2016 head-to-head · Subcompact Car

2016 Roush Performance Mustang vs Volkswagen Eos

MPG, range and what each one really costs you to fuel, from official EPA ratings and recalculated with your own gas and electricity prices.

Swap sides
✓ Cheaper to run
$3,485/ year to fuel
17 MPG
✓ Cheaper to run
$2,370/ year to fuel
25 MPG

FWD · 2.0L 4-cyl turbo · 6-speed dual-clutch · 25 MPG

The 2016 Volkswagen Eos is the cheaper one to run. Driving 15,000 miles a year with $3.95/gal premium gas, it costs about $2,370 a year to fuel (25 MPG), versus $3,485 for the 2016 Roush Performance Mustang (17 MPG). That's roughly $1,115 a year, or about $5,576 over five years.

Your numbers

Change these to match your driving and local prices. Every figure and chart on this page updates.

Fuel cost over 10 years

  • Roush Performance Mustang
  • Volkswagen Eos

Side by side

Roush Performance MustangVolkswagen Eos
$3,485 Your annual fuel cost $2,370
17 MPG Combined efficiency 25 MPG
14 MPG City 22 MPG
23 MPG Highway 30 MPG
82 cu ft Passenger volume 77 cu ft
12 cu ft Cargo volume 11 cu ft
537 g/mi Tailpipe CO₂ (g/mi) 354 g/mi
3/10 EPA fuel economy score 6/10
3/10 EPA greenhouse gas score 6/10
Gas Powertrain Gas
Premium gasoline Fuel Premium gasoline
5.0L 8-cyl supercharged Engine / motor 2.0L 4-cyl turbo
6-speed automatic Transmission 6-speed dual-clutch
RWD Drivetrain FWD

✓ marks the better value. EPA scores run 1–10 (10 is best). Volumes come from the EPA interior volume index and aren't published for every body style.

Roush Performance Mustang vs Volkswagen Eos across model years

  • Roush Performance Mustang
  • Volkswagen Eos

Annual fuel cost of the most efficient configuration of each model year, at your prices. Click a point to open that year.

How they differ

Per EPA interior volume figures, the Roush Performance Mustang has more passenger space (82 vs. 77 cu ft); the Roush Performance Mustang has more cargo space (12 vs. 11 cu ft).

Among 39 2016 subcompact cars, the Roush Performance Mustang ranks 33rd and the Volkswagen Eos 25th for lowest fuel cost.

Frequently asked questions

Which is more fuel-efficient, the 2016 Roush Performance Mustang or the 2016 Volkswagen Eos?

Measured by cost to drive, the Volkswagen Eos. The Roush Performance Mustang is rated 17 MPG combined and the Volkswagen Eos 25 MPG (EPA, most efficient configuration of each).

How much does it cost to fuel the 2016 Roush Performance Mustang vs. the Volkswagen Eos per year?

At 15,000 miles a year with $3.95/gal premium gas, about $3,485 for the Roush Performance Mustang and $2,370 for the Volkswagen Eos.

Which has more cargo space?

The Roush Performance Mustang, with 12 cu ft of luggage volume versus 11 cu ft (EPA interior volume index).

More 2016 comparisons

Or compare the 2016 Roush Performance Mustang with anything else:

Keep exploring