2008 Ford Mustang GT from North America - All Comments

I totally agree with comment 09:29. Front wheel drive offers few (if any) advantages and lots of drawbacks, such as impossibly cramped engine bays that make repairs all but impossible.

Having owned both front drive and rear drive cars, we've found that our best handling vehicles on snow are our rear drive cars and SUV's.

We currently own an SUV with rear drive and it handles better on snow than any vehicle we've ever owned. We also own a front drive, which stays at home if it snows because it flops around like a fish out of water.

In addition, we own a new 4.0 V-6 Mustang because, as the commenter said, it IS the only sporty looking rear drive vehicle available in the U.S. (and I don't buy imports either).

I bought the V-6 because I have no use whatsoever for a car whose potential can't be used anywhere in the U.S. anyway, and which costs twice as much to insure. The V-6 does 0-60 in 6.5-6.9 seconds and is governor limited to 120mph, and that should be quite enough to earn one a ticket.

"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."

The Quad 4 was one of the most terribly unreliable engines GM ever produced, although it is possible you have one of the few good ones. And you're talking about a maybe 190 HP 180 LB/FT of torque front drive 2900 lb car vs a 240 HP, 270 LB/FT of torque 2500 lb front drive car. The GRAND PRIX GT is no comparison to a new GT, A GXP actually comes close.

Problem is, these all are FRONT WHEEL DRIVE cars. It doesn't matter if you have 150 or 550 HP under the hood of your Grand AM or Grand Prix. When you step on the gas, most of the weight shifts to the rear wheels. What a coincidence, these are the wheels that power the Mustang.

"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"

True. You should also note that today's Mustang GT motor is not the Old 5.0, which hasn't gone under the hood of the GT in over 10 years. Although the 302 was an excellent motor, times have changed since 1992 and definitely since 1972. People need to get this "All V8s are inefficient" mentality out of their heads.

I traded my 2006 Nissan Altima 3.5 SE for a 2008 Mustang GT. There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to both cars.

The Nissan was hands down quicker than a new V6 Mustang, roomier, handling was more composed when pushed to its limits. Fuel economy was awesome for having so much power.

There was just something lacking in the car for me. In a lot of ways it was a boring car. When it first came out it had somewhat edgy styling, but when you get down to it, it's just another front-wheel drive, family 4-door, with millions of clones just like it on the road.

Like all front drives, torque steer is terrible for performance take offs. Traction control is irrelevant for performance because it lowers engine output. Also, the car was terrible in the snow even with snow tires and traction control, and a bit hairy even in the rain. Not that I plan on driving the Mustang in the winter, but I expected better from a front drive car.

My Mustang GT has unique styling that still hasn't grown old after 4 years, and gets noticed whether people love it or hate it. I love the way it does a little side shake when I start it up, and the rumble from the exhaust is breathtaking. Although the Nissan is far more composed on curvy roads, it's still fun to push the Mustang to its limits.

Fuel economy is maybe 27 MPG highway at very best on the Mustang, the Nissan could often do over 30. The GT eats the Nissan alive in straight line acceleration. Torque steer is not an issue, and as an added plus it has 3.55 limited slip gears. For me the Mustang is just a more fun car to drive.

I don't know why so many people have a chip on their shoulder about the Mustang GT. The ones that are truly overpriced are models like the Saleen and Barret-Jackson, which carry bloated price tags above and beyond $50K. Either way, I'm sure if the Mustang carried an Acura, Mercedes, or Lexus badge everyone would think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

"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??"

Ummm, times have changed and technology has improved. My 2008 GT gets up to 27 MPG highway. I have a long commute to work, and don't do much city driving. Obviously a V8 isn't stellar in city driving by any means, but 10 MPG in a new Mustang? Give me a break. You don't need to do jackrabbit starts or even wind the engine too much beyond 2000 RPM's to drive efficiently.

