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

"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.

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.

"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."

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"??

"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."

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.

"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"."

99HP is laughable performance for anything bigger than a subcompact, even by 1970's standards. That old Ford I-6 was a strong durable engine, just like GM's old "stovebelt" 4.1 liter (250) and Chryslers 227 Slant 6. In the mid 1970's cars were choked to death with ridiculous emissions equipment and heavy safety bumpers, and forced to lower their compression to meet CAFE standards, which on the fuel economy part they usually failed miserably at.

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"??

A small engine does not make up for the power of a V8. Unless it has a turbo or a supercharger, it overworks itself trying to. This is the point I'm trying to bring across.

For a perfect example of this, look at Buick's 3.8 Liter V6 in the 1970's to early 1980's. A strong, durable, fuel efficient motor for its era. 110 HP, 190 Lb/Ft of torque in its early days. The problem is, GM put this motor as standard in many full size rear wheel drive cars in the late 1970's to early 1980's, including the Oldsmobile Delta 88 and Buick Le Sabre. Some of these V8's are still on the road today. The V6's were gutless dogs that usually had their piston rings shot well before 100,000 miles. Dealers couldn't give them away. Plenty of power as the standard engine in a mid size car, but this dinky motor had no business trying to lug 3700 pounds around.

You're right, 175 HP is plenty of power to move a Mustang. The amount of torque the 4-cyl puts out, however, is not satisfactory by today's standards. You would need faster gears just to get adequate performance from the motor, forcing the engine to run faster at highway speeds. This would burn more fuel, defeating the purpose of the 4-cyl in the first place.

""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."

In case you don't remember, the Probe was introduced as an eventual replacement for the mustang. After a lot of screaming from some loyal Mustang customers, Ford thankfully reconsidered. And today, they still build a fuel efficient, reliable Mustang GT capable of at least 15 MPG City/23 MPG Highway.

"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."

So I never use 30% of the power in my car? Is there a police officer on every city block waiting for me to break the law? I would have no problem humiliating your Fusion or Mustang with the hard earned bucks I wisely spent my money 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."

Those 160-180 HP 5.0 Mustangs also put out anywhere from 250 to 270 pounds of torque, something the 4-cyl isn't even close to, and something the 4.0 V6 just recently surpassed. There's more to a cars performance than horsepower. There are many motorcycle and snowmobile engines that put out well over 100 HP spinning at high RPM's, but they have no place under the hood of a car.

"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."

I can't use it? Again, who's going to stop me from using it. You said yourself you had your Fusion going 100+ MPH. But hey, you can't do that, that's illegal!

Trust me, I have no problem making full use of what I paid for. The Mustang looks fast, it should also be fast. 0-60 in 6.5 seconds for a V6 is not that fast by today's standards. Sorry. So have fun getting eaten alive by every V6 Accord, Camry and Altima out there, just for starters...

"The problem is, GM put this motor as standard in many full size rear wheel drive cars in the late 1970's to early 1980's, including the Oldsmobile Delta 88 and Buick Le Sabre. Some of these V8's are still on the road today. The V6's were gutless dogs that usually had their piston rings shot well before 100,000 miles"

My nephew sold my late brother's 1977 Buick LaSabre V-6 a few months back. The car had 277,000+ miles on that "overworked" V-6 and had never had a single repair.

My sister-in-law bought a brand new 1975 Ford Granada with the I-6 and drove it 40 miles a day to work (and everywhere else) for 17 years. It was traded (for another Ford) at 325,000+ miles. It had had nothing in the way of repairs except a starter, carburetor and muffler.

I'm a mechanic, and where the idea that pulling a heavy load wears out PISTON RINGS came from is beyond me. That's a new one on me. Pistons go up and down inside the cylinders in the exact same manner whether the engine is a Viper V-10 or a 4-cylinder Aveo.

As for 175 horsepower being ample for normal driving in a 3100 pound car, of course it is. Only in the past 30 years have most average cars had more than 200 horsepower regardless of size. The old Ford V-8 60 powered cars weighing a ton or more for over a decade. One of those 60 horsepower V-8's made 1,000,000 miles, as did a 150 horsepower Cadillac. 210 horsepower is more than ample and 300+ is simply overkill unless you race. Americans are entirely too obsessed with horsepower they'll never use.

"The Mustang looks fast, it should also be fast. 0-60 in 6.5 seconds for a V6 is not that fast by today's standards. Sorry. So have fun getting eaten alive by every V6 Accord, Camry and Altima out there, just for starters..."

Gee, I'm SOOOOO embarrassed. Now I have to actually go around worrying that some old lady in a Camry might beat me at a redlight. Gosh, what a horrible thought!! Maybe I should go hide under my bed.

