Author Topic: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs  (Read 9982 times)

Left Bank

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 102
  • Location: Bend, OR
New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« on: September 26, 2014, 08:45:44 PM »
Just what you need,  Line-Lock.  Yes, you can push a button on your new car and it will lock the front wheels so that you can shred your rear tires in a "burnout" for up to 15 seconds.

Hmm, a new gas-guzzler, with a tire-wasting function - sounds pretty anti-mustachian to me.

http://www.businessinsider.com/2015-ford-mustang-gt-line-lock-2014-9

RWD

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4482
  • Location: Mississippi
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2014, 08:50:04 PM »
It's to heat up the rear tires for drag racing. Of course, this should only be done at the drag strip and with tires designed for this function (street tires don't really get grippy when you do a burnout).

I'm more annoyed that they are faking the engine noise on the most economical model. Just adds weight, cost, and complexity to pretend to be something it isn't...
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/09/24/ford-mustang-ecoboost-fake-engine-soundtrack/

RWD

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4482
  • Location: Mississippi
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2014, 09:54:39 PM »
I'm more annoyed that they are faking the engine noise on the most economical model. Just adds weight, cost, and complexity to pretend to be something it isn't...

Another fun part is that "the most economical model" really isn't.  That ecoboost engine requires premium gas.  The V6 doesn't and gets only slightly worse MPG.  Not that anybody is buying a Mustang for fuel economy.

Really? Fueleconomy.gov says both the EcoBoost and V6 take regular. The estimated cost of fuel for 15,000 miles is $1,950 for the EcoBoost and $2,400 for the V6. I'd say that's a pretty significant difference.

Of course the purpose of the Mustang is not fuel economy, but the 31-32 mpg rating for highway driving is quite reasonable for a rear-wheel drive vehicle.

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2014, 04:19:08 AM »
Of course the purpose of the Mustang is not fuel economy, but the 31-32 mpg rating for highway driving is quite reasonable for a rear-wheel drive vehicle.

There is nothing reasonable about 31-32 highway MPG. That is the same highway MPG a 64 mustang got. So 50 years later, no MPG improvement. You can thanks the government for that though as the DOT kills MPG improvementby mandating massive curb weight and the EPA kills MPG by mandating emissions controls. Both add a tremendous amount of cost to the price of the car.

Reddleman

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 116
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2014, 06:44:14 AM »
While EPA rules definitely add weight to the car, well reasoned people could argue all day whether the environmental benefits are worth it.  I'll leave that one alone.

I wouldn't blame the dot too much for safety.  Thats more the consumer than anything else.  They bought the marketing that big is both better and safer, and haven't put a priority on mpg until recently.

Manufacturers can easily meet govt safety standards with lightweight cars- Honda being really good at this.  They sold the CRX-HF more than 20 years ago that got over 50 mpg, and the first generation insight weighed in at less than 2000 lbs and still met all safety requirements.

Problem is that most Americans want cheap, comfy, and powerful much more than efficient- so that's what is most profitable for carmakers to sell.  No sense in spending more money on research and development for more mpg if you're not going to get a good return on investment.

SnackDog

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1276
  • Location: Latin America
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2014, 08:14:23 AM »
Mustangs are perhaps the most frugal way to go fast.  No other car gives you as much bang for your buck.

RWD

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4482
  • Location: Mississippi
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2014, 11:47:01 AM »
Of course the purpose of the Mustang is not fuel economy, but the 31-32 mpg rating for highway driving is quite reasonable for a rear-wheel drive vehicle.

There is nothing reasonable about 31-32 highway MPG. That is the same highway MPG a 64 mustang got. So 50 years later, no MPG improvement. You can thanks the government for that though as the DOT kills MPG improvementby mandating massive curb weight and the EPA kills MPG by mandating emissions controls. Both add a tremendous amount of cost to the price of the car.

