2005 Ford GT: Fuel Mileage Keeps Getting Better

Interesting, when the massive Tahoe gets simular mileage everyone complains it's a guzzler.
 
When a small aerodynamic lightweight 2 seater gets that mileage, people marvel at how good it is.
 
Hmmmm

what's up with the GT, are you going easy on it?

didn't you give it a tune up/ power upgrade during that time.
 
i'm willing to be the tuning made it more efficent.(even with the added power)

"Interesting, when the massive Tahoe gets simular mileage everyone complains it's a guzzler. "
 
It is. But there are about 10 million SUVs on the road for every GT. And the Ford doesn't block my view..

Also, when the GT is being driven in a relaxed manner (as it usually is) the car still looks stunning and is fun to drive around corners.
 
But unless that Tahoe is towing a trailer or hauliing at least six people (which it usually isn't) it's just a bunch of heavy, unnecessary metal burning a lot of gas.
 
And when it is doing those things, it ain't gettin' 16-plus mpg.

get the hybrid tahoe. 20mpg

Very interesting post. That is certainly respectable efficiency for a car with that kind of performance. Now if only I had the money to buy something like that. Its funny, my car seems to shoot up 0.5 mpg too, but only after I let my fiancee drive it. I guess she wears lighter shoes than me.

I notice you guys take pictures and add them to the blog, in addition to your writing.
I have a question for you guys;
do you have to take pictures, and what kind of cameras do you use ?
i like cameras as well, so i am just curious.

The camera used is likely that of the writer's own.
 
Sometimes they take pics with their cellphone's camera.
 
I noticed in many cases the camera did not properly balance the whites and the photo yeilded a very cold result. Either because the camera's not properly set up or it isn't very sophisticated.

This shot was taken with a Canon SD700 IS I purchased about a year ago. Of course there's already a "better" version for less money, but this one has image stabilization and plenty of manual adjustments, plus the video function (which I never thought to use) has proven remarkably good, at least for Web-quality video. The video of the GT accelerating during instrumented testing was taken with this same camera. Considering its "deck of cards" size I can't complain.
 
My previous camera was an old Nikon Coolpix 900, which still works and takes useable Web-quality photos, but it's HUGE/HEAVY by comparison, so having it with me everywhere I go was a pain. This one tucks into a side pocket on my work bag, thus it's always around when I need it.

Thanks for the information.
I was just curious.
Canon's are great cameras, and you can tell by this picture.
(:

I have the Canon A710 IS. Great camera! I used to use manual controls all the time with my old Olympus C-3020Z but there's rarely need to use tem with the A710 because the automatic mode is so good.

Canon Powershot S50 as my points and shoot
Canon Rebel XT for fun
 
Canon's are great!

Pretty good for a supercharged supercar. If it were naturally aspirated, it would get much better fuel efficiency, but less power of course. I wonder what the car would get with a twin turbo setup instead of the supercharger.
 
My '02 Z06 with headers, a cold air intake, and dyno tuned consistently averages 25 MPG combined city/highway, and gets 33 MPG highway. 450hp, low maintenance, 0-60 in 3.9 and 1/4 in 12 flat - anyone who knocks the pushrod as out of date is ignorant. I challenge those pundits to find a DOHC engine of smaller displacement to get even close to those specs in terms of power and fuel efficiency.

I find it funny that some folks still dont get that GEARING plays a significant role here. Anything can get great fuel milage at 65 MPH loafing at 1500RPM.
 
Stingray, most cars with the smaller displacement engines that you speak of are ACTUALLY more efficient, but your Vette is more efficient on paper. These smaller engines are making the most out of their displacement and fuel than your "efficient" large displacement pushrod engine. Effiiciency isnt just about gas milage its how the engine maximizes the fuel used to make the power. Ever heard of power density?

hondacura4 - given your screenname, you're obviously a huge fan of small engines. My point is power efficiency in terms of power per liter of displacement is irrelevant. The only thing it is good for is engineering bragging rights. Small engines producing high specific output are not necessarily more fuel efficient. In fact, most are LESS fuel efficient than larger displacement engines. One of the problems is they have insufficient low end torque to run taller highway gearing, thus they need to turn higher RPM's to maintain a given speed, burning more fuel. Proof of this is the Honda S2000 gets worse fuel economy than my Z06, despite displacing only 2 liters, and with less than half of the horsepower, in a car even lighter than my Z06. More proof: the Acura RDX gets downright crappy fuel economy for a small crossover, despite having a small displacement turbocharged 4-cylinder. Many competing V-6 models of the same size class get better fuel efficiency than the RDX.
 
So go look at "power density" all you want. I look at the bottom line: what's my MPG and horsepower.
 
Mazda RX-8 rotaries have great power density and some of the worst fuel economy of ANY sports car. You can keep it.

stingray, what town do you live in? I ask so I can make more sense of your combined city/highway numbers.