2008 Ford Mustang GT from North America - All Comments

Wow, just another really good reason why one should NEVER buy a Ford! I am sorry that you had to go through all that misery. Hope it works out OK for you!

I have a bit of a problem buying comment 22:03.

First of all, the striping is very easy to remove and replace if it is tape (and if it is "loosening and lifting" as you say, it must be) it's about a 30 minute job to remove the flawed section and replace it. At worst, the area can simply have the stripes painted on by a good body shop for about $200-300. I KNOW because I have a Mustang and have done the 350/500 GT stripes myself, as well as having some custom paint work done by a local body shop. This stuff does not require "special" materials or an Einstein to do. If you've wasted this much time trying to get Ford to do a 30-minute job you could do yourself, then I find it hard to be sympathetic.

In 30 years of driving Fords I've NEVER had a problem getting any service or repairs done, though frankly, I've seldom ever had to try. We've driven several Ford cars and trucks well over 200,000 miles with virtually no problems of ANY kind. None of my 7 Mustangs has ever had a repair, and my new one is the best Mustang yet.

I suggest you buy some tape and fix it yourself. People who make big issues out of things like a 30-minute tape stripe repair should stick to basic, bland cars with no style. Mustangs are for car enthusiasts.

15th May 2008, 17:45: You go ahead and enjoy "doing your part" to save the environment and fall for the global warming hype. If V8's are phased out all together in passenger cars, you can count on my '08 Mustang GT being the last car I ever buy. The cold hard truth is, we have enough oil buried in the tundra to last us another 500 years or more, and the big oil companies are not just going to throw their hands up in the air over this global warming scam. Why don't you quit breathing, because just like Al gore says, Carbon Dioxide is the leading cause of global warming.

And by the way, I have no problem buying a fuel efficient car. Let me know when they make one that comes close to the performance of a Mustang, and isn't hideous like the Prius, Fit, Yaris, or FCX Clarity. Even the names of those cars are ugly.

The proposed V-6 for the Mustang that will replace the gas-hungry V-8's actually puts out MORE power, will give the car a better front-rear weight distribution for better handling and will get far better mileage. I'd opt for that in a heartbeat.

As for fuel reserves, a fiend who works for a major oil company as a prospector for new oil reserves is looking for another job because, as he puts it "All that was out there has pretty much been found". We've gone through 80% of the world's oil reserves in a mere 100 years with most of that being used almost exclusively by the U.S. until just a few years ago.

Those who maintain that global warming is a "hoax" (an idea propagated by oil companies and automakers in order to squeeze the last dollar out of oil consumers) need to take a science course. Carbon-based fuels release gases into the air that retain the Sun's heat. The more of those gases, the more heat is retained and the hotter our planet gets. It's as simple as that. We are ALREADY experiencing global warming. The Arctic Ocean may be ice- free this coming year for the first time in human history. There are already heat-related changes in the ocean's ecosystems. It's not a matter conjecture. It's already happening, and study after study after study by REAL scientists has shown it is too severe to be caused by a minor fluctuation in the Sun's output.

The planet is an extremely intricate system. A rise of only 7 degrees in average temperature sounds minor. In truth it could spell the end of life as we know it. The greatest danger we face is that those who work for the oil industries will continue to spread the "hoax" myth until it is too late to save our planet. We may already have waited too long. A switch to slightly more fuel efficient cars is sort of like sticking a band-aid on the Titanic and hoping it won't sink.

Putting a V6 in a Mustang defeats the purpose of buying a Mustang, no matter how high the MPG's go. My 2008 GT gets between 23 and 27 MPG on the highway. I wouldn't exactly call that a gas hog. If a V6 can be made more efficient, so can a V8. A V6, especially the current V6 in the Mustang looks and sounds terrible, and only delivers slightly better MPG than the V8. It is also much less reliable, noisy, and rough idling. Although yes it has two less cylinders to feed, it also has to work harder to move a 3400 pound car. It's the same reason why big V6's and tiny V8's deliver worse MPG in pickups than the mid-sized and larger engines. Look up the MPG and compare engines for the Chevy Silverado.

"All that was out there has pretty much been found".

Yes, and what oil has been found is enough to last us another 500+ years. There's a huge field underneath North Dakota, South Dakota, Western Minnesota and Southern Canada that's barely been touched yet, just to name one.

"Those who maintain that global warming is a "hoax" (an idea propagated by oil companies and automakers in order to squeeze the last dollar out of oil consumers) need to take a science course. Carbon-based fuels release gases into the air that retain the Sun's heat. The more of those gases, the more heat is retained and the hotter our planet gets. It's as simple as that. We are ALREADY experiencing global warming. The Arctic Ocean may be ice- free this coming year for the first time in human history. There are already heat-related changes in the ocean's ecosystems. It's not a matter conjecture. It's already happening, and study after study after study by REAL scientists has shown it is too severe to be caused by a minor fluctuation in the Sun's output."

