2008 Ford Mustang GT from North America - Off Topic Comments

As a senior citizen and car enthusiast, I love cars. I do not, however, agree at all with the philosophy espoused by commenter 08:52. My last Mustang was a tire-smoking, ground shaking high output V-8. It got between 10 and 15 mpg. I now drive a 2007 V-6 Mustang (among other vehicles). It delivers 20 mpg in town and 25-26 on the highway. I never intend to own another V-8 of ANY kind. The thing that has gotten the U.S. into the current energy dilemma and upward price spiral is the very attitude expressed by commenter 08:52 that anyone wanting to conserve energy is a "hippy" or "tree hugger". We are the most wasteful nation on the planet, with no regard whatsoever for our future or that of our children and grandchildren. Global warming is wreaking havoc with our weather (last year was the driest, hottest year on record for our area). Oil is running out.

I am a member of a Mustang club and 90% of our members don't use their gas guzzling V-8's as primary transportation. Some don't even have them registered for street use, but only take them to shows. Even I drive a 4-cylinder compact that gets better mileage than my V-6 most of the time. It is time for the U.S. to accept its responsibility to be a good steward to the world's resources and our children's future. My wife has a 6 year old SUV that gets 20mpg. I have told her the next vehicle she gets HAS to get 30 mpg or she isn't getting it. We all have to realize that "tree huggers" and "hippies" are RIGHT about some things. Thankfully Ford agrees and is planning to phase out V-8's entirely soon in their car lines.

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.

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!

"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.