Topic: Test Drive: 2011 Ford Mustang V6 convertible

[Autos_Editor]

An all-new V6 engine with more power and better fuel economy highlights the 2011 Ford Mustang V6 convertible, along with other mechanical refinements, reports Editor, Greg Wilson.  Lower pricing for 2011 is also good news for consumers, he notes.

Read More...

[overtakeyouintheleftlane]

I drove the 2011 Mustang soft top with the 5.0L V8. The power was insane. The car was a beauty.

"people won’t need to spend extra money for the V8 version. The V6 has all the power you need and better fuel economy" - Regarding thie statement, if you're going to buy a muscle car or pony car, eg. Mustang, Challenger, Camaro, etc. you shouldn't be concerned about fuel economy. Why get a muscle car when you don't have "all of the muscle" to back it up?

Fuel economy should be a priority for a Civic, etc. Not these kind of cars. In this category, go big or go home.

[John Macdonald]

I drove the 2011 Mustang soft top with the 5.0L V8. The power was insane. The car was a beauty.

"people won’t need to spend extra money for the V8 version. The V6 has all the power you need and better fuel economy" - Regarding thie statement, if you're going to buy a "muscle car", eg. Mustang, Challenger, Camaro, etc. you shouldn't be concerned about fuel economy. Why get a "muscle car" when you don't have "all of the muscles"?

That's like saying that everyone should get a Boss or Cobra edition.  Sure the V8 is a fantastic car but fuel economy and performance are great things.  Not to mention just how much cheaper the vehicle is.  If I was buying a sports car the base model Mustang V6 would be on my list because it's such a great value.  The V8 is a great vehicle but not a great value compared to the base V6.

[tpl]

In the next to impossible situation where I might buy a Mustang I can see no reason not to buy a V8 just because.

Overtake has it right. "In this category, go big or go home."

[PJAvenger]

Some of the words that never even entered my mind when I bought my '11 GT Convertible:

Fuel Economy
Winter Traction
Trunk Space
Rear Seat Head/Leg room

If I was in the market for a family sedan, then maybe these things would matter.  Mustang Convertible?  Not so much.

[AP]

The V6 is no substitute for the V8.  If the V6 is all that a buyer can afford, then, hey, there is no shame in that.  But don't deny that buying the V6 is anything but second best.  A Mustang isn't a Mustang unless it has a V8.  Period.

Also, 14 l/100 km?  C'mon now - That reported fuel economy warrants a more explicit disclaimer that the car was beaten.  I can get better mileage in my 2006 4.6 V8 Mustang driving 145 km/h.

[wing]

Beaten?  I know Greg I seriously doubt it was beaten.  Idled in traffic for hours yes.

[kenm]

The comments about fuel economy from the posters above, have to be the some of the most asinine I've ever read. In todays world, the fuel economy of every single vehicle that rolls off the line is important, no matter what its purpose. Choose whatever vehicle that "floats your boat", but only the dumbest and most ignorant of rednecks would actually deride somebody for opting for fuel economy over increasing the already decent performance of said vehicle.

As for the actual fuel consumption of the Mustang in the test; none of us have any idea what it is, because in a typically lazy Canadian Driver fashion, no attempt is made at verifying the indicated number.

[tpl]

"the fuel economy of every single vehicle that rolls off the line is important, no matter what its purpose."

nope.   This is true for 95% but the other 5% of vehicles ( lets call them toys for rich boys) it just does not matter.  If it did then there would be no Corvettes, Ferraris and so on.   

[wing]

I'd like to hear how Ken calculates his fuel consumption scientifically and what calibration equipment he uses each time he fills up his vehicles. 

[Fred]

To put this car's straight line performance in perspective, "THE" German supercar through the 70's was the Porsche 930. Even today, it has immeasurable credibility. And, stock, it's 0-60 time was 5.0 seconds. Think about that for a minute. This $30K V6 Mustang can near-keep up.

This V6 Mustang astonishes (yes, the V8 is even more astonishing ). But a V6 car needs no justification. Well done, Mulally

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I tried out a V6 with the 6 speed manual a couple of weekends ago, and liked it very much. I doubt I'd spend more for the V8. HUGE improvement over the V6 Mustang I had as a rental in 2006 or Mum's 2008 convertible.

