Those sound like reasonable numbers. You're right about the wheels, we're going to pay at the pump for those looks. The thing to do with your hair is grow it long, use a lot of gel and make it into a fairing for the back of your head. :jesterDreamerDave said:Check out the numbers Brentil came up with in " Wouldn't you just Love it if GM surprized...".
From those, my guess is 23 city/31 hwy. But right now it's like guessing the number of jellybeans in a jar. All we know is the weight (or their target weight) and tire diameter. Unknown is gearing, drag numbers, engine performance, etc. I expect those 18" rims are going to hurt more than than the lighter weight will help. In the battle between CAFE vs what sells, GM kind of boxed itself in a corner with those. They'll hurt more in the city cycle of EPA testing. Highway will be hampered by the aero drag related with having the wind wip through your hair (but actual hair drag rate may vary).
brentil said:Damn, you beat me to posting my own info I've added the 2.2L 8v Sunfire engine for a better comparison. Your guess came really close to my calculated numbers bellow too.
- Sunfire 2.4L 16v (87 octane) 14 gallons with 22/32 mpg (5-speed manual)
- Sunfire 2.2L 8v (87 octane) 14 gallons with 23/33 mpg (5-speed manual)
- ION 2.2L (87 octane) 13 gallons with 26/35 mpg (5-speed manual)
- ION RedLine 2.0L SuperCharged (91 or greater octane required) 13 gallons with 23/29 mpg (5-speed manual)
- 308/448 miles per tank
- 322/462 miles per tank
- 338/455 miles per tank
- 299/377 miles per tank
For just being 0.2L less in size the new ECOTEC with VVT seems to get much better gas mileage numbers then the older 2.4L. It's amasing what the addition of the second CAM on the older engine did for performance and fuel economy.
[hypothetical]If it were a linear comparison that means the 2.4L is 8.33% greater in size then the 2.2L. Meaning it consumes 8.33% more fuel per combustion cycle. Giving a value of 23.833/32.0833 MPG for the 2.4L engine. If there existed a 2.2L SuperCharged L850 it would be 9.09% over the 2.0L SuperCharged engine. Giving values of 20.1/26.4 MPG.[/hypothetical]
Engine: modified, supercharged ECOTEC L850 2.2L 4-cylinderEngine displacement (cu. in/cc):134/2200Max. horsepower (hp/kW):240/179Max. torque (lb.ft/Nm):225/305
They definitely have made a big accomplishment with the ’05 GT motor compared to the ’04 mach 1. Keeping the power up while being able to go from premium fuel to regular, and keeping the mileage up is a nice accomplishment.brentil said:Nope, I do not.
However I did notice one other difference too. The compression ratios for each engine.
- 2005 Mustang GT 9.80:1 (87 Octane)
- 2004 Mustang GT 9.40:1 (87 Octane)
- 2004 Mustang Mach 1 10.10:1 (Premium Gas)
- 2004 Mustang Cobra 8.50:1 (Supercharged, 91+ Octane)
I also want to note the Mach 1 uses Premium gas with a higher compression ratio, where the 2005 VVT engine does the same power, but on 87 octane and 0.30 lower compression.
So with VVT on this engine, they were able to go from 4 to 3 valves, 10.10:1 to 9.80:1 compression, and I think most important of all 87 octane gas. Yet they were able to maintain the power level. SO you get Mach 1 performance for GT price levels.