New ecoboost ford GT has worse mpg than any comparable supercar

[mc01svt]

http://www.carscoops.com/2017/01/2017-ford-gt-gets-dismal-fuel-economy.html

With its EcoBoost engine, you might figure that the new Ford GT would return pretty respectable fuel economy, right? Wrong. The official ratings are in from the US Environmental Protection Agency, and let's just say it's less than stellar.
Ferrari 488 GTB (15/22/18 mpg) with its 3.9-liter twin-turbo V8, and even the Lamborghini Huracan (14/21/17 mpg) with its naturally aspirated 5.2-liter V10. Don't even get us started on the Acura NSX (21/22/21 mpg), whose internal-combustion engine is of comparable size to the Ford's but is supplemented by a hybrid assist.

The EPA estimates that, with those figures, you'll end up spending $8,000 more in fuel over the course of five years than the average vehicle. Car and Driver also notes that the ratings will likely earn the GT a supplemental gas-guzzler tax of about $3,000. But then nobody buys a supercar for its fuel economy, or much notices an extra few grand on top of the purchase price measured in six figures.

The whole concept of fuel efficient supercars is an oxymoron at best but when you brag about an engine thats supposed to be lighter, more power dense and more efficient than traditional large displacement engines its pretty sad when you get worse results.

2017 Ford GT, 3.5L TT V6 - 11/19mpg (14mpg combined)
2005 Ford GT, 5.4L SC V8 - 12/19mpg (14mpg combined)
2016 Dodge SRT viper, 8.4L NA V10 - 12/21mpg (15mpg combined)
2016 Dodge Challenger hellcat, 6.2L SC V8 - 13/22mpg (16mpg combined)
2016 Chevy Corvette Z06, 6.2L SC V8 - 13/23mpg (16mpg combined)
2016 Mclaren 675LT, 3.8L TT V8 - 16/22mpg (18mpg combined)
2017 Ferrari 488GTB, 3.8L TT V8 - 16/22mpg (18mpg combined)
2016 Porsche 911 Turbo S, 3.8L TT L6 - 17/24mpg (20mpg combined)
2016 Audi R8 V10 plus, 5.2L NA V10 - 14/21mpg (17mpg combined)
2016 Lamborghin huracan LP610-4 - 14/21mpg (17mpg combined)
2016 Mercedes AMG GT S, 4.0L TT V8 - 16/22mpg (18mpg combined)
2016 Lamborghin aventador 6.5L NA V12 - 11/18mpg (13mpg combined)

It is time to rename this engine "twin force" instead of "ecoboost." Performance of a v8, sucks fuel like a v10.

 

[SolarYellow]

Who purchases a super car for gas mileage?

 

[13COBRA]

People were complaining about this on a Viper Facebook group the other day....


Still, no one cares.

 

[Corbic]

It is time to rename this engine "twin force" instead of "ecoboost." Performance of a v8, sucks fuel like a v10.

Once upon a time, long long ago, before the great wars there was this thing called market branding....


The Ford GT is an outstanding super car and holds its own against more expensive rivals.

You are bitching about 1 MILE PER GALLON in cars that are utterly impractical. Additionally you are forgetting about EMISSIONS when comparing these cars.

More importantly, Ford selected the V6 TT Ecoboost not because it's the greatest engine ever, but because MARKET BRANDING.

The GT is a halo car that got tons of Press and public attention. Using a V6 also helped boost that attention considerably. They want the average consumer to walk away and say "well gee golly, ima get dat F-wonfity with dem super car engine".

The usage of the V6 TT in the Ford GT is not to make a more efficient super car, it is to legitimize Ford's Ecoboost Brand and application of turbocharged engines in the consumers mind.

It makes it easier to swallow a Turbo-4 Mustang, a V6 TT Raptor, F150, Taurus SHO, Lincolns, and maybe even a GT500.

MPG is also just one aspect of "efficiency". You also have production and design costs, packaging size, emissions, displacement taxes/restrictions, etc.

 

[03cobra#694]

Who cares is right.

 

[black4vcobra]

On one hand, who cares about fuel economy when it comes to a 600+ hp, $450k supercar but on the other hand, how is it so bad?

Considering it's a light, aerodynamic car with a relatively small displacement engine, you would think Ford could have engineered a low boost "eco" driving mode that got nearly 30 mpg on the highway.

 

[black4vcobra]

Though admittedly, I'm not sure if that would fly as far as the EPA's mileage testing.

 

[Zemedici]

who gives a **** about gas mileage?

I dont care about gas mileage in my $23,000 mustang, why would anyone care in a $400,000 car that you had to apply and be selected to receive?

