18th Sep 2008, 19:27

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.

18th Sep 2008, 19:52

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.

19th Sep 2008, 22:59

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.

20th Sep 2008, 21:27

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.

21st Sep 2008, 10:04

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

25th Sep 2008, 02:21

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.

25th Sep 2008, 11:37

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.

27th Sep 2008, 11:54

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.

28th Sep 2008, 18:13

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.