Maybe you could get 31 mpg on the highway with a 64 Mustang, but there's no way it would be rated that today by the EPA (current ratings are very pessimistic). And even if it could, it would be doing it with leaded fuel and no catalytic converters resulting in much more pollution than a modern vehicle. Also, this page says city fuel economy was around 8 mpg...
http://www.oldride.com/library/1964_ford_mustang.html

There's no way you can argue that the current cars are not a huge improvement.

hdatontodo

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Location: Balto Co, MD
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2014, 03:45:23 PM »
My 2012 Mustang got 26mpg with gentle driving. Sold it and bought my elderly mom's Corolla which gets 35 per gallon

CabinetGuy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2014, 03:52:40 PM »
While EPA rules definitely add weight to the car, well reasoned people could argue all day whether the environmental benefits are worth it.  I'll leave that one alone.

I wouldn't blame the dot too much for safety.  Thats more the consumer than anything else.  They bought the marketing that big is both better and safer, and haven't put a priority on mpg until recently.

Manufacturers can easily meet govt safety standards with lightweight cars- Honda being really good at this.  They sold the CRX-HF more than 20 years ago that got over 50 mpg, and the first generation insight weighed in at less than 2000 lbs and still met all safety requirements.

Problem is that most Americans want cheap, comfy, and powerful much more than efficient- so that's what is most profitable for carmakers to sell.  No sense in spending more money on research and development for more mpg if you're not going to get a good return on investment.

God I miss my '86 CRX.  Used to fill it up for $8.00 (in 1999), and get 45mpg.  Not to mention it was a blast to drive.

Jon

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1938
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2014, 08:29:10 PM »
Lol.   Business Insider says "Line lock ... is awesomely useless in real life.   ...  Bravo Ford!"

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or if they're serious.

southern granny

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2014, 08:59:01 PM »
You gotta be "car people" to understand the attraction.  Car people are generally a little nuts.  I know.  But Ford knows what they are doing.  That little feature will sell cars, but unfortunately will get a lot of people reckless driving citations and increased insurance rates. 

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2014, 01:50:25 PM »
Mustangs are perhaps the most frugal way to go fast.  No other car gives you as much bang for your buck.

Definitely.  Mustang with the 2.3L EcoBoost is now at the top of my list for a replacement daily beater (once they get to be about 10 years old of course!).  :-)  It's nice to be able to walk into any local store and get any part needed for just about any year Mustang ever.  Compare with my Toyota where *if* parts are available it can be a 2 week wait as they're always special order (and they cost 10x as much as Mustang parts)+.  :-/

Nords

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3300
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Oahu
    • Military Retirement & Financial Independence blog
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2014, 02:30:25 PM »
Mustangs are perhaps the most frugal way to go fast.  No other car gives you as much bang for your buck.
I think the terms "frugal" and "Mustang" are oxymoronic.

dutchcheap

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs..a different perspective
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2014, 07:23:17 AM »
 What would people's opinion of the line lock feature were more aptly named "hill holder" or
some other name ? One of the biggest complainypants thing about driving a standard transmission
vehicle is needing three feet to deal with an intersection on a slope,especially novice drivers. The
line lock feature would make taking off in traffic on the steepest hill a snap ! No rolling back,no jerky
starts or worse,stalling the vehicle. MMM has advocated manual transmissions since the beginning
along with bigger isn't safer when choosing a car. Airbags have been part of the technology that make "bigger is safer" a myth. Airbags didn't get their start on entry level vehicles,they were first
installed on luxobarges that take a regular beating on this forum. Ditto for many of the safety features found on modern transportation. Granted the advertising for the line lock is double dipped and deep fried in testosterone but that can be cured. The driveline innovation that makes
a car truly Mustachian was born ,bred and proven on a race track first. 

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #14 on: September 29, 2014, 08:16:06 AM »
So who here has a new 2015 Mustang on order??

