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

It seems the dodge boys have a short memory. The quality of a Dodge has never and will ever be close to Mustang. Mustang has been around steadily for 44 years, Camaros and Challangers come and go. Enough said.

Yeah, the blue book says most cars are higher than they are worth. Try going to trade your car in and then tell me what it's worth. You'll probably get around $12K on trade as most dealers use the Galves wholesale book for trade-in values. Dealers scoff at blue book prices and NADA too. Even selling it outright will be tough getting book value because there are so many of them around it is easy to pick your price on them. The dealers around here are selling for less than your book value (in the $15K range for your year) so as a private seller you'd have to undercut them by at least $1,000 to sell it as people prefer to be backed by a dealer, even on a used car, in case there is a problem.

"I paid $20,320 for my 2007 Mustang. I just checked the current Kelly Bluebook on it. The current retail price on it is $17,920. That's a drop of only $2400 in 2 years. That sounds like a very good resale value to me. Even the divinely blessed Accord or Camry loses more than that in just ONE year."

Well, I just blue booked the 2007 Mustang V-6 standard with average miles on it and I got $16K. I then booked my car, the 2008 Accord that you said loses so much value in ONE year. It books at $20,800 with 16K miles that I have on it in miles. Guess what... I paid $20,700 for it brand new. It is worth more than I paid NEW for it after a year and 16K miles. Now who has the better value??

"The quality of a Dodge has never and will ever be close to Mustang."

I agree that the appeal of the Mustang is greater, but after owning Mustangs and various Dodges I can't say I find the Dodge lower in quality. The dealer service was awful and Chrysler flatly refused to honor their warranty on my 1988 Shelby Daytona, (it came new with warped brake rotors, I paid an independent shop to replace them). However ALL my Dodges were driven far more miles than any of my Mustangs and none ever had a single problem. One was sold running like new with over 240,000 miles on it. To me that is good quality. The only reason I might consider a Dodge now IS the quality. I KNOW I won't have a warranty.

"26th Mar 2009, 21:40.

It seems the dodge boys have a short memory. The quality of a Dodge has never and will ever be close to Mustang. Mustang has been around steadily for 44 years, Camaros and Challangers come and go. Enough said."

Yeah, those '78 Mustang King Cobras that looked like Pintos and did 0-60 in 15 seconds were super cool.

The 2009 Mustangs are cool because they look like the original, not a bunch of of chopped off Ford Fairlanes. Although the new Mustangs are finally looking good again, there is just no comparison to the Dodge Challenger. Although the Challenger is the cooler car (and was even in 1970-74), it is true that the Mustang is better positioned for sales than the Challenger thanks to its lower price tag. Still, the base V-8 Mustang isn't the car that the base V-8 Challenger is.

"Now who has the better value??"

I do. I wouldn't be comfortable driving an "old lady" car such as a Camry or Accord if it was GIVEN to me.

"Yeah, the blue book says most cars are higher than they are worth. Try going to trade your car in and then tell me what it's worth."

You can't use TRADE-IN values for comparison purposes, since you paid retail when it was new. The correct comparison is comparing new retail with used retail. You have to use the same factor for both comparisons. You also can't use a used retail figure for a fully loaded V-6 Accord to compare the resale of a bare-bones basic 4-cylinder 5-speed.

Incidentally, on the last car I traded in, I got within $30 of the KBB trade-in value. That's called "bargaining", and most people don't bother to.

I've been reading up on the new Camaro and I plan to test drive one as soon as my local dealer has one. I just read a couple of road tests, and I think Chevy might have a winner, though not a threat to Mustang. The reviewers say the base V-6 is the Camaro to get, as it rides better, is very affordable and has more power than the current Mustang GT.

I find it interesting that once again even the base Camaro will be comparable in power and performance to the V-8 Mustang. This was also true in the past. I test drove a 2000 Camaro base V-6 and sheepishly had to admit that it was every bit as fast as either of my 2 5.0 Mustangs. The Camaro does offer performance, even to budget buyers. Of course reviews are referring to the ride as "choppy" and "bone-jarring", especially in the V-8 models. It's sad that car makers don't build sporty cars that ride comfortably. Lots of older drivers don't like the harsh ride and no longer care for outrageous performance.

