I know right. That car woundnt get better than 4 mpgs if i owned it lol
New ecoboost ford GT has worse mpg than any comparable supercar
- Thread starter mc01svt
- Start date
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?
The OP has a hardon for trashing on Ecoboost motors. just go look at him old posts, lol.
I noticed that. Who cares. He's missing out on the ungodly power and intoxicating sound of the Ecoboost
Better sounding than any v8 Ive ever heard. Can't argue that.
That's a completely different comparison. The point is, near 100% if not 100% of people interested in actually purchasing a car like the GT do not care about fuel economy.
It matters more when talking about the class of cars the hellcat competes with (still not hugely important). MPG's for any super car simply shouldn't be that important.
Interesting that it gets worse mileage then most competitors, but eh who cares...
The ultimate beat a dead horse thread!
Seriously though you can all not care but it is kinda funny that it gets worse mileage than all the others... I mean the entire point of this motor is eco and performance. I love the ecoboost motors but this is a fail whether you care or chop down trees for fun.
Seriously though you can all not care but it is kinda funny that it gets worse mileage than all the others... I mean the entire point of this motor is eco and performance. I love the ecoboost motors but this is a fail whether you care or chop down trees for fun.
Only 11 mpg city??? I guess I'm out then!
intoxicating sound? Is this real life? lol
hellcat and GT500 buyers care about mpg? lol Some only care about mpg when its to fords advantage. When its not, eh, who cares!
not a hardon, more like the opposite, not sure the correct term "softie?"
obvious fail is obvious. Motor that was supposed to be a pinnacle of "ultra-efficiency technology" that offers "v8 performance and v6 fuel economy" does neither. Simultaneously has less hp/torque than top GM/Dodge v8s and worse fuel economy than ginomous v10s and turbo v8s.
Brilliant!
$400,000.00 dollar car. I don't think anyone of the sold out cars new owners gives a Rat's ass about gas millage.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.
^^^^ Gets it ^^^^
I like the sound of the car. But you must be high to make that statement.
Reasons the car gets poor mpg:
1. performance gearing. Quick gearing makes for shit mpg.
2. Downforce. The ACR Viper creates enough downforce to cause about a 5 mpg decrease on the vehicle towing it, there's an article somewhere on that. You guys are confusing the type of aero this car has, it isn't magic. The car is slippery, but it also has an insane amount of grip. Same reason the (C7) Z06 has like a 15-20 mph lower top speed than the CTS-v is all the aero.
3. Speaking of which, the car has big ass tires. Only like a 235 or 245 front tire if i remember correctly, but like a 335 to 345 rear tire. That's a lot of rolling resistance. The rims are also 20s so they probably aren't light (maybe in perspective considering they're 20s, but still not actually light).
4. Factory tuning. I have been tuning turbo cars for YEARS, and you would not believe how rich some factory calibrations run, most hot hatch factory WOT AFR is like a 10.2 to 10.5, and you can interpolate part throttle afr from there. People don't know how to handle a turbo car, they throw shit gas in it, don't care about heat soak, and just don't know how to handle the car, so the factory has to fluff the ever loving shit out of the tunes to keep people from blowing them up. Put a tune on that thing and it picks up 5-10 mpg, i bet money, i've seen (and done) it several times.
1. performance gearing. Quick gearing makes for shit mpg.
2. Downforce. The ACR Viper creates enough downforce to cause about a 5 mpg decrease on the vehicle towing it, there's an article somewhere on that. You guys are confusing the type of aero this car has, it isn't magic. The car is slippery, but it also has an insane amount of grip. Same reason the (C7) Z06 has like a 15-20 mph lower top speed than the CTS-v is all the aero.
3. Speaking of which, the car has big ass tires. Only like a 235 or 245 front tire if i remember correctly, but like a 335 to 345 rear tire. That's a lot of rolling resistance. The rims are also 20s so they probably aren't light (maybe in perspective considering they're 20s, but still not actually light).
4. Factory tuning. I have been tuning turbo cars for YEARS, and you would not believe how rich some factory calibrations run, most hot hatch factory WOT AFR is like a 10.2 to 10.5, and you can interpolate part throttle afr from there. People don't know how to handle a turbo car, they throw shit gas in it, don't care about heat soak, and just don't know how to handle the car, so the factory has to fluff the ever loving shit out of the tunes to keep people from blowing them up. Put a tune on that thing and it picks up 5-10 mpg, i bet money, i've seen (and done) it several times.
I was thinking that maybe this car has poor fuel economy because of aggressive tuning, even for every day driving. It doesn't even look like it has different drive modes in that there is a more economical mode vs full on sport or race modes, which speaks to the no-nonsense charachter Ford was trying to achieve with the GT. I wonder though, if you put this car on the track with it's competitors for say a 15-20 lap race, if a fuel economy advantage would emerge against the competition much like the racecar did.
Sent from my SM-G935P using the svtperformance.com mobile app
Sent from my SM-G935P using the svtperformance.com mobile app
Not only do I agree with your post, but you bring up a perspective I hadn't considered before.
Um, yeah. Have you ever seen the stupid shit people argue over on the interwebs? This thread is a great example.
If someone can afford a Ford GT; fuel efficiency shouldn't be a problem.
Sent from somewhere in the Twilight Zone.
Sent from somewhere in the Twilight Zone.
Users who are viewing this thread
