9th Apr 2009, 11:17
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?
10th Apr 2009, 13:07
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.
12th Apr 2009, 21:30
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.
14th Apr 2009, 19:27
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.
16th Apr 2009, 13:42
"It's ideas like that that nearly put the Mustang, Camaro, and Firebird to an early grave in the 1980's."
How?? None of these cars were ever offered without a V-8.
16th Apr 2009, 16:21
I just read a road test of the new 2010 Mustang GT by Car and Driver. The average fuel mileage was 15. That jives exactly with what every V-8 Mustang I've ever owned got. These 30mpg V-8's must be coasting in neutral down the side of Mount Everest to achieve that kind of mileage.
18th Apr 2009, 00:32
Gee, that's interesting, considering that the 1973 Mustang, which weighed 100+ pounds MORE than the 2005-2009 models was offered with a 99 horsepower I-6. That engine provided more than adequate power for passing and merging and many of these engines went over 200,000 miles without being "shot". A 175 horsepower engine in a 3100 car is plenty powerful enough for any driving situation. And how does an engine "make up for the power of a V-8"??
19th Apr 2009, 01:23
The reason Car and Driver got that type of mileage is because they do 0-60 burnouts, slaloms, and hard braking and hard cornering, pushing the car to its limits to see what it can handle. Even small and mid sized Japanese cars score high teen/low 20's MPG's when car and driver treats them this way.
My Old GMC 1998 GMC Sierra 4 x 4 with a 350 V8 and 226,000 miles can still get 16-17 MPG highway. This from an old, worn out pushrod engine in a 4400 lb pickup truck.
Prior to this truck I had a 1993 GMC Sierra 4 x 4 with the 4.3 V6. adequate power, but adequate was all. Fuel mileage was the same 15-17 MPG highway. That truck had the same transmission and was geared way too high, constantly searching for gears between 3rd and 4th even on the smallest of molehills. By geared too high I mean a low ratio to make the engine turn slow at highway speeds.
Go look at all the Mustang, Lincoln Town Car, Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis reviews on this website, from the 1980's to present, 5.0 and 4.6 motor. No one has to coast down a mountain to achieve over 20MPG in any Mustang made in the last 30 years. You must live at the top of Mount Everest getting the horrible fuel mileage that you are claiming. No one is claiming 30 MPG consistently either.
If the Mustang GT consistently got 15 MPG highway like you are claiming, it would not be the hot seller that it still is today. The economy is in the dumps, fuel prices have soared to record highs, and the Mustang still sells. NO ONE would buy them, including me, if they were that horrible on fuel consumption. I would have to work hard trying to make my car get mileage that poor. If I never touched 5th gear I would still get over 20MPG, and my car has the quicker 3.55 gears.
I will continue to enjoy my consistent 23-26 MPG highway in my 2008 GT, and the best part is the car is barely broken in yet with only 4000 miles. Only slightly lower than the V6.