Riddle me this...

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

2001 Ford Focus ZX3:

2.0L DOHC Zetec 4 cylinder (130 HP)

5 speed manual transmission

1157 lbs

13 gallon fuel tank.

2001 Ford Mustang GT convertible:

4.6L SOHC V8 (260 HP)

4 speed automatic transmission

1533 lbs

15 gallon fuel tank.

From my house to "the city" (You know, the one the lady with a little too much gum in the Avalon commercials refers to): 124 miles.

Yet somehow, by my calculations, I get almost the same fuel mileage...

It's magical, I tell ya!

A few things to consider though; 95-97% of that trip is highway and I am an exceptionally smooth driver. I use cruise control, 5 MPH over the speed limit, the whole way. First leg of the trip is 70-75 MPH, second leg is roughly 70 MPH, third leg is a 'bouncy' 65-70 MPH depending on traffic. And the 'stang has a K&N filter (Not that it makes any difference for fuel consumption)

Even if there is a slight difference (I figure my calculations might be off by a gallon to 1/2 a gallon) I still can't believe that the cars are this close on fuel mileage. Just makes me that much more pissed off about the anti-V8 hype.

Edited May 11, 2010 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Intrepidation]

So what are the mpg numbers? You left that bit out.

The 4.6 gets pretty impressive fuel economy I've found.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Oh yeah... Long day.

By my calculations the Focus was getting around 31 MPG and the Mustang, if it is using a gallon more (a.k.a. if my calculations are the least accurate) is sitting at about 25 MPG.

Edmunds pegs the 'stang at 23 MPG highway and the Focus at 30 MPG highway. So, I guess that's about right on the money.

Edited May 11, 2010 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[SAmadei]

What is 1157 and 1533 lbs? Certainly not the cars.

[67impss]

What is 1157 and 1533 lbs? Certainly not the cars.

+1 I'm intrigued as 98 might say

[Intrepidation]

The Gran Marquis, which probably weighs as much as a small moon around gets 26 mpg regularly on highway trips.

[Robert Hall]

What is 1157 and 1533 lbs? Certainly not the cars.

He lost a ton (2000lbs) from each somewhere...

[the_yellow_dart]

(gets out the google translation tool)

31 mpg = 7.6 L/100km

That's a lousy highway number. Surprised the Cobalt beats it by so much. My average consumption is usually right around this number, including city and crawling through highway traffic jams.

23 mpg = 10.2 L/100km

OUCH

This is why I will never buy a V8.

[Robert Hall]

(gets out the google translation tool)

31 mpg = 7.6 L/100km

That's a lousy highway number. Surprised the Cobalt beats it by so much. My average consumption is usually right around this number, including city and crawling through highway traffic jams.

23 mpg = 10.2 L/100km

OUCH

This is why I will never buy a V8.

I wouldn't mind getting 23 mpg w/ a V8 for a daily driver. I'm used to getting 18,19 mpg with a 6cyl daily driver, in a mix of city/suburb/freeway driving. My V8 Mustang gets about 25 highway, not bad for a 20+ yr old car..

[AAS]

23 mpg = 10.2 L/100km

OUCH

This is why I will never buy a V8.

Don't let this speak for all V8's. My wife's 2001 Mustang GT, like FOG's, is right around those numbers (pushes 25 mpg highway if I'm lucky), but my 2000 Camaro SS (6MT) pushes almost 30 mpg highway. Gearing has a lot to do with it.

[Robert Hall]

Don't let this speak for all V8's. My wife's 2001 Mustang GT, like FOG's, is right around those numbers (pushes 25 mpg highway if I'm lucky), but my 2000 Camaro SS (6MT) pushes almost 30 mpg highway. Gearing has a lot to do with it.

30 is fantastic for a V8...so is 23-25. Years ago, I saw 28 highway w/ my '87 5.0 before at steady 65mph in 5th gear on a cross country drive. Getting over 20 mpg with anything would be a big change to me.

[pow]

If we switched to L/100km (or even US gal/100 mi), things would be a lot clearer. When comparing fuel consumption, MPG is such an abstract figure.

[Intrepidation]

Well most of us are in the US so it we go by MPG VS L/100km. The only thing liter is really used for is as a drink bottle measurement.

[FAPTurbo]

Well most of us are in the US so it we go by MPG VS L/100km. The only thing liter is really used for is as a drink bottle measurement.

And yet, we can't even get a litre of cola in your country.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Corrected weights: 3069 lbs for the Mustang GT, 2551 for the Focus ZX3...

Not sure where I got the original numbers from, I was so out of it last night when I posted that I barely even remember starting the topic. (Not much sleep)

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

(gets out the google translation tool)

31 mpg = 7.6 L/100km

That's a lousy highway number. Surprised the Cobalt beats it by so much. My average consumption is usually right around this number, including city and crawling through highway traffic jams.

23 mpg = 10.2 L/100km

OUCH

This is why I will never buy a V8.

I'm sure the Cobalt is a lot newer with a lot fresher motor too.