C'mon, quit hiding... You're here somewhere :)

Ashyukun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs..a different perspective
« Reply #15 on: September 29, 2014, 08:32:46 AM »
What would people's opinion of the line lock feature were more aptly named "hill holder" or
some other name ? One of the biggest complainypants thing about driving a standard transmission
vehicle is needing three feet to deal with an intersection on a slope,especially novice drivers. The
line lock feature would make taking off in traffic on the steepest hill a snap ! No rolling back,no jerky
starts or worse,stalling the vehicle. MMM has advocated manual transmissions since the beginning
along with bigger isn't safer when choosing a car. Airbags have been part of the technology that make "bigger is safer" a myth. Airbags didn't get their start on entry level vehicles,they were first
installed on luxobarges that take a regular beating on this forum. Ditto for many of the safety features found on modern transportation. Granted the advertising for the line lock is double dipped and deep fried in testosterone but that can be cured. The driveline innovation that makes
a car truly Mustachian was born ,bred and proven on a race track first.
There are at least a few manufacturers who have setups that keep you from rolling back on a hill in a manual. One of my friends bought a Fiat 500 Abarth earlier this year and was telling me that it had that feature- it would hold the brakes for you so you could have your feet on the clutch and accelerator to start from a stop. Really fun little car to drive, though was more than I'd want to spend. Really though, it's not THAT hard to learn to hold a stickshift on a hill with the clutch and accelerator- being able to start halfway up a hill without rolling back was one of the things I had to master on our manual car before I was allowed to even get into the driver's seat of the automatic.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17444
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #16 on: September 29, 2014, 09:51:08 AM »
Mustangs are perhaps the most frugal way to go fast.  No other car gives you as much bang for your buck.

Completely disagree.  My '05 Corolla goes very fast . . . significantly faster than I can run or bike (and even faster than the legally posted limit) at far less cost than a mustang.

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs..a different perspective
« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2014, 10:02:30 AM »
What would people's opinion of the line lock feature were more aptly named "hill holder" or
some other name ? One of the biggest complainypants thing about driving a standard transmission
vehicle is needing three feet to deal with an intersection on a slope,especially novice drivers. The
line lock feature would make taking off in traffic on the steepest hill a snap ! No rolling back,no jerky
starts or worse,stalling the vehicle.

That's just silly and unnecessary.  That's why manual transmission cars have handbrakes in them.

RWD

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4482
  • Location: Mississippi
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs..a different perspective
« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2014, 10:02:45 AM »
What would people's opinion of the line lock feature were more aptly named "hill holder" or
some other name ? One of the biggest complainypants thing about driving a standard transmission
vehicle is needing three feet to deal with an intersection on a slope,especially novice drivers.

I used to own a 1995 Subaru Legacy that had a hill holder. It would keep the brakes depressed (only as hard as you had pressed the pedal) until you let the clutch out. Not a bad system, though I found it to get in the way occasionally. Line lock is something completely different though.


Mustangs are perhaps the most frugal way to go fast.  No other car gives you as much bang for your buck.

Completely disagree.  My '05 Corolla goes very fast . . . significantly faster than I can run or bike (and even faster than the legally posted limit) at far less cost than a mustang.

Fast is certainly a relative term.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4726
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs..a different perspective
« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2014, 10:49:40 AM »
What would people's opinion of the line lock feature were more aptly named "hill holder" or
some other name ? One of the biggest complainypants thing about driving a standard transmission
vehicle is needing three feet to deal with an intersection on a slope,especially novice drivers. The
line lock feature would make taking off in traffic on the steepest hill a snap ! No rolling back,no jerky
starts or worse,stalling the vehicle.

That's just silly and unnecessary.  That's why manual transmission cars have handbrakes in them.

My manual-transmission Ford Ranger has a foot-operated emergency brake. It also doesn't have a lot of torque (the engine is the same 2.3L I-4 formerly found in the Pinto), so steep uphill starts are an "interesting" exercise in lots of RPMs and clutch slippage...

FunkyStickman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Louisiana
    • Living Outside the Box
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2014, 11:23:08 AM »
Mustangs are perhaps the most frugal way to go fast.  No other car gives you as much bang for your buck.

I wouldn't say that, especially not with the newer models. There are plenty of other cheaper used cars that are just as capable. Pontiac Solstice GXP, for starters. 3700lb curb weight for the 'Stang doesn't help... my Saturn can run those times with less power and FWD, because it has a 700lb weight advantage!

Anybody remember the original Mustang fox-body turbo 4? That car was years ahead of its time.

