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