And, speak for yourself, nothing beats the feel of a V8.

23 MPG is spectacular compared to my '73 Camaro (11 MPG highway )

[Robert Hall]

Well most of us are in the US so it we go by MPG VS L/100km. The only thing liter is really used for is as a drink bottle measurement.

Liters are used for engine dispacement also (been over 30 years since cubic inches were generally used on new cars--using CID on anything made in the last 30+ years just sounds strange to me..

Gallons per XXX miles could be interesting.

What's the unit of measure in the UK? Miles per liter or liters per mile--strange that they are metric yet still use miles per hour.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Don't let this speak for all V8's. My wife's 2001 Mustang GT, like FOG's, is right around those numbers (pushes 25 mpg highway if I'm lucky), but my 2000 Camaro SS (6MT) pushes almost 30 mpg highway. Gearing has a lot to do with it.

That's one of my regrets about not getting an F4, is their fabulous fuel mileage. But it was just much easier, physically, for me to fit into the Ford. Plus, I've always had a sweet spot for the modulars... And I got the car for about $3000 less than what NADA and KBB says it's worth.

[Z-06]

I never get tired of this.....

After my Z-06 returned 26 mpg city (babying) for the 7 mile road to work. The BMW 330i cannot beat that number despite of babying the same, having 2 less cylinders, and massive 170 hp less. The both cars are 6-speed and are identical in weight (Z-06 3215 vs 330i 3250 lbs)

On the highway Z-06 returned 30-31 consistently at around 77 mph. During one trip I have gotten 33 mpg, when there was tailwind on I-4 traveling from Tampa. The best I have got from the BMW is 32 with tailwind, while averaging 28-29 mpg.

I wished not being in a car wreck would have saved me from giving away the Z-06.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

EDIT: nevermind.

Edited May 12, 2010 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Cory Wolfe]

My pre-tune-up Golf managed 26 mpg on the highway.

[Intrepidation]

3.5's best was 29.7 mpg

[AAS]

That's one of my regrets about not getting an F4, is their fabulous fuel mileage. But it was just much easier, physically, for me to fit into the Ford. Plus, I've always had a sweet spot for the modulars... And I got the car for about $3000 less than what NADA and KBB says it's worth.

It's interesting you say that it was easier for you to fit in the Ford. I'm 6'3" (you're tall too, right?) and I feel like the Mustang's seat doesn't move back far enough and headroom seems a bit tight (or at least I feel like my head is way up in the cabin and I have to look down through the windshield).

[Sixty8panther]

Here is the simple physics & cold hard truth:

A V8 of approximately 4.6 liters (all else being equal) only has to work 1/2 as much as a equivalent motor of 1/2 that size: i.e. 2.3 liter 4-cylinder.

I know that's a gross oversimplification but there's more truth to it than the "global warming" conspiracy.

[67impss]

My 94 Roadmaster wagon gets 25.6 all day long @ 65mph on cruise with 3.08 posi rear end ratio

The 67 Impala SS got 21mpg with a 4spd Muncie & 3.08 posi Stock 275hp or built 327 with 330hp @ the rear wheel.

[daves87rs]

Wife's Cavalier hit almost 37 mpgs on a road trip.....

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

It's interesting you say that it was easier for you to fit in the Ford. I'm 6'3" (you're tall too, right?) and I feel like the Mustang's seat doesn't move back far enough and headroom seems a bit tight (or at least I feel like my head is way up in the cabin and I have to look down through the windshield).

The whole issue with me was under the steering wheel. It seemed that the TA I drove really pinched my legs under the steering wheel. I'm 6'9", I have to lay the seat all the way back and I'm still cramped. But that seems to be the case in anything short of a full size truck. I actually thought about drilling new holes in the Mustang and moving the seat back, (highly illegal) but I can only go about an inch and I don't think that would make much difference. I might still try to find a lower sitting seat.

Edited May 13, 2010 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Wife's Cavalier hit almost 37 mpgs on a road trip.....

yeah, the GFs Cavi used to hand my Focus it's ass all the time on MPG. It would make me so angry because, at that time, the media was busy lambasting GM for it's 'inefficient OHV slugs'. My Focus was a lot smoother, but it sure as hell wasn't more efficient. And the salt in the wound was our drastically different driving styles. I'm pretty smooth, she's hell on wheels.

[Drew Dowdell]

What year was the Cavi? It should have been a DOHC unit unless we're talking about an '83

My old pushrod 5.0 Continental (RWD Thunderbird body) could do 28mpg highway if you kept it steady.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

'97.

I don't think Cavilier went OHC until ECOTEC which was circa 2000.

[67impss]

Cav's Had base OHV's through 2003 Model year as the 2.2L

[Drew Dowdell]

Oh I didn't realize they still had the OHV after the 1995 model year redesign, I thought they went all Quad-4.

[EMan]

Quad-4 I believe was only on the Z-24. The others had the 2.2L SOHC. I had a 93' sold it with 196,000 miles with no problems, never understand why people hated Cavaliers.

Best I got out of it was 34 mpg.