Timmmy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs..a different perspective
« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2014, 11:24:37 AM »
What would people's opinion of the line lock feature were more aptly named "hill holder" or
some other name ? One of the biggest complainypants thing about driving a standard transmission
vehicle is needing three feet to deal with an intersection on a slope,especially novice drivers. The
line lock feature would make taking off in traffic on the steepest hill a snap ! No rolling back,no jerky
starts or worse,stalling the vehicle.

That's just silly and unnecessary.  That's why manual transmission cars have handbrakes in them.

My manual-transmission Ford Ranger has a foot-operated emergency brake. It also doesn't have a lot of torque (the engine is the same 2.3L I-4 formerly found in the Pinto), so steep uphill starts are an "interesting" exercise in lots of RPMs and clutch slippage...

Foot operated parking brake with HAND release. 

Stop vehicle. Put in neutral. Set parking brake. Wait. Apply throttle. Begin releasing clutch. At point of friction release parking brake. 

This is all a moot point anyway.  Learn to drive.  No reason that's needed unless you can't drive. 

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heel-and-toe

Sometime when stuck in traffic I'll just use the throttle/clutch to hold the car.  Waste of gas and clutch but it keeps me occupied. 

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4726
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs..a different perspective
« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2014, 01:01:07 PM »
My manual-transmission Ford Ranger has a foot-operated emergency brake. It also doesn't have a lot of torque (the engine is the same 2.3L I-4 formerly found in the Pinto), so steep uphill starts are an "interesting" exercise in lots of RPMs and clutch slippage...

Foot operated parking brake with HAND release. 

Stop vehicle. Put in neutral. Set parking brake. Wait. Apply throttle. Begin releasing clutch. At point of friction release parking brake. 

This is all a moot point anyway.  Learn to drive.  No reason that's needed unless you can't drive. 

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heel-and-toe

Sometime when stuck in traffic I'll just use the throttle/clutch to hold the car.  Waste of gas and clutch but it keeps me occupied.

I seem to have given you the impression that I can't drive properly. Let me assure you that such an impression would be severely mistaken. I was merely pointing out -- in a way I had hoped would be entertaining -- that not all manual-transmission cars have (fully) hand-operated emergency brakes.

(Also, my emergency brake is so worn that it not only barely holds the truck on a hill, but also can't even be adjusted tight enough to hold better. And the release handle is broken. Eventually, I'm going to have to replace the whole mechanism, cable and all. But all that's another story...)

Timmmy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs..a different perspective
« Reply #23 on: September 29, 2014, 01:32:59 PM »
My manual-transmission Ford Ranger has a foot-operated emergency brake. It also doesn't have a lot of torque (the engine is the same 2.3L I-4 formerly found in the Pinto), so steep uphill starts are an "interesting" exercise in lots of RPMs and clutch slippage...

Foot operated parking brake with HAND release. 

Stop vehicle. Put in neutral. Set parking brake. Wait. Apply throttle. Begin releasing clutch. At point of friction release parking brake. 

This is all a moot point anyway.  Learn to drive.  No reason that's needed unless you can't drive. 

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heel-and-toe

Sometime when stuck in traffic I'll just use the throttle/clutch to hold the car.  Waste of gas and clutch but it keeps me occupied.

I seem to have given you the impression that I can't drive properly. Let me assure you that such an impression would be severely mistaken. I was merely pointing out -- in a way I had hoped would be entertaining -- that not all manual-transmission cars have (fully) hand-operated emergency brakes.

(Also, my emergency brake is so worn that it not only barely holds the truck on a hill, but also can't even be adjusted tight enough to hold better. And the release handle is broken. Eventually, I'm going to have to replace the whole mechanism, cable and all. But all that's another story...)

Not at all...  Just pointing out to those watching at home that it's still possible with a foot operated parking brake. 

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2014, 01:35:33 PM »
Maybe you could get 31 mpg on the highway with a 64 Mustang, but there's no way it would be rated that today by the EPA (current ratings are very pessimistic). And even if it could, it would be doing it with leaded fuel and no catalytic converters resulting in much more pollution than a modern vehicle. Also, this page says city fuel economy was around 8 mpg...
http://www.oldride.com/library/1964_ford_mustang.html

There's no way you can argue that the current cars are not a huge improvement.

