2008 Ford Mustang Shelby GT Barrett-Jackson from North America - Comments

Was changed to V8 if you read. He also has modified 2 1995 GT models; one coupe and 1 convertible.

"Now that you've been proven wrong time and time again about the fuel mileage on the Mustang GT, you've switched to attacking the drivers themselves."

You CAN'T prove personal experience wrong. I got 11-15mpg with both my 5.0's, as did my brother with his '86 GT. Those are FACTS. I get nearly twice that mileage driving my V-6 EXACTLY the same way... PERIOD. You CAN'T prove that wrong. They were (and are) MY cars, I should know. I bought/buy the gas for them.

As for me "attacking" anyone, that was NOT my intention. I was first attacked and called a liar because I simply (and FACTUALLY) stated MY OWN gas mileage and numerous sources that totally agreed with my figures. I defended myself and will continue to do so. If you have a highly modified V-8 with 4:11 rear gearing that gets 27mpg then you are very fortunate. My brother and I both drove factory stock 5.0's and got 11-15mpg. It's as simple as that. There may be someone out there who gets 50mpg out of a V-10 Viper. That's great for THEM. I have not the slightest reason to make up fuel mileage figures, especially when mine are in TOTAL AGREEMENT with virtually every magazine test of the V-8 Mustang.

"You CAN'T prove personal experience wrong. I got 11-15mpg with both my 5.0's, as did my brother with his '86 GT. Those are FACTS. I get nearly twice that mileage driving my V-6 EXACTLY the same way... PERIOD. You CAN'T prove that wrong. They were (and are) MY cars, I should know. I bought/buy the gas for them.

As for me "attacking" anyone, that was NOT my intention. I was first attacked and called a liar because I simply (and FACTUALLY) stated MY OWN gas mileage and numerous sources that totally agreed with my figures. I defended myself and will continue to do so. If you have a highly modified V-8 with 4:11 rear gearing that gets 27mpg then you are very fortunate. My brother and I both drove factory stock 5.0's and got 11-15mpg. It's as simple as that. There may be someone out there who gets 50mpg out of a V-10 Viper. That's great for THEM. I have not the slightest reason to make up fuel mileage figures, especially when mine are in TOTAL AGREEMENT with virtually every magazine test of the V-8 Mustang."

And you CAN'T prove my personal experience wrong either. I consistently got 27 mpg highway with 2 different 5.0 Mustangs with the 3.08 traction lok rear end. They weren't modified and they did not have 4.11 gears PERIOD. Get over it and move on.

Obviously you drive too hard and have a lead foot, otherwise you would be doing much better on gas. You yourself said you are only getting 27 mpg with a 4 cylinder didn't you? You should be well into the 30's with that engine. Of course, you once again go by magazine mileage figures so I guess you drive like they do running hard 0-60 times and slamming on the brakes and you are only interested in how well your car performs (like they are!!) and not how efficient it is. Again, magazines ONLY are interested in performance so they will never get good mpg figures (of course, even hammering the car they did better than you did). The Mustang V-6 was rated at 19 mpg (observed) by C&D, however you say you are getting twice the mileage of your old 5.0 with the same engine. That would be close to 30 mpg right? So, why can you get so much higher than a magazine quoted mpg in your car but no one else can? You are contradicting everything you say at this point. You want to conveniently quote magazine figures to prove everyone else wrong but then when they get lousy mileage on your V-6 you don't seem to want to mention it. Hmmmmm. Go do some research on C&D and MT test of the Mustang V-6 and then come back and tell me they get real world mileage figures... c'mon! enough is enough with the magazines already.

I just don't know why you are having such a hard time with this. I am sorry you blew through so much cash on gas while owning your Mustangs, but learn to show restraint when hammering the gas and you may get the best out of something besides a Prius. Like I also said, I was a poor college kid when I had both of mine and if they chewed up that much gas I would have sold them immediately!

""When did this site cease to be about reviewing one's vehicle anyway?"