I'd love to see Chevy offer the Camaro with the 4 from the Malibu and a soft suspension. I'd also love to see Ford put the 175 HP I-4 from the 2010 Fusion in the Mustang and offer it with a suspension package that left your fillings intact. The power would be more than adequate and us senior citizens would love to have a sporty car we could actually DRIVE. Due to the harsh ride my Mustang spends 99% of the time in the garage while I use our much more comfortable Fusion or Pontiac.

"You can't use TRADE-IN values for comparison purposes, since you paid retail when it was new. The correct comparison is comparing new retail with used retail. You have to use the same factor for both comparisons. You also can't use a used retail figure for a fully loaded V-6 Accord to compare the resale of a bare-bones basic 4-cylinder 5-speed."

I didn't use the loaded V6 as a comparison. Like I stated, I bought the car, an LX-P brand new for $20,700 and it now books at $20,895 for the SAME exact model, and I did go used retail so I am not sure what your point is on that one. Unfortunately most dealers are below those figures these days, so getting a retail price on any used car would be tough. As far as getting within $30 of KBB on your trade... well the dealer made it up on their car trust me. I used to be in the business... the dealer always wins, just like in Vegas.

"well the dealer made it up on their car trust me"

No, they didn't. I ALWAYS negotiate the price of any vehicle before divulging that I even HAVE a trade-in. I also insist on seeing the actual bid slip from the used car manager (or wholesaler) on my trade-in. In addition, I do a LOT of research on the going prices for any vehicle in my area that I'm looking at. I realize that import buyers are used to paying full list on all their purchases without any questions, but not me. My money is too hard to come by to throw it away. My last two trade-in deals were right on target with KBB trade-in values. I won't deal otherwise, and I DON'T buy Japanese or German vehicles anymore.

"17th Mar 2009, 21:38

I have to agree that the Challenger (and Camaro) will never be a threat to the Mustang. More and more people care less and less about the "bragging rights" that come with a V-8.

I traded my last V-8 Mustang in 2003 and recently opted for the 4.0 V-6, which is rated at 15 horsepower MORE than my old 5.0, gets nearly twice the mileage and saves me 40% on my insurance. My last two V-8 Mustangs were nowhere near as comfortable or as FAST as my current V-6, so I don't feel I've given up anything.

You can't even use the full potential of a 4-cylinder Fusion LEGALLY, and just being able to say "I have a V-8!!" no longer impresses people. For that reason I doubt the Challenger (or Camaro) would outsell the Mustang even if it DID do 0-60 in 4 seconds.

People are (THANKFULLY) becoming less enamored with ridiculously powerful engines whose potential can only be used on a private race course."

I'm still curious to see how your V6 Mustang gets 28 MPG City/48 MPG Highway. That is in effect what you are claiming by close to double the fuel mileage of the previous generation V8. Even the fuel injected and carberated 5.0 V8 from the early 1980's on up was good for at least 15 City/22 Highway. So explain to me again how your Mustang V6 gets 40+ MPG highway.

My theory is you purchased a long line of lemons (not likely), or your driveway sits at the top of a 5 mile long 17% grade (more unlikely).

Why don't you put a 75 MPH speed limiter on your car, so its full potential top speed can be used. That or buy a Yugo or Geo Metro.

Who paid list on their import? I got my Honda for invoice plus 2.9% financing and I negotiated for about 30 seconds on the deal. Guess what, the dealer still made good money on the deal though. Research all you want. The dealer STILL makes a good profit somewhere. They wouldn't sell you the car otherwise. What would be the point of selling cars if you don't make a good profit?

"I'm still curious to see how your V6 Mustang gets 28 MPG City/48 MPG Highway. That is in effect what you are claiming by close to double the fuel mileage of the previous generation V8. Even the fuel injected and carberated 5.0 V8 from the early 1980's on up was good for at least 15 City/22 Highway. So explain to me again how your Mustang V6 gets 40+ MPG highway."

Both my previous 5.0's ('85 and '90) consistently got 11-14mpg city and 14-16 highway, as did my brother's '86 GT.

I never talked to anyone who claimed more than 16-18 mpg out of a 5.0. My neighbor's teen aged son currently drives a 1995 V-8 Mustang and he says his mileage ranges from 9 to 14. I have no idea where all these folks are who get 30mpg out of a V-8 Mustang. They should apply for a place in the book of world records.