How different can in be driving on the highway at 65-70 MPH and calculating the MPG at fill up today vs 10 years ago vs 50 years ago? Is the EPA now calculating highway MPG going uphill the whole way? That's the only thing I can think of that would change it. I'm talking real world 30 MPG highway, low-mid 30s if you drive 55. City MPG high teens to low 20s. This is with a 170 straight six and manual trans with no overdrive. A high output small block with an automatic transmission would get significantly worse MPG, as in 1/2 or 1/3 the MPG of the economy driveline, I suspect that's where that 8 MPG figure comes from.

64 Mustangs don't burn leaded fuel these days unless you fill up at the airport, and that make you not welcome there at best or fined heavily at worst. Those small sixes were very low compression at 8.7:1, no need for lead to bump the octane as regular unleaded is fine. Pollution is irrelevant to a MPG and TCO discussion but if you care about pollution beyond driving a very fuel efficient car then you can add a catalytic converter, they only cost around $100. You could also add fuel injection and the full works of emissions equipment on top of that but then your spending a lot of money and decreasing MPG vs leaving it as it came or only adding/changing things that increase MPG or reduce emissions without decreasing MPG.

If you really wanted to get efficient with your 64 Mustang you could bump the compression up, do all the associated performance improvements, tune it for max MPG, and add an overdrive transmission and enjoy 40+ MPG highway for a fraction of the price of a new car and have a stable resale value.

Current cars a huge improvement? Not in terms of MPG, serviceability, or TCO. Safety, emissions, and luxury? Sure, current cars are a significant improvement.

The_Dude

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #25 on: September 29, 2014, 02:31:24 PM »
First gen Mustangs getting 30+ MPG in the highway is a huge exception rather than the norm.  I'm not saying it can't be done but it certainly wouldn't be normal.  And no you aren't getting one of them to consistently get 40 MPG with the original drive train regardless of the mods.

I researched getting a 64-66 Mustang with 6 cylinder a few years ago and the consensus on the enthusiast Mustang forums was that a well tuned stock one would get maybe 20-25 mpg on the freeway and a combined mileage of high teens if you were lucky.

RWD

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4482
  • Location: Mississippi
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #26 on: September 29, 2014, 05:27:00 PM »
Maybe you could get 31 mpg on the highway with a 64 Mustang, but there's no way it would be rated that today by the EPA (current ratings are very pessimistic). And even if it could, it would be doing it with leaded fuel and no catalytic converters resulting in much more pollution than a modern vehicle. Also, this page says city fuel economy was around 8 mpg...
http://www.oldride.com/library/1964_ford_mustang.html

There's no way you can argue that the current cars are not a huge improvement.

How different can in be driving on the highway at 65-70 MPH and calculating the MPG at fill up today vs 10 years ago vs 50 years ago? Is the EPA now calculating highway MPG going uphill the whole way? That's the only thing I can think of that would change it. I'm talking real world 30 MPG highway, low-mid 30s if you drive 55. City MPG high teens to low 20s. This is with a 170 straight six and manual trans with no overdrive. A high output small block with an automatic transmission would get significantly worse MPG, as in 1/2 or 1/3 the MPG of the economy driveline, I suspect that's where that 8 MPG figure comes from.

The EPA highway rating is not for a steady speed. Their lab procedures include accelerating and decelerating. In addition, in 2008 they updated the calculations to be even more pessimistic. I have a vehicle (newer than 2008) that has an EPA highway rating of 30 mpg, which is similar to the Mustang. However, I can easily achieve 45-50 mpg in steady state (~55 mph cruise), flat terrain driving without any drafting. And that's why today's 30 mpg rated car is a huge improvement in fuel economy over a car that could barely break 30 mpg at 55 mph.

Link on EPA testing: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml

strider3700

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Location: northern BC
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs..a different perspective
« Reply #27 on: September 29, 2014, 05:44:53 PM »

I used to own a 1995 Subaru Legacy that had a hill holder. It would keep the brakes depressed (only as hard as you had pressed the pedal) until you let the clutch out. Not a bad system, though I found it to get in the way occasionally. Line lock is something completely different though.