Honestly. Next someone's going to bitch because you cant get a pink one, and that's somehow doesnt follow the constitution or something.

 

[08mojo]

I' surprised the numbers are that low. How did it not break into the 20s for the highway rating? My dinosaur 427 cubic inch engine can achieve 28+ mpg on the highway.

Is it the gearing in the GT?

 

[08mojo]

who gives a **** about gas mileage?

I dont care about gas mileage in my $23,000 mustang, why would anyone care in a $400,000 car that you had to apply and be selected to receive?

Honestly. Next someone's going to bitch because you cant get a pink one, and that's somehow doesnt follow the constitution or something.

I'm not sure anyone really cares, but it comes down to bragging rights. A lightweight car, with low coefficient of drag (which have been two large selling/marketing points of the new GT), with a small displacement turbocharged engine (most controversial and biggest marketing point) should achieve better mpg--at least in my opinion.

 

[mc01svt]

The usage of the V6 TT in the Ford GT is not to make a more efficient super car, it is to legitimize Ford's Ecoboost Brand and application of turbocharged engines in the consumers mind.

It makes it easier to swallow a Turbo-4 Mustang, a V6 TT Raptor, F150, Taurus SHO, Lincolns, and maybe even a GT500.

But thats the thing, it isnt making it easier to swallow and at the same time it has alienated a good percentage of blue oval fans. I spend a good amout of time on raptor forums and a large number of users made comments stating they would not buy the 2017 strictly because of the engines. I think there is a similar sentiment on other vehicles as well.

Ford had better be careful and not continue to force ecoboost down every ones throat. At least have an option, unless they want to lose future sells to competitors.

 

[SolarYellow]

I'm not sure anyone really cares, but it comes down to bragging rights.

Bragging rights? Better gas mileage would be considered bragging rights?

 

[mc01svt]

I'm not sure anyone really cares, but it comes down to bragging rights. A lightweight car, with low coefficient of drag (which have been two large selling/marketing points of the new GT), with a small displacement turbocharged engine (most controversial and biggest marketing point) should achieve better mpg--at least in my opinion.

the whole concept of downsizing is based on a lie. Making an engine smaller and using force induction does not improve BSFC or thermal efficiency of an internal combustion engine at a given load. Even the viper with 240% more displacement and 4 more cylinders breaks 20mpg on the highway. Ecoboost is a bad joke LOL

 

[black4vcobra]

All true except the Viper has 140% more displacement. The V10 engine does have 2.4x the displacement of the 3.5 Ecoboost.

 

[Coiled03]

Seriously, is it your mission in life to discredit the Ecoboost? Nobody bought this car for its fuel mileage. Nobody who bought it CARES about its fuel mileage. So why do you?

 

[Blk04L]

That's why I put 87 in my GT. Can't afford 93 with those MPG numbers.

 

[2000gt4.6]

You can cry and bitch about the EB all you want. Reality is Ford will sell every Raptor it makes, and there won't be enough of them. Double that for the GT


Reality also is without EB we would not have the SHO. We would not have a sporty non V8 mustang. No sporty options on Fusion, focus or fiesta either.

10 years ago the announcement that nearly every Ford would have a factory boosted option would have had people singing their praises. Yet now a few people cry and bitch about having a factory FI setup that responds better to boltons than any N/A V8 ever created.

And yeah, it's not exactly Eco...And I don't care about Eco. Im glad Ford is pulling the wool over the Eco hippys to give me the ability to throw 1000 bucks at a Taurus and have a 400+ horsepower DD. And the only legit complaint anyone can come up with is the sound. I remember another group of guys that only cared about style and sound...And they drove massive winged Hondas.

 

[Corbic]

But thats the thing, it isnt making it easier to swallow and at the same time it has alienated a good percentage of blue oval fans. I spend a good amout of time on raptor forums and a large number of users made comments stating they would not buy the 2017 strictly because of the engines. I think there is a similar sentiment on other vehicles as well.

Ford had better be careful and not continue to force ecoboost down every ones throat. At least have an option, unless they want to lose future sells to competitors.

And when the new Raptor out sells the old, who gives a crap what some Forum-Bro says.

I also don't think Ford will have any issue selling their intended 500 units a year for the Ford GT.

Don't confuse guys bitching with guys buying.

I could cry loud and hard about a new GT500 or Raptor being an Ecoboost V6. Reality is, I'm not buying one no matter what engine they have or how good they are, I'm not in that market segment.

 

[Willie2]

actually the Lambo is the worst on that list. gets 13mpg

 

[DSGCOBRA24]

Who gives a shit about mpg's