The Arctic Ocean has been melting since the glaciers receded, long before cars, trucks, planes and trains were spewing HELPFUL CO2 emissions, which by the way promote plant life. Just because the weather turns bad for a few years and a few old-school strong hurricanes and blizzards come our way, people think it's the end of life as we know it.

I'm sure we didn't have a bunch of Eskimos and spear chuckers running around 10,000 years ago screaming about global warming as the glaciers receded. The earth's climate constantly changes and will continue to change, No matter how much Al Gore and Barack Obama cry about it.

Here in Minnesota I'll take all the "global warming" we can get. Last winter 2007-2008 was the COLDEST in nearly 120 years. In the spring of 1878 our church records show farmers were seeding corn by late February in 60-70 degree heat, with very little snow prior to that. When I was a kid (1950's and 60's), just about every year we had snow drifts up to 2 stories high. 10 or even 100 years of slightly above "average" temps is no reason to run around in a state of hysteria. (scientists cannot define average, as temperature records go back less than 200 years). There was also a "mini ice age" recorded in the 1400's in Europe. and another one in the early 1800's in Europe and America, with snow in July in Washington DC.

Explain to me why the founder of the Weather Channel knows that global warming is a hype, and has tried to sue Al Gore.

"A switch to slightly more fuel efficient cars is sort of like sticking a band-aid on the Titanic and hoping it won't sink."

Keep driving your fuel efficient car, it will make it cheaper for me to feed my V8's in my Mustang and GMC Sierra.

No reputable scientist anywhere on the planet denies that pumping heat-retaining substances into the atmosphere doesn't increase global warming. That's like saying that pouring water on you doesn't make you wet. Every single test and intense climate modeling based on the power of hundreds of computers working in tandem have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that we (especially the U.S., but more recently Asian countries and India) are definitely causing the destruction of our planet. China's pollution is so bad you'll probably be able to look up and SEE it soon. Huge clouds of it are already wafting around the world and even reaching the U.S.

More enlightened European countries long ago realized and accepted what we were doing to our planet and began taking action to correct it. Unfortunately big oil and big money have been able to buy out so-called "scientists" and "climate experts", many of whom do not even possess degrees in the field of climatology, to coerce them into putting out bogus information. The U.S. has become so spoiled on wasting energy that many grasp at whatever dubious information they can latch onto to ease their jaded consciouses into thinking that everything is just fine. It isn't, and your grandchildren will inherit a planet barely suitable for life. When 2 or 3 less-than-qualified "scientists" on energy industry payrolls argue against 10,000+ well-qualified and educated true scientists, my money (and my grandchildren's lives) will be based on the more obviously correct opinion of the 10,000+.

You're talking about North Dakota's Williston Basin having 500 years worth of petroleum?? That field has been around since the 1950's, and has never been a huge producer, so don't stake your future on it. The known oil reserves off the California coast would meet the US consumption rate for less than 6 months; ditto for ANWR. Fine, there's a year. Now what?

On the other hand, "how much oil is left" depends on the prevailing price. As prices increase, harder to extract reserves finally become economically viable. It is fair to say that the age of cheap gasoline is over. There may well be probable reserves out there beyond what is being forecast, but they wouldn't be proved up into the "proven reservers" category and considered economically extractable until the price is right.

Sure, there may still be gasoline around for those who are willing to pay $20/gallon or more, but the point is that by that time, gasoline would no longer be the cheap fuel source that underpins a nation's transportation at those prices. At those prices, gasoline would simply be a novelty for enthusiasts and hobbyists to take their antique "motorcars" for a short spin in the country. The gasoline automobile would be about as common a sight as the Stanley Steamer was in 1930. My guess is that people wouldn't be in love with their V-8 (or any internal combustion engine) enough to pay that.

It's not a matter so much of whether the petroleum is out there. It's a matter of how many people will be willing to pay high prices for gasoline. The average consumer won't want to, and as other means of transportation begin to look more attractive, petroleum will just be used by industry to make other products as a raw material.

Hey, I like my V-8, too. But there's no sense in being sentimental. When $4.50/gallon gasoline is here to stay, I'll be looking for a used 30 mpg 4-cylinder, and when $6 gasoline is here to stay, I'll be looking for an electric car or hybrid. But if you're willing to pay $8/gallon to continue to drive your V-8, then good for you, it's your decision. Enjoy!

Even if we had an ocean of oil (and we don't, we have maybe 50 years left at best) I'd still find it hard to justify paying $5000 more, higher insurance and higher gas prices for a car just because the engine "sounds better" and it does 0-60 one second faster.

Apparently a LOT of folks are finding the V-8 Mustangs no longer all that desirable. There are very few V-8's being sold in our area, while the V-6's are very common. I was just browsing through the car ads looking for a 4-cylinder Fox convertible (I don't want a V-8), and every single Mustang for sale from 1987 through 2004 that I found was a V-8.