I would (and already have) much rather pay $30K for a Mustang done right than a slow V6 that will get eaten alive by imports and boy racers. My car is loaded to the gills, a regular GT can be had for about $26K.

"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."

Even if gas gets up to $10 per gallon, V8's are not a thing of the past for me. And they never will be.

Enjoy your V6.

15th Sep 2008, 07:17.

"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."

If you can't judge an engine by the number of cylinders, then don't judge the Mustang GT either. Remember this car has also evolved since the rattle box fox platform and the hulks of the 1960's and 1970's.

And why compare a 29+ year old Camaro to a 1998 or newer Saab? I would hope fuel economy would be better. I'll one up you and say that Nissan, Toyota and Honda offer better performance, better reliability and fuel economy than the Saab for less money.

The Saab may match and exceed the horsepower of the Chevy 350, torque, I doubt it. People seem to forget that there's more than one element to engine power and acceleration. I doubt it if your Saab holds a candle in performance to the LS1 Corvette 350 of the 1990's, let alone the modern V8's in the Challenger, Mustang, or New Camaro.

Here's a good comparison for you. Back in 1997 the boy racer import craze was in its early infancy. My son bought and drove an old jalopy 1978 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale with a 403 smallblock V8, basically a 350 with bigger pistons. Keep in mind gas was much cheaper even then.

185 Hp/ 325 LB ft of torque. My son's high school friends laughed until he raced their junk Cavaliers, Honda Civics, Ford Escorts, Toyota Corollas with "Performance Mods." The Olds ate those compacts alive and asked for desert. One kid with a 1992 Cmaro Z28 had trouble beating him. It took 4-cyl engines until recently to match the horsepower of the detuned V8's of the 1970's and 1980's. And torque, good luck.

His Olds finally clunked out in 2005 with 338,000 miles.

I would say that my 2006 Mustang GT is fairly fuel efficient, considering it has 8 cylinders to feed. I just need to avoid the temptation to stomp the gas down at every stoplight. I set my cruise at 75 on the highway and still have many, many large SUVs and Full-Size pickups, passing me like I'm up on blocks. Some are even pulling trailers and boats at that speed, 80+ MPH. Methinks they're not getting the 25 MPG that I am. Now if that isn't dumping gas down the drain, I don't know what is.

"The Quad 4 was one of the most terribly unreliable engines GM ever produced, although it is possible you have one of the few good ones. And you're talking about a maybe 190 HP 180 LB/FT of torque front drive 2900 lb car vs a 240 HP, 270 LB/FT of torque 2500 lb front drive car. The GRAND PRIX GT is no comparison to a new GT, A GXP actually comes close."

This comment is one of the most confusing I've ever read. First of all, the Quad 4 was one of GM's most maintenance free (no timing belt) and reliable 4's ever made. It powered millions of Chevy, Pontiac, Buick and Olds models over a period spanning nearly two decades. There are many of these cars on the road with well over 200,000 miles on them.

The quad 4 does not have 190HP (it's rated at 150 stock) and the 3.8 Grand Prix is not rated at 240HP and weighs considerably more than 2500 pounds. I haven't the slightest idea what point the commenter was trying to make.

As far the Mustang GT having "unique" styling, it has basically the same exact styling as the V-6.

He's probably talking about the supercharged Grand Prix, which is rated at 240hp. But on the other hand, the car weighs about 3400lb.

The Quad 4 was never a reliable motor (2.3 or 2.4 Liter), maybe a select few. Look at some of the Pontiac Grand Am and olds Calais reviews on this site with a Quad 4 motor. The things are notorious for blowing head gaskets, coolant leaks, camshaft problems, sensor problems. Nothing but Junk.

The 3.8 Liter GM motor was always better, more powerful, smoother, and reliable and more economical. Over 30 MPG highway (non supercharged) at times even on full sized Oldsmobiles, Buicks, and Pontiacs. Way more power too.