I think it primarily started with people who reviewed their cars or commented going BEYOND comments to insulting other owners and their vehicles. A few V-8 Mustang owners seem to have taken it upon themselves to attack and insult anyone who exercises their free choice to own anything else. The natural reaction to an attack is to respond in defense."

Actually this thread was originally reviewing the GT Barrett Jackson Edition Mustang so mentioning a V-6 anywhere on it was going against the review. Go start a thread on the V-6 Mustang or talk about the GT on this one. Sorry but the V-6 guys started this war by saying they had the better car and just wanted the looks etc, etc... This is the WRONG thread to bring that up on which is why these arguments start on here. Had one of the V-6'ers gone and started their own thread none of us V-8 guys would have bothered to read about it and none of this would have happened. It has been a fun read though, I have to admit.

Funny, the only thread dedicated to a V-6 '08 Mustang has "lackluster" and "Shoulda had a V-8" in the title and they comment on an old '89 GT that gets nearly the same mileage as their V-6. Finally, an honest review.

"...I have not the slightest reason to make up fuel mileage figures, especially when mine are in TOTAL AGREEMENT with virtually every magazine test of the V-8 Mustang."

So you then you admit pounding on the car just like these magazine reviewers do?

I never claimed to get 27 MPG consistently or with 4.11 gears. This is your figures that you keep bringing up. I do always average over 23 MPG on the highway with 3.55 gears. Sometimes I HAVE topped 27, but usually closer to 25.

"Well I take that back about you not being concerned about the environment - unless of course you trade in the Prius for a Hummer."

Anyone who buys a Prius or similar is fooling his/her self if they think they are doing anything for the environment. The components for the batteries come from three different continents. The components inside the batteries are far more toxic than a normal car. Also, the drivers of these ugly rattletraps usually try to drive 15-20 MPH below the posted speed limit on the highway, often causing more traffic congestion and fuel usage for anyone unfortunate enough to be stuck behind them.

I will buy a high efficiency car when one is built that is bigger and sturdier than a shopping cart, and looks as if it were designed for real people rather than a "Revenge of the NERDS" movie remake.

In the meantime, you people who drive hybrid cars need to learn how to step on it like the rest of us and stop causing traffic pileups and accidents. Global warming is a myth and you people fell for it... HARD.

Every car I own is driven exactly the same way. All three of our 5.0's were driven exactly the same way, as is our V-6. The 5.0's lowest mileage was in the 9mpg range and the highest ever (on the interstate, cruise engaged, 65mph) was 19.8. That's with an automatic. There isn't a lot you can do to "drive it too hard" when you have the cruise set with an automatic (well, or stick either for that matter).

The 4.0 consistently averages 21.5 overall. That is virtually twice what any of our V-8's ever got. The highest with the 4.0 on a trip has been 29, which isn't stellar, but beats the heck out of 19.

Until 2000 or so we never worried about the cost of gas, but when it went beyond $2.50 a gallon that is a bigger consideration.

As for performance, the 4.0 is faster than any of our 3 5.0's ever was. The older 5.0's weren't much. The '85 was only rated 5 more horsepower than my 4-cylinder Fusion. The '86 GT (my brother's) was still rated 10 horsepower less than a stock 4.0. My '90 LX automatic was supposedly rated at 225, but my 4.0 would blow it away 0-60 and 0-100.

Those are FACTS. They're MY experiences with MY cars. It would be a little silly to make up horrible gas mileage figures. It also seems a bit strange that not a single magazine or test group has ever gotten much more than 15mpg out of a V-8 Mustang. Even the brand new 2010 came out 15mpg. People on this site have stated their V-8's average 27mpg while street racing with 4:11 gears. I'd sure like to know how that's done. Ford ought to be shouting that sort of accomplishment from the roof tops.

