On Topic (45) | Off Topic (11) | All (56)
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.
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.
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.
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.