2008 Ford Mustang GT from North America - Comments

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.

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.

This isn't exactly on-topic, but I've got a 200 CID 67 coupe. It gets pretty bad MPG, but I guess its not the worst it could be. I'm going to put in a V-8, probably the biggest motor I can get my hands on, and if it is fairly new then great, it'll have decent MPG, if not...well, I'll still be able to destroy anybody else in a straight line. That in itself makes it worth it... just knowing that you CAN, not necessarily that you WILL ;)

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

Absolutely, categorically 100% TRUE!! People who are "ego buyers" go by price only and usually don't even know what a "cylinder" is, what "horsepower" means, or which end of their car the drive wheels are located on. If it costs MORE, it is automatically better. I once asked a fellow with a new BMW how he liked it and he replied "Oh, it's WONDERFUL! FRONT WHEEL DRIVE is so safe!!" (and I'm NOT making this up!!)

I recently read a review in a major publication on a new vehicle. It was described as having a "herky-jerky" transmission, riding very harshly, getting awful mileage and having seats that felt like concrete blocks. A "crappy" domestic you ask? Not quite. It was the horrendously expensive new Mercedes ML320 Bluetech. In fact, Mercedes has a large number of its vehicles rated as "much worse than average" or "worse than average".

Sadly, our culture bases EVERYTHING on the price tag. If it costs more, it just HAS to be better. Never mind that there is really not a SHRED of evidence to back this up.

I wrote comment 16:38 and just saw a very personal example of how the "if it costs more it HAS to be better" myth works. The lease on Mom's Volvo S-60 expires in two weeks. She has not liked the Volvo because it is cramped, rough riding and no better in any respect than an average, inexpensive sedan. She will definitely get something other than another Volvo. The rest of the family are set on her getting a Mercedes because "They are such GREAT cars". When I showed them the rating of "worse than average" on the Mercedes they want her to get, and the "MUCH worse than average" cost-to-own rating, they said "Oh, that magazine is biased against GERMAN cars!!" In spite of the fact that the very nice Ford Fusion SEL is rated "Much better than average" they still insist that she get the Mercedes because it's "better". She WANTS a Fusion, but because of the snob appeal she will probably pay $40,000 MORE for a car that is rated FIVE LEVELS worse!! Go figure.

For many people, what car they buy is all about feeling like they belong in some club or group. All the car manufacturers manipulate that in one way or another. Sometimes it is easy to spot in the ads.

To the guy with the mom who wants a Mercedes. Maybe try getting her the most recent Car and Driver buyers guide. They rate cars by Enthusiast Rating and Consumer Appeal and on the C/D website they explain Enthusiast versus Consumer. Of course they have to make Consumer sound kind of bad, but that is just C/D selling their version of belonging to the club.

Really 95% of people fit the Consumers profile, as is obvious by what a great seller the Camry is. Anyone complaining about the rough ride of a Volvo S60 is not an Enthusiast (they can be complaining about other things, but not a rough ride.) Most Mercedes get high marks for the Enthusiast but low for Consumer.

Of course if Mom just has to belong to the Mercedes club because of who her friends are, or wants them to be, that extra $40,000 is the price of admission. The funny thing is, the people in the club fall for it. Just be careful that if that is what it is all about, don't buy a less expensive Mercedes because she won't really be in the club.

I knew a guy who thought buying a BMW 3-series was enough, but then caught on that people over age 40 are expected to be driving 5 series or better. For that clique, the 3-series had no more cachet than a Ford Fusion. And in fact maybe it was worse with comments like look at who doesn't know that the 3-series is for young people just starting out in their careers.

"28th Sep 2008, 20:39

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."

The Quad 4 was not around for 2 decades, because it was a junk rough troublesome motor that GM could never get right. It was around from 1987 to 2000 or 2001.

The 3.8 Liter V6 was around from 1975 to present, I believe last year (2008) it was still used in a few GM vehicles. If you want to be technical the design was there since 1962. The 3800 version (1988 and newer) was named one of the top 10 engines of the 20th century by Wards.

I don't see many awards for the Quad 4, I wonder why that is...