I'd planned to buy another Mustang or other sporty car in late 2009, and had even momentarily considered another V-8 Mustang until reading the mileage in Car and Driver's road testing (as well as several others). 15mpg is just too expensive with rising oil prices. The new Camaro has the same horsepower in the base V-6 as a Mustang GT and gets 14mpg better mileage. It's also $15,000 cheaper. I'll give it a look. I'd still prefer a Mustang if Ford would drop the excellent (and amply powerful) Fusion 4 in it and offer a suspension that left my fillings intact. preliminary reports indicate the Camaro does have a much better ride.

I grew out of my "boy racer" stage years ago. I could care less about power. There is not a car sold in the U.S. that doesn't have ample power for any and all driving needs. Note sometime just how many opportunities you ever have in a day's driving to use even 30% of your car's power. There is always some old lady in a Camry dawdling away from stoplights or up entry ramps in front of you at a snail's pace. Why pay 10 grand more for a V-8 and buy twice as much gas to look at the rear end of a Camry??

What's wrong with 10 second street Mustangs on here.

This site is getting a little scary. Now global warming is a "hoax" (100% of the world's scientists would beg to differ) and V-8 Mustangs get 27mpg while street racing with 4:11 rear gearing. I'm waiting for Alice to step out of the looking glass any minute.

"As for performance, the 4.0 is faster than any of our 3 5.0's ever was. The older 5.0's weren't much. The '85 was only rated 5 more horsepower than my 4-cylinder Fusion. The '86 GT (my brother's) was still rated 10 horsepower less than a stock 4.0. My '90 LX automatic was supposedly rated at 225, but my 4.0 would blow it away 0-60 and 0-100."

First, the 4.0 is NOT faster than a 5.0. The '85 that you quote as 5 more HP than your 4 cylinder fusion... Since when does a 4 cylinder Fusion put out 205 HP? The Mustang was 210 HP in 1985. 0-60 was 6.4 on the '85 if you knew how to drive one. You had the AT in the '90, so yeah it was slower, but still about the same as any 4.0 5-speed,and by the time you got to 100 the 6 cylinder would be unrecognizable in the rearview mirror.

The '86 was a bit faster, because even though it was rated at 200 hp, it still had 280 lb. ft. of torque and the FI cars were snappier off the line. Of course you have to get the real version of these cars, which is the 5-speed traction lok set up.

"Every car I own is driven exactly the same way. All three of our 5.0's were driven exactly the same way, as is our V-6. The 5.0's lowest mileage was in the 9mpg range and the highest ever (on the interstate, cruise engaged, 65mph) was 19.8. That's with an automatic. There isn't a lot you can do to "drive it too hard" when you have the cruise set with an automatic (well, or stick either for that matter).

The 4.0 consistently averages 21.5 overall. That is virtually twice what any of our V-8's ever got. The highest with the 4.0 on a trip has been 29, which isn't stellar, but beats the heck out of 19.

Until 2000 or so we never worried about the cost of gas, but when it went beyond $2.50 a gallon that is a bigger consideration.

As for performance, the 4.0 is faster than any of our 3 5.0's ever was. The older 5.0's weren't much. The '85 was only rated 5 more horsepower than my 4-cylinder Fusion. The '86 GT (my brother's) was still rated 10 horsepower less than a stock 4.0. My '90 LX automatic was supposedly rated at 225, but my 4.0 would blow it away 0-60 and 0-100.

Those are FACTS. They're MY experiences with MY cars. It would be a little silly to make up horrible gas mileage figures. It also seems a bit strange that not a single magazine or test group has ever gotten much more than 15mpg out of a V-8 Mustang. Even the brand new 2010 came out 15mpg. People on this site have stated their V-8's average 27mpg while street racing with 4:11 gears. I'd sure like to know how that's done. Ford ought to be shouting that sort of accomplishment from the roof tops.

I'd planned to buy another Mustang or other sporty car in late 2009, and had even momentarily considered another V-8 Mustang until reading the mileage in Car and Driver's road testing (as well as several others). 15mpg is just too expensive with rising oil prices. The new Camaro has the same horsepower in the base V-6 as a Mustang GT and gets 14mpg better mileage. It's also $15,000 cheaper. I'll give it a look. I'd still prefer a Mustang if Ford would drop the excellent (and amply powerful) Fusion 4 in it and offer a suspension that left my fillings intact. preliminary reports indicate the Camaro does have a much better ride.