[kenm]

"the fuel economy of every single vehicle that rolls off the line is important, no matter what its purpose."

nope.   This is true for 95% but the other 5% of vehicles ( lets call them toys for rich boys) it just does not matter.  If it did then there would be no Corvettes, Ferraris and so on.   

It may or may not matter for the "rich boys" (or girls) who buy them, but it sure as hell matters for the rest of the planet and the automotive industry in general. If Ford sells 200,000 Mustangs annually and improves the fuel economy of the Mustang fleet by 7%, that's like taking 14,000 of them off the road, in terms of energy consumption. Any automotive company that manages to achieve this should be applauded, especially when they are able to maintain or improve overall performance. Automotive technologies tend to migrate, so a technology that starts off on a Corvette or a Ferrari, may reach the higher volume vehicles as the manufacturing costs go down.

Every improvement counts for something, even if it's on a vehicle that only sells a couple hundred a year. Even if global warming and "peak oil" are complete myths, there is no justifiable reason to forego reductions in energy consumption whenever and wherever possible.

[kenm]

I'd like to hear how Ken calculates his fuel consumption scientifically and what calibration equipment he uses each time he fills up his vehicles. 

Oh yes.........without properly calibrated test lab equipment and a controlled test loop with repeatable weather conditions for every single vehicle, there's no point in doing it, right? Well, I think most of the readers are capable of comprehending the variables involved. The CD articles usually give a pretty good description of how the vehicle was driven and what the conditions were.

I'm just having a real hard time believing that the V6 Mustang only achieved 14L/100km over the entire span of its evaluation, or that the Sonata was able to hit 6.2L/100km on the road trip to Ottawa, or that a Corolla averaged 57.5 mpg on the 2008 CD 50 litre challenge. So, with those things in mind, how about this?

1. Pick up the vehicle to be tested.
2. Go to a gas station, fill said vehicle to the top or until the pump clicks off; whichever you prefer.
3. Immediately reset the trip meter to zero.
4. Drive the car until it needs fuel or needs to be returned (kind of like a rental car).
5. Refill the car by the same method as in step 2.
6. Record the number of litres of fuel consumed, the km's travelled, and calculate the resulting fuel consumption. (You can even skip the calculation part, as I think most of the readers are able to do this, if they care to.)
7. If the test lasts more than one tank, keep running totals. The longer the test, the more accurate the result will be.
8. If the feature includes a road trip, break that portion out separately, as was done in the recent Sonata test. (Too bad they got the math wrong.)

Now, before you all start flaming me with, "odometers / trip meters aren't calibrated", "gas station pump volumes vary", and "the refill level won't repeat", let me save you some keyboard wear and tear by responding right now. I don’t freaking care. The result will be more accurate than the fuel economy numbers that have been casually tossed out in half the CD road tests I’ve read over the last 2 years. Odometers are better all the time and are easily verified. With all the variables taken into account, the result will still be 95% accurate, and provide a real world fuel economy picture for the readers. I’ve been doing it randomly for years, and under similar driving conditions, my numbers constantly repeat.

There is one possible wrench in the gears. If these road tests we so eagerly read, consist of a jaunt of 50 or 100 km’s, than it’s probably not even worth topping up the tank. You really need to go through a half of a tank, or better yet, a full tank, to get a reasonable handle on the fuel economy. However, it would be interesting to know exactly how many km’s you guys are putting on these vehicles.

[wing]

Well if that is all you want that is EXACTLY what 99% of the journalists do, including myself.  Sometimes I only do 200km so I don't get a full tank but I get down half a tank say.

Now I have tested hundreds of cars and compared the trip computer with the fuel pump on approximately half of those if not 2/3rds and every SINGLE time -- yes EVERY SINGLE TIME, the calculated consumption at the pump has been within a variance of less than 1% from the onboard computer.  So really the onboard computers are probably MORE accurate -- but it seems that yourself and others either A) do not have a vehicle with on board B) never bothered to check how accurate it is.

Regarding the Sonata article Paul wrote, he said "40L" but perhaps that was just an estimate for the article, perhaps he put in 45.78L he didn't really say.  But I can confirm his findings from my article on the Sonata:
Over the course of the week with my typical commute I averaged 8.4L/100km
AND
6.0 litres per 100km was my fuel consumption average on a trek from Ottawa to Bowmanville, Ontario and back on Monday. I followed Highway 7 so my average speed was probably close to 80km/h.

