse, combined. :/

DipodomysDeserti > FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com 01/06/2017 at 17:23

1

I’d say it’s crazier that a 707 hp Hemi gets such good gas mileage. I’d be interested to see if it matches that in the real world.

Sneaky Pete > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 17:30

0

8.4L V10 in the Viper does better than that...

PS9 > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 17:49

0

They went with the 3.5 not to build a fuel efficient supercar, but because they wanted to race it in a displacement limited class.

Another reason is -plot twist - the distant future is one where natural resources are scarce and fuel is expensive. Ford and the rest of the auto industry would like to still be making cars during this time. Mature, ready for the market products that not only exist but thrive then means the development of new technology and new ways of applying the already known today.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > Rico 01/06/2017 at 17:50

1

There was a change to the testing procedures, but I can’t remember how long ago it was. The new procedures included higher highway speeds, a change to the city cycle and possibly the use of higher accessory loads (air conditioning, lights, etc.)

Dusty Ventures > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 18:02

1

They did indeed change procedures around 2007 or so, and I think again at least once since then.

Tekamul > DipodomysDeserti 01/06/2017 at 18:27

0

If you have all the relevant info (drag, rolling resistance, mechanical friction, speed) you can calculate it. I don’t for the GT, but for something mundane like a civic, it’s just under 10 at the EPA highway speed (56). Assuming the GT has much stickier tires and more mechanical friction, but less drag, 10-15 seems reasonable.

Rico > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 01/06/2017 at 18:48

0

Yeah I figured as much, so the numbers from 2005 are likely inflated way up.

feather-throttle-not-hair > way2blu does a rev update 01/06/2017 at 18:54

0

My boss(‘s boss) just bought one of these. I will be sure to think about that as I stare in jealousy at it.

FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com > DipodomysDeserti 01/06/2017 at 21:48

0

It may be because the 6.2 can stay out of boost more often. Has cylinder deactivation too. It’s probably also geared a lot taller if I had to guess. I checked on Fuelly for funsies and there are 6 Challenger Hellcats (and one BMW 750 ActiveHybrid listed as a Hellcat for some reason). Excluding the one that averaged 9 MPG with only 3 full ups, they averages are 15-18 MPG. Small sample, but it seems possible. If I had one I’m sure it would rarely top 10.

DipodomysDeserti > FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com 01/06/2017 at 22:59

1

When I jad my WRX I averaged 16 mpg and that was only tunes to around 300 hp. My wife got it down to 12 mog one weekend. I was like, “good god, woman!”

bhtooefr > Rico 01/07/2017 at 06:28

1

tl;dr: The 2005 numbers have been corrected, although using a potentially inaccurate correction factor, to 2007-2016 standards, and the 2007-2016 standards aren’t far off of 2017+ at all.

So, from 1978 to 1984, fuel economy testing was done using two test cycles - FTP-75 for city, HWFET for highway.

For model year 1985, the EPA added a correction factor to the FTP-75/HWFET figures - 22% reduction in highway MPG, 10% reduction in city MPG (I’ve seen 11% elsewhere, though), to better reflect real-world driving. That was the test procedure used through 2006.

Due primarily to hybrids getting unrealistic EPA results, the EPA decided to revamp the fuel economy testing procedure for MY2007, creating a new 5-cycle test procedure, which incorporated a cold (20 ºF) run of FTP-75 to adjust for cold temperatures, the SC03 cycle for air conditioning load, and the US06 cycle for 80 MPH operation. The results from those runs were applied using a hideously complex formula to the fuel economy figures... or you could do it another way. You could, in some cases, use the “derived 5-cycle” method to get your fuel economy, which simply applied guesstimates of what those cycles were, to your old figures. The EPA also went through and applied the derived 5-cycle method to every pre-2007 car in the database on fueleconomy.gov.

2017 brought changes to the coastdown test, which determines dynamometer loading for the fuel economy tests, so you’ll see a slight hit in efficiency there on some cars that were determined to have been improperly tested under the old coastdown test.

Rico > bhtooefr 01/07/2017 at 12:02

0

Thank you for that reply! I’m glad the EPA has been correcting older numbers to keep everything as even as possible as they come up with new tests.

This is good Oppo!

bhtooefr > Rico 01/08/2017 at 06:34

1

Oh, and I’m gonna go back to this.

So, for CAFE purposes, unadjusted fuel economy - that is, the 1978 to 1984 standard - is what’s used. This should be a direct apples to apples comparison.

For the 2017 Ford GT, that’s 13.9136 MPG city, 24.3678 MPG highway, for a combined average of 17.2424 MPG. From 1978 to 1984, it would’ve been advertised like this:

[14] EPA Est. MPG

24 Est. Hwy.

To compare, the 2005 Ford GT’s unadjusted fuel economy was 15.0 MPG city, 26.9 MPG highway, for a combined average of 18.7282 MPG.

That would’ve been advertised like this:

[15] EPA Est. MPG

27 Est. Hwy.

Yeah, the “Eco”Boost ain’t so Eco.

carzcarzcarz > way2blu does a rev update 02/09/2017 at 15:09

0

I still think this car would have been event better with the 5.2 flat crank V8, and just imagine the sounds from it too.