My 2014 Subaru has the same system in it.   It's a little weird to get used to after having driven a stick in other cars for some many years.  the only time It's an issue is I tend to not bother shifting into reverse to backout of the drive way,  just put the clutch in a roll back onto the street ( I've got lots of visibility so lack of backup lights isn't going to cause issues)   That doesn't work right away as the hill holder keeps the brakes applied for 3 or 4 seconds before letting me roll.

RWD

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4482
  • Location: Mississippi
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs..a different perspective
« Reply #28 on: September 29, 2014, 05:49:23 PM »

I used to own a 1995 Subaru Legacy that had a hill holder. It would keep the brakes depressed (only as hard as you had pressed the pedal) until you let the clutch out. Not a bad system, though I found it to get in the way occasionally. Line lock is something completely different though.


My 2014 Subaru has the same system in it.   It's a little weird to get used to after having driven a stick in other cars for some many years.  the only time It's an issue is I tend to not bother shifting into reverse to backout of the drive way,  just put the clutch in a roll back onto the street ( I've got lots of visibility so lack of backup lights isn't going to cause issues)   That doesn't work right away as the hill holder keeps the brakes applied for 3 or 4 seconds before letting me roll.

Have you tried letting the clutch out with the shifter in neutral to get it to disengage sooner? My Subaru's hill holder was triggered by clutch position, if I recall correctly.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4726
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #29 on: September 30, 2014, 09:03:58 AM »
Maybe you could get 31 mpg on the highway with a 64 Mustang, but there's no way it would be rated that today by the EPA (current ratings are very pessimistic). And even if it could, it would be doing it with leaded fuel and no catalytic converters resulting in much more pollution than a modern vehicle. Also, this page says city fuel economy was around 8 mpg...
http://www.oldride.com/library/1964_ford_mustang.html

There's no way you can argue that the current cars are not a huge improvement.

How different can in be driving on the highway at 65-70 MPH and calculating the MPG at fill up today vs 10 years ago vs 50 years ago? Is the EPA now calculating highway MPG going uphill the whole way? That's the only thing I can think of that would change it. I'm talking real world 30 MPG highway, low-mid 30s if you drive 55. City MPG high teens to low 20s. This is with a 170 straight six and manual trans with no overdrive. A high output small block with an automatic transmission would get significantly worse MPG, as in 1/2 or 1/3 the MPG of the economy driveline, I suspect that's where that 8 MPG figure comes from.

The EPA highway rating is not for a steady speed. Their lab procedures include accelerating and decelerating. In addition, in 2008 they updated the calculations to be even more pessimistic. I have a vehicle (newer than 2008) that has an EPA highway rating of 30 mpg, which is similar to the Mustang. However, I can easily achieve 45-50 mpg in steady state (~55 mph cruise), flat terrain driving without any drafting. And that's why today's 30 mpg rated car is a huge improvement in fuel economy over a car that could barely break 30 mpg at 55 mph.

Link on EPA testing: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml

You can even go see how drastically the MPG ratings changed, because when they changed the testing procedure, they also went back and recalculated the ratings for all relatively recent cars. The highway rating for a first-gen manual-transmission Honda Insight, for example, retroactively changed from 70mpg to 60mpg.

I would say that current ratings are not overly "pessimistic" (except possibly for cars with unusual drivetrains), but rather that they're now "realistic" for average drivers instead of "too optimistic" as they were before. The previous standards assumed "highway speed" meant a maximum of about 55 mph, for example, when the vast majority of people drive much faster than that.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4280
  • Age: 29
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #30 on: September 30, 2014, 09:50:17 AM »
I would say that current ratings are not overly "pessimistic" (except possibly for cars with unusual drivetrains), but rather that they're now "realistic" for average drivers instead of "too optimistic" as they were before. The previous standards assumed "highway speed" meant a maximum of about 55 mph, for example, when the vast majority of people drive much faster than that.
Strictly going by cars that I've owned and tracked MPG for more than a few thousand miles:

1988 Chevy Sprint Metro
Original Rating: 54/58MPG
"Revised" Rating: 44/51MPG
My MPG: Consistently 53MPG over 26,000 miles.  Best tank was 57MPG, worst 46MPG.  Arguably an even split between old rating and new.  However, this car was made before ethanol in gas was commonplace, so that brings down MPG with E10 gas, which I used almost exclusively.  Also, it was 24-25 years old when I owned it.  I'm sure when it was brand new with real E0 gasoline, it hit its original rating.