Believe it or not the Sonata gets amazing fuel economy.

[DKaz]

I'm just having a real hard time believing that the V6 Mustang only achieved 14L/100km over the entire span of its evaluation, or that the Sonata was able to hit 6.2L/100km on the road trip to Ottawa, or that a Corolla averaged 57.5 mpg on the 2008 CD 50 litre challenge. So, with those things in mind, how about this?

Why is it hard to believe? I was able to do 4.7L/100km in my 2008 Corolla (rated 5.3L/100km hwy), about 37.7L for 800 km from West Edmonton to Kamloops. My Mazda 5 rated at 8.1L/100km I can do 7.5L/100km if I keep it at about 100, a bit over 8L/100km if I cruise at 120. The Sonata is rated at 5.7L/100km so I bet if they tried, they could do 5.1 or 5.2L/100km. 6.2L/100km is definitely real world.

[kenm]

Well if that is all you want that is EXACTLY what 99% of the journalists do, including myself.  Sometimes I only do 200km so I don't get a full tank but I get down half a tank say.

Now I have tested hundreds of cars and compared the trip computer with the fuel pump on approximately half of those if not 2/3rds and every SINGLE time -- yes EVERY SINGLE TIME, the calculated consumption at the pump has been within a variance of less than 1% from the onboard computer.  So really the onboard computers are probably MORE accurate -- but it seems that yourself and others either A) do not have a vehicle with on board B) never bothered to check how accurate it is.

Regarding the Sonata article Paul wrote, he said "40L" but perhaps that was just an estimate for the article, perhaps he put in 45.78L he didn't really say.  But I can confirm his findings from my article on the Sonata:
Over the course of the week with my typical commute I averaged 8.4L/100km
AND
6.0 litres per 100km was my fuel consumption average on a trek from Ottawa to Bowmanville, Ontario and back on Monday. I followed Highway 7 so my average speed was probably close to 80km/h.

Believe it or not the Sonata gets amazing fuel economy.

You are correct in guessing that I don't have a trip computer, so I don't have first hand experience to verify their accuracy. If you browse automotive forums, it's not uncommon to find a thread where someone's trip computer fuel consumption is at odds with their manual calculation. Some people even keep spreadsheets (I can be a little anal by times, but I'm not at the spreadsheet level yet). Unfailingly, other posters come back with, "I've got the exact same car and mine's almost dead on........you're doing something wrong". This makes me wonder about the consistency of the trip computers.

As for Canadian Driver, it would be nice to have a little more detail on the fuel economy results.
-How many km's were logged on the vehicle?
-Was the result obtained from the trip computer, manual calculation, or both?
-Was the result obtained from an average of the total km's driven, or was it a "snapshot" of a certain portion of the test?

On the subject of the Sonata, I do believe CD's observations of outstanding fuel economy and there are many other reports appearing that confirm it. Paul appeared to very precise in reporting 40 litres of fuel consumption for 565 km at 115 km/h. I was only observing that these numbers result in 7.1 L/100 km, not 6.2 L/100 km. At that speed, 7.1 is still a very respectable number.

I've made a personal committment that every vehicle I buy, from now until I stop buying them, is going to get better fuel economy than its predecessor. Mid-sized sedans are rapidly approaching and sometimes exceeding the fuel economy of compacts. It's time for the compacts and sub-compacts to step up their game.

[wing]

CanadianDriver does not employ journalists they purchase articles from contractors / freelancers.  Kind of hard to request these types of things.

Plus do you just want an article that has 500 words of how the calculation for the FE was done or do you want the vehicle's driving characteristics covered?  You can't have both

[Gabe]

Guys:

How you collectively lost your cojones? Wilson writes a good review of a Red Mustang Vert. With more than twice the power of the 65 289 A-Code Stang coupe in my garage. And with MT.

And you muppets are kvetching about <i>fuel economy</i>?  Better all of you above worrying about FE move over to DaeWoo Nubira Forum or the Yugo Owners' Club site. Better yet, the 1992-99 Buick LeSabre Forum...

Like it or not, a pony car with >300HP and MT for $30K should get ANY auto enthusiast's interested. But not about <i>fuel efficiency</i>...

[Careener]

Great car and probably more day to day enjoyment than a non-vert GT.