I grew out of my "boy racer" stage years ago. I could care less about power. There is not a car sold in the U.S. that doesn't have ample power for any and all driving needs. Note sometime just how many opportunities you ever have in a day's driving to use even 30% of your car's power. There is always some old lady in a Camry dawdling away from stoplights or up entry ramps in front of you at a snail's pace. Why pay 10 grand more for a V-8 and buy twice as much gas to look at the rear end of a Camry??"

Okay, you need to drop this... You are not even reading the comments. No one is saying you made up your figures for mileage. Really, who cares that you got such ridiculously low mpg in your cars. Not my problem. And who is a "boy racer"; I just like the whole package of the GT Mustang as it is complete and not a wannabe car. I don't sit in traffic every day and stare at the backs of Camry's either, so not sure what your point is there. Why don't you go write a positive review of your car on your own thread and we'll all leave you alone okay?

1:32 is perplexing. Why buy a sports car when you could be happy driving a 3 cylinder Geo perhaps? I could care less about gas and do not even check MPG on any sports car I have owned. I take them out burn a tank and put them away on the weekend. I take mine out early AM, meaning 5:30, best time of all for cool drives, and maybe after dinner, and am not out in bumper to bumper or old ladies in front on me.

I like the overall combination of a great sports car, not the light to light juvenile mode. Having a great suspension, steering, tire technology, advanced braking and having the top down in my Vette is a blast. I like the early A.M. few people are around, it's nice and cool and pick some great scenery cruising along next to the ocean or remote back twisting mountain roads. Especially with the top down. If that does not indicate what owning a truly great sports car is all about, you are certainly missing a lot.

The gas issue is not really a issue; drive something else weekdays and switch off.

My tires run close to $2K a set 20,000 miles; that is a strong reason, more than the little 93 octane fuel.

"I'd planned to buy another Mustang or other sporty car in late 2009, and had even momentarily considered another V-8 Mustang until reading the mileage in Car and Driver's road testing (as well as several others). 15mpg is just too expensive with rising oil prices. The new Camaro has the same horsepower in the base V-6 as a Mustang GT and gets 14mpg better mileage. It's also $15,000 cheaper. I'll give it a look. I'd still prefer a Mustang if Ford would drop the excellent (and amply powerful) Fusion 4 in it and offer a suspension that left my fillings intact. preliminary reports indicate the Camaro does have a much better ride."

The new Camaro V-6 doesn't even compare to the new Mustang GT. The Mustang actually performs just about identical to the Camaro SS with 111 more HP in 0-60, and it kills it in handling even with its live rear axle (latest C&D article).

Oh, and C&D stated that the Camaro would be much less than advertised mpg in the real world even with the V-6, so you can expect about 19 mpg the way you drive. I will post an actual test mpg when I find it for you so you can NOT comment about C&D test numbers on V-6's AGAIN even though you are happy to believe their test mpg on any V-8 as the word of God.

And where do you shop for Mustangs? $15K difference from the Camaro? Hmmm, the Camaro starts at $22K so that would mean, at your dealer, the cheapest V-8 powered Mustang was $37K??? I don't think they'd sell too many of them if that were the case, and on Ford's website the GT starts at $27,995.

I think the $6K would be well spent over the Camaro since it is more than likely the Mustang has many more upgraded standard options than just the V-8. Compare apples to apples and tell me how cheap the SS Camaro would be against the Mustang GT. And hold your breath on the 4 cylinder Mustang. Even if it ever did happen, it'd be a turbo, which is just about as efficient as the V-8 and takes super unleaded to boot.

I have achieved that in my Corvette 28 mpg and my son over 20. In a a Viper barely idling in 6th gear and a very light throttle. Not really concerned with fuel anyway, but interesting observation. Great technology to achieve impressive figures today.