Any vehicle that does 0-60 in 6.5 seconds is far more than adequate. If you want to pay 5 grand more for 1 less second to 60, and 40% higher insurance rates go for it. Just don't insult those of us who choose to use our money for more important things. I'm well beyond my "boy racer" and "look at me, I can burn rubber" days. I'd LOVE to see the new 175hp I-4 put in the 2010 Mustang. Even it would be plenty to merge and pass.

"Both my previous 5.0's ('85 and '90) consistently got 11-14mpg city and 14-16 highway, as did my brother's '86 GT.

I never talked to anyone who claimed more than 16-18 mpg out of a 5.0. My neighbor's teen aged son currently drives a 1995 V-8 Mustang and he says his mileage ranges from 9 to 14. I have no idea where all these folks are who get 30mpg out of a V-8 Mustang. They should apply for a place in the book of world records."

I don't recall anyone on here saying that their mustang GT got 30 MPG highway. I myself stated that my 2008 is good for 26 MPG highway when driven modestly, and 22 to 23 if driven somewhat aggressively. If I go 55MPH on a flat stretch of 2 lane highway the computer has registered over 30 MPG at times, but that is not the norm.

My 1988 Mercury Grand Marquis Wagon with virtually the same 5.0 V8 motor as the 1980's and early 1990's Mustang was good for well over 20 MPG highway, same thing with just about every Grand Marquis or Crown Vic from 1979 or newer with the automatic overdrive transmission. And my Grand Marquis Wagon was a good 700 pounds heavier than any Mustang of that era, so there goes your argument about the 5.0 not being fuel efficient. You are the one who should apply for a place in the book of world records, making a statement that your V6 Mustang gets close to double the fuel mileage of the previous generation's V8. That or you could apply for "worst fuel mileage ever" with a modern, fuel efficient motor.

"My neighbor's teen aged son currently drives a 1995 V-8 Mustang and he says his mileage ranges from 9 to 14."

If I was a teenager with a Mustang GT, there would be a reason for my poor mileage. That reason being my right foot, not the car.

I consider highway driving to be 1 long trip of over 300 miles, or consistent trips of 50 miles or more with little or no stop and go city driving at all. I don't know what your version is, but obviously you are doing little to no highway driving with horrible mileage like that.

My full size 1988 Grand Marquis Wagon was good for at least 13-14 MPG City. My current 2008 Mustang GT 15-16. Yes it is a V8, and V8's do not deliver good mileage in stop and go city traffic. But 9 to 11 MPG? That's garbage. There are 2 1/2 hulks from the 1970's with Big Block V8's under the hood and carburetors way out of whack that aren't even that terrible on fuel.

"I'd LOVE to see the new 175hp I-4 put in the 2010 Mustang. Even it would be plenty to merge and pass."

It's ideas like that that nearly put the Mustang, Camaro, and Firebird to an early grave in the 1980's. That motor does not put out nearly enough power to move a 3100 pound car. After 75000 miles that motor will be shot after working double time trying to make up for the power of a V6 or V8. A V6 Mustang is bad enough, if you want that 4-cylinder there's a Fusion with your name on it, or a Ford Probe since you seem to have a soft spot in your heart for wannabe cheap imitation Mustangs.

I own both a 4-cylinder Fusion and a V-6 Mustang. Either car is amply powerful. The Fusion will downshift at 100mph and peg the speedometer in 4th gear. It merges fast enough that I generally have to ride the brakes on entry ramps to keep from running over all the "Boy Racers" in their V-8's who buy for image only and never use 30% of the power they waste their hard-earned bucks on.

As for 175 horsepower being too little for a Mustang, try telling that to the guys with the first GT's, which had a whopping 160 hp. One of my 5.0's was rated at about 175-180 (I forget the exact figure) and at the time it was considered very fast. 175 Horsepower is plenty for the current Mustang regardless of the weight. One of our 2.3 4 cylinder Mustangs was rated at about 100 horsepower and performed flawlessly for 150,000 miles.

People have some pretty bizarre ideas about power. 1) If you can't USE it, why pay for it? and 2) What dictates that a lower horsepower engine will wear out sooner. My experience has been the exact opposite.