Even if we had no ocean of oil (and we do, we have maybe 500 years left at worst) I'd still find it hard to justify paying $5000 less, slightly lower insurance and miniscule gas price savings for a car just because it has a V6 under the hood.

In my opinion the Mustang GT IS the base Mustang. The V6 Pony car has overpopulated showroom floors and rental fleets for naive people who don't see beyond a car's looks. A real Mustang is a sports car, not a 4-cylinder or V6 econobox. If you want fuel economy, buy Honda or Toyota.

And for those who assume a GT is a gas hog and gets 18 MPG highway wake up and smell the technology. 6-cylnder technology has improved over the years as well as V8's. I remember well the 6-cylinders of the 1960's and 70's being advertised as "thrifty" and they were lucky if they could manage 20 MPG highway.

Just because the tire burning muscle cars of the 1960's and 1970's averaged 12 MPG doesn't mean a new V8 will drink gas like a pig. As I stated before, my 2008 GT gets anywhere from 22 to 27 MPG highway. My 1989 Mercury Grand Marquis Colony Park Wagon with the old 302 V8 was good for up to 24 MPG highway at 70 MPH, 21 MPG when pulling a boat. Even the massive 2008 Dodge Charger R/T is good for 23 MPG highway.

One problem with V8's and manual transmissions is people don't realize a V8 actually has power, and does not need to be wound out to over 3000 RPMs to upshift during normal driving. The V6 Mustang is a nobody. It has to work harder to move a 3400 lb car, which negates any fuel savings. That is the same motor that was used in the ranger and F150, unrefined and noisy. Also the interior on V6 Mustangs is bland and cheap, and I will admit even the GT with upgrades is good but not excellent in the quality department.

But hey, you V6 and 4-banger lovers enjoy your wannabe Mustangs. See you in the slow lane.

Sure, a true & traditional "muscle car" has a V8 under the hood, but I wouldn't go dissing those who decide to go with a sporty 6 cylinder car (or even 4 cylinder car) instead.

Remember the Mustang was available with a six since its introduction, as were all of the "Pony Cars" of the 60's & 70's.

Today's six cylinder engines as well as many turbocharged fours, put out more power than many of the old V8's.

For example - I owned a Camaro 350 for 29 years and my Saab 9-3 2.0 liter turbo four is more powerful, quicker and better handling than my Camaro ever was. Plus the Saab gets at least twice the gas mileage that the Camaro did.

Don't get me wrong - I loved my Camaro (why else would I keep it for 29 years), but vehicles have evolved over the last 40 years, and you really can't judge an engine by the number of cylinders it has.

My last Mustang was a V-8. It got 10 mpg city, 15 highway and wasn't any faster than a new 4.0 V-6. I fail to see why I need to spend a ton more money on a car I can't legally use the potential of anywhere in the U.S. What's the point??

I love the new Challenger and find it a viable option since Dodge opted to offer the V-6 in it. Otherwise I wouldn't give it a second look. Yes, muscle cars are great for shows and museums, but for people who actually use cars for daily transportation the V-8 is a thing of the past.

Having owned 3 V-8 Mustangs and 3 V-6's since 1985, I've found the 6's far more reliable and much cheaper to insure. The newer V-6's actually have a better balance due to the lighter engine and handle as well or better than the 8 without the very harsh, bone-jarring ride. My last V-8 got roughly half the fuel mileage of our new 4.0 V-6. I can't really consider paying way more money just for bragging rights.

I agree a Mustang is better with a V8.

However, the Mustang is one of the few non-full-sized vehicles that are still available with rear wheel drive. That makes it in my opinion one of the few real cars left.

I detest front wheel drive. The only reason front wheel drive exists is to make cars easier to build for the manufacturers... just stamp out a body, put a suspension on it, stuff an engine under the hood in any convoluted way you can, and link it to the road with the most fragile and physically nonsensical driveline setup imaginable.

That being said, for someone who wants a non-full-sized vehicle in a proper rear wheel drive configuration but does not want the added expense of purchasing or operating a V8 (not that the new V8's are inefficient), there are very few options. The Mustang is just about the only one.

Frankly, for my daily driver, it would be a lot more functional for me to drive around in a four door mid-sized, but that unfortunately would mean having to buy a front wheel drive vehicle, which is not an option, nor God forbid is buying anything imported (e.g., a BMW 3 series, etc.). So, a Mustang is pretty much the only option, and why not? It is a good car in any trim level.

Comment 07:17 makes a great point. Today's smaller, more fuel efficient engines do offer really good performance.

I drive a mint 2001 Pontiac Grand Am with the old "quad 4" engine with some fairly mild modifications. It is very fast, and I have gone head-to-head with 3.8 litre V-6 Grand Prix GT's and taken them by several car lengths in a quarter mile. It has hair-trigger accelerator response and doesn't shift until it redlines.

Today's small cars are not your Granny's old Corolla. My Grand Am is actually faster than any of the V-8's I've owned except for my last 5.0 Mustang.