DecodedCars2015 Roush Performance Mustang
Trims, performance, features, fuel economy, safety and known problems — with the pros and cons against similar 2015 models.
- Class
- Midsize Cars
- Engines
- 5.0L 8-cyl
- Drivetrain
- Rear-Wheel Drive
- Fuel
- Premium Gasoline
- MPG (best)
- 16 combined · 13 city / 23 hwy
- Length
- –
- Curb weight
- –
- NHTSA rating
- Not rated
- Recalls
- 0 campaigns
Pros & cons
What's good
- Few owner complaints0 complaints filed with NHTSA versus about 243 for similar models.
- No recalls so far
Watch out for
- Below-average fuel economyBest version gets 16 MPG combined, 38% below the 2015 midsize car average of 25.7 MPG.
- Premium fuel requiredEvery gasoline version is rated for premium, which raises running costs.
Calculated from EPA, NHTSA and vPIC data against 9 similar 2015 models — not a review. How we calculate this →
Overview
The 2015 Roush Performance Mustang is a midsize car offered with a 5.0L 8-cyl engine and rear-wheel drive.
EPA rates its most efficient version at 16 MPG combined (13 city / 23 highway), 38% worse than the 2015 midsize car average of 25.7 MPG, for an estimated $5,150 a year in fuel.
NHTSA has not published a 5-Star overall rating for this model year.
There are no recalls or owner complaints on file with NHTSA for this model year.
What changed for 2015
No changes to engines, powertrains, drivetrains, size, EPA ratings or NHTSA crash rating compared with the 2014 Mustang — a carry-over year in the data.
Compared with 2014; trim, feature and price changes aren't covered. See the 2014 Mustang →
Engines, MPG & running costs
| Version | Engine | Transmission | Drive | City / Hwy / Comb | vs. class | Fuel / yr | CO₂ g/mi |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stage 3 Mustang | 5.0L 8-cyl | Automatic (S6) | Rear-Wheel Drive | 13 / 23 / 16 | -38% | $5,150 | 553 |
| Stage 3 Mustang | 5.0L 8-cyl | Manual 6-spd | Rear-Wheel Drive | 13 / 23 / 16 | -38% | $5,150 | 566 |
EPA estimates; "vs. class" is combined MPG against the 2015 EPA class average. How we calculate this →
Safety ratings & technology
NHTSA has not published 5-Star ratings for the 2015 Roush Performance Mustang.
Similar 2015 midsize cars
| Model | Best MPG / range | NHTSA overall | Recalls |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 Roush Performance Mustang (this car) | 16 MPG | Not rated | 0 |
| 2015 Honda Accord | 47 MPG | Not rated | 6 |
| 2015 Toyota Camry | 40 MPG | Not rated | 1 |
| 2015 Dodge Challenger | 23 MPG | Not rated | 5 |
| 2015 Volkswagen Passat | 34 MPG | Not rated | 7 |
| 2015 Nissan Leaf | 84 mi | Not rated | 4 |
| 2015 Nissan Altima | 31 MPG | Not rated | 10 |
Recalls (0)
No vehicle recalls on file with NHTSA for the 2015 Roush Performance Mustang.
Check your VIN for open recalls at NHTSA ↗Not every 2015 Roush Performance Mustang is affected — only a VIN check confirms your car.
Owner-reported problems
No owner complaints for the 2015 Roush Performance Mustang in NHTSA's database since 2015.
Used 2015 Roush Performance Mustang buyer's checklist
- Run the VIN at nhtsa.gov/recalls. No recalls on file, but check anyway.
- Before you pay: service records, a history report and an independent inspection.
Generated by DecodedCars from NHTSA recalls and owner complaints for the 2015 Roush Performance Mustang. Not a substitute for a professional inspection.
Other Mustang years
Compare all years →| Year | MPG (best) | Length | Overall | Recalls | Complaints |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 Mustang | 15 | – | Not rated | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 Mustang | 15 | – | Not rated | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 Mustang | 17 | – | Not rated | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 Mustang | 17 | – | Not rated | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 Mustang | 17 | – | Not rated | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 Mustang | 18 | – | Not rated | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 Mustang | 18 | – | Not rated | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 Mustang | 16 | – | Not rated | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 Mustang | 18 | – | Not rated | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 Mustang | 17 | – | Not rated | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 Mustang | 17 | – | Not rated | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 Mustang | 17 | – | Not rated | 0 | 0 |
Sources: EPA, NHTSA, Transport Canada, Wikimedia Commons. Not affiliated with NHTSA, the EPA or Roush Performance. How we calculate this →