The 3.8 litre engine is not very fuel efficient, and was never offered in the Grand Am. In the Grand Prix it averaged about 24mpg highway, which is nowhere near as good as the 3.4 Grand Am or the 3.5 Chevy engines, though it is a very tough and reliable engine.

None of our friends who own 2.4 Quad 4's have ever had any problems with them, including several with over 200,000 miles. Proper maintenance and not overheating these engines solves the most common problems you see featured in reviews.

The most common problem with the 2.4 Quad 4 is people allowing it to overheat and blow head gaskets.

My Quad 4 has never had a single repair and is going on 9 years old now. It's the most trouble-free and maintenance-free vehicle we've ever owned.

You are incorrect about the fuel mileage of the 3.8 in the Grand Prix, either that or the person driving it was a complete leadfoot. Are you talking about the Supercharged motor?

The 3800 V6 (non supercharged) was capable of up to 30 MPG highway and sometimes more in the Bonneville, Le Sabre, Park Avenue, Delta 88, Ninety-Eight, Impala, etc. I don't see why it would be any different in a Grand Prix. Different gear ratios would only have a small effect.

The old 3.8 first became fuel injected in 1984-1985. It was capable of high highway MPG, due to superb technology for its time, good low end torque and low gear ratios. Some of the first front wheel drive full size Buicks old Oldsmobiles got (and still get) over 30 MPG highway.

I stand by may statement that the Quad 4 is junk. The people you know are a small number compared to the number of reviews on here plainly stating what a troublesome, unreliable motor it really is. My neighbor runs a family auto repair shop, and told me the stories of dread and horror every time a Quad 4 came in for repairs (If it was even repairable).

Keeping it from overheating is not an issue if you do proper maintenance. 3.8's were reliable and durable, Quad 4's were not. 3.8 was around since 1974 and survived till recently, Quad 4 had a much shorter life due to all the problems with it.

I second comment 11:54. I have a 95 Park Avenue 3800 Series II. It gets great gas mileage for a 3600lb car and 3.8L engine. My last highway trip I achieved over 33mpg in a 200 mile round trip. As for city driving though, it only gets 19-22mpg no matter how you drive.

Two decades is a pretty good run for an "unreliable" engine in several million cars. I have no argument that the 3.8 V-6 is not a good engine, but I can't fathom what is so "unreliable" about a Quad 4. It has no timing belts to change, spark plugs are good for 100,000 miles, and the rest of the engine is pretty much the same type of construction as most small 4-cylinder engines. If you'll notice, a huge number of the bad Grand Am reviews are for the 3.4 V-6, not the Quad 4.

I'm a mechanic too, and my experience with the Quad 4 has been 100% good. I've seen many with over 200,000 miles on them. The only problem I've ever seen with them is blown head gaskets due to extreme over heating. This happens to ANY late model car that is allowed to over heat, foreign or domestic. Modern engines can't handle over heating.

My two old 5.0 Mustangs both averaged about 27 mpg on the highway (with the Traction Lok 3.08's), so I am not surprised the new ones are around the same. The V-6 is only gaining about 2 mpg or so, making the V-8 the more attractive option as far as I am concerned. Why not have the extra power and higher performance for just a minuscule amount of mileage loss? Mustangs and V-8's just go together so well...however, if they ever step up to the performance of the new Camaro V-6 with 300 hp and 270 lb ft of torque (not to mention a SIX speed), I may just get on the V-6 bandwagon. For now I may just be shopping in the Chevy showrooms.

Comment 22:59 reminded me of towing a friend's broken down import 40 miles on the interstate several years ago. I was in a REALLY big hurry and I was towing him at 85-90mph with my 4-cylinder Ford Ranger. Needless to say, my mileage on that trip was somewhat less than stellar!!

"I'm sure if the Mustang carried an Acura, Mercedes, or Lexus badge everyone would think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread."

I wish we could do a blind test of your theory with the Consumer Reports test so-called "engineers" (I am a real engineer). I am sure it would be emphatically proven to be correct.