8th Aug 2009, 11:45
"Never did anyone say a Camry was an alternate choice to the V-6 Mustang"
Well, actually it has been said repeatedly on this thread.
9th Aug 2009, 11:01
I'd drive an old car til I could afford a V8 used Mustang GT... and no Camry at all.
9th Aug 2009, 12:23
I can't believe the bickering on this site over what ENGINE a car has. If it were a domestic/Japanese debate I could understand the heated debate and rampant insults. But arguing over what ENGINE you have!! Gimme a break!!
I work for an upscale design firm, and most of our employs are very design conscious and environmentally minded. I'm the only employee (including the head of the company) who doesn't drive a 4-cylinder vehicle. We all prefer sporty and stylish vehicles, but I prefer supporting U.S. auto makers and choose to drive a Ford. Since (in my opinion) the only truly sporty vehicle Ford makes is the Mustang, that's my choice. If it had had a 4 I'd have bought it with one. As it was, I had to settle for the 6. I get dirty looks from co-workers who feel I'm wasteful and extravagant. I can imagine the furor if I drove up in a 10-mile-per-gallon GT 500!!
10th Aug 2009, 16:10
It's more about what package you have not what engine. Again the GT is MUCH more than just a different engine. For 3 mpg difference I would rather have the V-8. If you are waiting around for a 4 banger Mustang to surface as the car of your dreams, good for you. Maybe they'll make a hybrid for you soon.
11th Aug 2009, 22:09
The smooth and powerful new Fusion I-4 would be an ideal engine for the Mustang. It would provide ample power (18 more than the first Mustang GT) and get great mileage as well. I'd buy one in a heartbeat!!
12th Aug 2009, 09:21
Yeah, I always let my co-workers decide what I should drive. I WOULD get the GT500 if I worked where you did just for a good laugh!
13th Aug 2009, 09:10
I get compliments on everything I drive because I keep my cars immaculate and do custom detailing as a hobby. The most attention I get is from my customized Grabber orange Mustang. I took it on a photo shoot recently to use as background for some publicity photos a friend and I needed for our jobs. We were in a public place where there were a lot of people. My car got a huge amount of attention and people asked if they could take pictures of it. It's a 6. Not a single person asked what engine it had.
16th Aug 2009, 13:00
What's your point? I also get a lot of compliments on my 2008 GT/CS. Vista blue with no gimmicky fake hood scoop or spoiler. No modifications whatsoever. I've had several local teens, guys and gals, ask to have their have their senior pictures taken with it. And most of the guys and even one girl wanted to know what was under the hood. So the world is not as naive as you are trying to make it out to be.
You can put all the dressings and clothes you want on a V6 Mustang, it's still a slow, inefficient (for a V6), drab soulless car.
16th Aug 2009, 13:11
You seem to be missing the point that higher HP does not necessarily mean faster. The Fusion 4-cyl is a good motor.. for the Fusion. It has no rightful place under the hood of a Mustang. Yes it may have more HP than the early GT's, but no where near the level or torque that an old 5.0 V8 has.
Putting a 4-cyl in a Mustang would be a lose-lose situation. The only real advantage for a naturally aspirated 4-cyl would be high city MPG. Forget about having any passing power or acceleration, it would be horrendously slow, especially with an automatic. Want a fast 4cyl Mustang? Put a turbo on it, but forget about getting decent MPG. Turbo 4's are notorious for rotten fuel economy.
We all know it is a proven fact that the Mustang GT gets 23-27 MPG on the highway as long as you don't pound on it. A 4-cylinder Mustang would be a pathetic joke.
17th Aug 2009, 20:40
The comic value of this thread is priceless!! 0-60 in 6.5 seconds is by no stretch of the imagination "slow", and the "drab, souless" V-6 Mustang is indistinguishable from the GT to 99.99% of the public. It also has 53 MORE horsepower than the first GT, which no one regarded as "slow". My current 4.0 is faster than my previous 5.0 and gets twice the mileage. I'll keep driving it regardless of what the comments on here say, so live with it.
I prefer 25 mpg to 11, and love paying 40% less on my insurance. Maybe some day I'll be magically transported to the land of 30 mpg GT's (with 4:11 gearing) that do 0-60 in 3 seconds. Until then, I'm quite happy with my 4.0 thank you!
18th Aug 2009, 08:27
True, the hilarity of your comments has gone all through this thread. First you claim twice the mileage in the V-6 car over the V-8 when they are pretty much identically rated (even back to 1990 which was 16/24) and I am still waiting to see your 48 mpg results... Just because you can't drive a 5.0 efficiently, you bash others who have achieved in the mid to upper 20's on the highway with theirs... myself included (27mpg on the highway, NOT RACING, in two different Mustang 5.0's, '88 and '90 LX's with the 3.08 traction lok axle).
Second you claim your V-6 is faster than a 5.0... That is hilarious... Last time I checked 6.2 seconds was quicker than 6.5 to 60 and the 300 lb ft. of torque will pretty much keep the 5.0 pulling away from your V-6 from there. (of course I am talking the no-cost option traction lok 3.08 5-speed in the 5.0...if you had an AT or a 2.73 then you just don't know how to order a Mustang) Your V-6 would not have touched either of my 5.0 Mustangs.
And third you are still claiming that it was said, somewhere on this thread, that a Mustang gets 30 mpg with a 4.11 rear end. Please go and copy that post and paste it into a new one so we can all read it from the source you claim you read it from. Oh that's right... it was NEVER said by anyone on here.
What is hilarious is that they make a sports car for speed and performance, which is the heritage of the Mustang and they also release a low end version for rental car companies and people who want to "look cool" and those same people have to viciously defend their choices by bashing the more expensive car.
Oh and 6.5 seconds to 60 is by any imagination slow for a sports car these days when a RAV 4 V-6 can do the same with an AT. The current GT does it in 4.9 seconds and STILL gets 24 mpg ON THE HIGHWAY. Using 25 year old cars as a comparison to your V-6 car is ridiculous as it was a totally different time and "fast" cars were really not that fast compared to todays choices.
I am glad you are happy with your V-6.... but I have to wonder...if you are really so happy with it then why do you feel the need to keep coming back here to slam the GT owners? Hmmmm.... makes me wonder just how satisfied you really may be driving that V-6 around while the GT's blow right on by you. Usually, when you are happy with your car you won't waste time on threads like this, but here you are some months later still trying to defend your choice... interesting.