16th Jun 2009, 11:50

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.

16th Jun 2009, 12:06

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.

16th Jun 2009, 16:54

"...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.

16th Jun 2009, 17:07

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.

17th Jun 2009, 01:32

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??

17th Jun 2009, 06:13

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

17th Jun 2009, 09:37

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.

17th Jun 2009, 15:29

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.

17th Jun 2009, 15:37

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?