1996 Volvo 850 Wagon
Original Rating: 20/29MPG
"Revised" Rating: 18/26MPG
My MPG: Average of 26MPG combined city/highway over 13,000 miles.  Around 23-24MPG in town, and 30MPG on the highway.  Pretty close to the original rating, far beyond the "revised" rating.  160,000+ miles on the car at the time, still running great.

1999 Chevy Metro
Original Rating: 41/47MPG
"Revised" Rating: 34/42MPG
My MPG: Average of 45MPG over 12,000 miles.  Includes both in-town and 70-75MPH interstate madness.  Not much variation between city/highway that I've noticed.  Right in the middle-high end of the original rating, leagues ahead of the "revised rating".  158,000 miles at the moment, engine is a little weak and might be losing some compression (testing later this week).

1992 Buick Roadmaster Wagon
Original Rating: 16/25MPG
"Revised" Rating: 15/23MPG
My MPG: Only have put about 2,500 miles on it, but in that time have averaged a total of 18MPG.  Does about 20-22MPG highway (at 75-80MPH, haven't really done any more sensible highway driving with it) at the moment, and 16MPG in-town.  160,900 miles at the moment, running a little rough at the moment.  Here the ratings are pretty close, but it's really hard to make a call which is more accurate until it's been driven more.  Also every single mile has been with AC on, because the car is a greenhouse, so that skews it down some.

Overall, yes, in my experience the "revised" ratings are rather pessimistic, especially the "city" rating.  And the newest of these cars is 15 years old.  I'm sure straight off the assembly line all of these cars did even better.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4726
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2014, 11:14:04 AM »
[Anecdotes about MPG]

You:
  • Have owned not just one Chevy Metro, but several
  • Track your mileage
  • Participate in the MMM forum
You are decidedly not average!

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4280
  • Age: 29
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2014, 12:21:09 PM »
[Anecdotes about MPG]

You:
  • Have owned not just one Chevy Metro, but several
  • Track your mileage
  • Participate in the MMM forum
You are decidedly not average!
Well shit.

stevedoug

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 95
    • Photon Chasing
Re: New Standard Feature of 2015 Mustang GTs
« Reply #33 on: September 30, 2014, 04:41:40 PM »
Of course the purpose of the Mustang is not fuel economy, but the 31-32 mpg rating for highway driving is quite reasonable for a rear-wheel drive vehicle.

There is nothing reasonable about 31-32 highway MPG. That is the same highway MPG a 64 mustang got. So 50 years later, no MPG improvement. You can thanks the government for that though as the DOT kills MPG improvementby mandating massive curb weight and the EPA kills MPG by mandating emissions controls. Both add a tremendous amount of cost to the price of the car.

Maybe you could get 31 mpg on the highway with a 64 Mustang, but there's no way it would be rated that today by the EPA (current ratings are very pessimistic). And even if it could, it would be doing it with leaded fuel and no catalytic converters resulting in much more pollution than a modern vehicle. Also, this page says city fuel economy was around 8 mpg...
http://www.oldride.com/library/1964_ford_mustang.html

There's no way you can argue that the current cars are not a huge improvement.

Thank you for adding correct information in this conversation.
MPG ratings have improved, emissions requirements have improved, reliability has gone up, quality of materials has improve, safety has increased, and yes, weight has increased. Some of that is due to the government, some is due to consumer demand.

None of it is necessary, of course.
Especially since we should all be biking on used craigslist bikes, and not driving anywhere!

Full disclosure, I am an automotive engineer with 2 cars.