To comment 22:41: You are correct. People are manipulated to feel as if their car is their image. As a mechanic and car enthusiast, I own several cars at a time. My Mustang is for my "enthusiast" image, my Fusion is for my "consumer" image (and my bad back!!) and my SUV is for my "everybody has to have one" image (well, my WIFE'S actually, I don't even LIKE SUV's!!) My Grand Am was bought for my "something to haul my dog in" image. We are all victims of the automotive media unless we make ourselves savvy about cars.

My family has owned 5-series Beemers and Mercedes C-class cars. Neither has really impressed US all that much, though the neighbors jealousy might have been a plus. A Ford Fusion is a far better, more sensible choice, provides greater reliability, has good a ride, and saves enough to allow for much more discretionary income.

I'm happy to report that 82-year-old mom was so impressed with our Fusion that she is passing up the Mercedes and going with me to look at a fully loaded Fusion SEL tomorrow. It has everything she wanted (heated seats being very important for her) and with her horsepower is a meaningless word, so the V-6 will be plenty adequate.

As for Mustang, I absolutely LOVE mine, and regard it as the very best value available in a sporty vehicle. Performance is more than adequate and the styling blows everything else in its class away. Definitely the world's best value in a sporty coupe. I do, however, wish Ford would offer a softly sprung "old people's edition" with a smoother ride.

"The Quad 4 was not around for 2 decades, because it was a junk rough troublesome motor that GM could never get right. It was around from 1987 to 2000 or 2001"

It's interesting that people continue to confuse the solid, reliable and well-built Quad 4 with the more trouble-prone 3.4 V-6. The Quad 4 was one of GM's best engines, putting out ample horsepower for a 4 and containing features (such as gear-driven cams) that made it far more maintenance-free than almost all other 4-cylinders. I was grieved to see this great engine replaced by the lower quality Eco-tech 4 in 2002. That was what influenced my decision to opt for a Ford Fusion instead of another GM 4-cylinder car. Our Quad 4 has been the most reliable engine we ever had.

"It's interesting that people continue to confuse the solid, reliable and well-built Quad 4 with the more trouble-prone 3.4 V-6. The Quad 4 was one of GM's best engines, putting out ample horsepower for a 4 and containing features (such as gear-driven cams) that made it far more maintenance-free than almost all other 4-cylinders."

I see no confusion here, both of those engines (Quad 4 and 3.4 V6) were some of GM's worst engines and are junk. The 3.8 and 3800 motor was always king back then. More power and better fuel economy than the smaller V6's.

"I see no confusion here, both of those engines (Quad 4 and 3.4 V6) were some of GM's worst engines and are junk."

Please cite reliable sources for this comment. No one I know who owns a Quad 4 has ever had problems with it. Several have over 200,000 miles and are going strong. Just what is supposed to make them "junk". Unfounded comments with no supportive data carry little weight. I'd expect that on an import site, but not on a Mustang site.

"Please cite reliable sources for this comment. No one I know who owns a Quad 4 has ever had problems with it. Several have over 200,000 miles and are going strong. Just what is supposed to make them "junk". Unfounded comments with no supportive data carry little weight. I'd expect that on an import site, but not on a Mustang site."

Look how many 3.8 and 3800 V6 engines are still on the road compared to the quad 4. The 3800 V6 delivered better fuel economy in full size cars than the Quad 4 could do in compacts. The Quad four was one of GM's first lame attempts to copy the Japanese and make a powerful, compact motor. And it failed miserably.

"Look how many 3.8 and 3800 V6 engines are still on the road compared to the quad 4. The 3800 V6 delivered better fuel economy in full size cars than the Quad 4 could do in compacts. The Quad four was one of GM's first lame attempts to copy the Japanese and make a powerful, compact motor. And it failed miserably."

This is hardly "citing evidence". The 3.8 was used in virtually EVERY GM CAR, whereas the Quad 4 was used in only the Grand Am and its counterparts. Naturally there were more 3.8's. Just what was "wrong" with a maintenance-free OHC engine that pumped out 150 horsepower stock and didn't even require a TUNE-UP for 100,000 miles?? And yes, the 3.8 is a great engine and did get good mileage, but that is hardly "proof" that the Quad 4 was a bad engine.