I bought my V-6 Mustang for LOOKS. I no longer street race. I even made the comment on the Fusion site a couple of years back (when car shopping) that if Ford made a SPORTY TWO-DOOR Fusion, I'd BUY IT. They DON'T. The only sporty looking car Ford makes is the Mustang. I DO have a Fusion I-4. I don't lose any sleep worrying about getting beat out at redlights in it either. If all you want is faster 0-60 times, why not just pass up the Mustang altogether and go for the Nissan GTR, Viper or Corvette. Or maybe an Air Force surplus rocket sled? If all I wanted was speed, I could have it. We aren't poor. I just have no desire to race with every driver I stop beside at redlights anymore. I grew out of that stage a decade or two ago.

I was averaging around 27 mpg on trips in my two 5.0 Mustangs from the 80's and 90's, and they both had the larger traction lock axle. I can't imagine the newer 4.6 would be less than that, so why go the V-6 route? If you can afford it, the sound alone is enough to justify the V-8, and then the power is there when you want it. For a couple mpg less, I would always opt for the V-8. I just can't see getting a Mustang with an Explorer derived V-6 in it... the sound is horrendous. The V-8 is smooth and sounds like a muscle car should.

The other thing that is much different is the suspension. The GT has the tighter, better handling suspension, which makes the driving experience so much more fun. It's not always just about the power.

Fully 60% of Mustang sales are the V-6. If they didn't sell the V-6's, they couldn't afford to make Mustang at all.

Chevy's new Camaro is projected to get 66% of its sales from the V-6 model. Of course, as always, the bare-bones basic V-6 Camaro is faster and more powerful than the current Mustang GT. V-6 Camaros have always been faster than the Mustang V-8's. I've been embarrassed by having my 1990 5.0 beaten time after time by basic Camaros with the 6. I love Mustang, and don't plan to buy a Camaro, but I have to say that a $20,000 basic Camaro that can eat GT's for breakfast may give Ford a run for their money.

Mustang GTs of the same year as a Camaro V-6 will beat the V-6 Camaros.

"Chevy's new Camaro is projected to get 66% of its sales from the V-6 model. Of course, as always, the bare-bones basic V-6 Camaro is faster and more powerful than the current Mustang GT. V-6 Camaros have always been faster than the Mustang V-8's. I've been embarrassed by having my 1990 5.0 beaten time after time by basic Camaros with the 6. I love Mustang, and don't plan to buy a Camaro, but I have to say that a $20,000 basic Camaro that can eat GT's for breakfast may give Ford a run for their money."

Your 1990 5.0 got beaten by a "basic 6" Camaro? Did you start out in third gear? Pretty tough for a 160 hp heavier car to take a lighter car with 225 HP and 300 lb ft of torque behind it. I never had a 6 cylinder Camaro come close to taking me in any race. In fact anything before the LT1/ LS1 era from '93 up couldn't touch me in my 5.0 stock to stock. Even the 5.7 IROC was slower due to being stuck with a pitiful automatic. I do agree that the new Camaro is going to be spectacular with the 304 hp V-6 in it though. What a bargain... and looks to match.

"Of course, as always, the bare-bones basic V-6 Camaro is faster and more powerful than the current Mustang GT.

Oh yeah, a 1984 Chevy Camaro with a 125 HP 2.8 liter V6 sure showed those Mustang 5.0 drivers who was boss back in the day... NOT!

"V-6 Camaros have always been faster than the Mustang V-8's. I've been embarrassed by having my 1990 5.0 beaten time after time by basic Camaros with the 6."

Are you sure your car was firing on all 8 cylinders?

"My nephew sold my late brother's 1977 Buick LaSabre V-6 a few months back. The car had 277,000+ miles on that "overworked" V-6 and had never had a single repair."

Well, then your late brother was one of a few hundred thousand people to actually own a full size GM V6 from that era that lasted. In high school I owned a 1981 Buick Regal Sedan with the same 3.8 Liter V6. A mid sized 3200 Lb rear wheel drive car. Adequate power, but adequate was all. This car was terribly slow on hills, and constantly forced to downshift between 2nd and 3rd gear due to being SEVERELY UNDERPOWERED. I was not pounding on it, just trying to drive a reasonable speed up a long hill on a rural highway. At only 88,000 miles, this thing had so much blow-by that there was a lake of oil inside the air cleaner.

It went through more oil than my dad's old pickup truck at the time. Every person I've known who's owned a full-sized car with that motor has had similar experiences to mine.

As this engine gained multiport fuel injection and more HP and torque, and GM's cars got lighter through the course of time, it became a real powerhouse. But the early ones were junk.

"I'm a mechanic, and where the idea that pulling a heavy load wears out PISTON RINGS came from is beyond me. That's a new one on me. Pistons go up and down inside the cylinders in the exact same manner whether the engine is a Viper V-10 or a 4-cylinder Aveo."

Any mechanic knows that if you work an engine harder it will wear out sooner. Not only does it wear out piston rings, but the entire engine over time. Whichever engine parts are weaker and more prone to stress will give out quicker, be it lifters, rods, cams, whathaveyou. Why don't you stick the Aveo 4-cyl under the hood of a Silverado 1 ton 4 door dually, and tell me which engine will wear out sooner versus a V8.