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

The 2000-2002 V-6 Camaro V-6 had 200+ horsepower and was definitely competition for the older 5.0's of the late 80's and early 90's.

25th Apr 2009, 17:16

The 2000-2002 V-6 Camaro V-6 had 200+ horsepower and was definitely competition for the older 5.0's of the late 80's and early 90's.

We're comparing same year to same year here. This guy was trying to say the base V6 Camaro was always faster than the Mustang GT/5.0 of the same year.

19th Apr 2009, 21:58.

"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'll agree that the Camry is becoming a stereotypical car for old people, but not the Altima, Accord, Malibu, and many others that are quicker and more economical than the Mustang V6. I traded my 2006 Nissan Altima SE V6 for a Mustang GT. with 250 HP and 250 Lb/ft of torque, it easily blew away New Mustang V6's and was only slightly slower than the latest GT's, and faster than my friend's 1998 GT. Also high 20's to low 30's MPG highway.

"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 also bought my 2008 GT for looks, power and fuel economy. There is no other traditional rear wheel drive pony car in this price range that gets you from 0-60 as quick, while still delivering highway fuel economy well into the mid 20's. And I am not rich, if I was the above cars you mentioned may be an option. I do not need to lead foot at every intersection either, but I gave up a nice car in trade, therefore I wanted something in return. If I would have bought a Mustang V6, I would now own a car that is slower, less practical, and less economical, and less refined. I much prefer having a smooth, refined engine under the hood of my car (the 4.6) versus a terrible sounding, unrefined hand me down from the Explorer (4.0 V6).

Being that the current GT only delivers 1 to 2 MPG less on the highway, I have given up nothing buying a V8. I own a car that can back up its looks with its power. And gee, look at the other comments on here now. I'm not the only one who can get well over 20 MPG highway with a V8. My dad's 1978 Oldsmobile Delta 88 with a 350 and 3 speed automatic can still manage 20 MPG highway at times. Go look at all the Chevy Caprice, and Rear Wheel drive Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Buick, and Pontiac RWD cars from the 1980's who lauded well over 20 MPG highway. On this website.

As far as the price of the new Camaro, the V6 will start at just over $23,000 per Chevy's website. So a nicely equipped one will be in the $26,000 to $28,000 range. And no, the new Camaro V6 will not be quicker than current Mustang GT. Car and Driver did a road test with V6, and couldn't get a 0-60 time in under 6 seconds. The new Camaro is also heavier than the Mustang GT. All the HP in the world isn't going to replace the torque of a V8. Reportedly Chevy is trying to get the 0-60 time to less than 6 seconds. The 2010 Mustang GT gains I believe 20 more horsies for 2010, so throw the idea of a quicker V6 Camaro out the window. Close this time, but no cigar.

The Dodge Charger RT is also slower than the Mustang GT, due to weighing in at well over 2 tons. The road tests prove this. I said R/T, not SRT.

The proposed V8 Camaro will eat the Mustang GT alive, but for a price starting out around $35,000, it better do that and more. If Chevy gets it right and builds a reliable car, I think the Camaro could be a huge hit. Even the V6 Camaro will be a respectable ride in my opinion. I personally don't like the styling though.

You, however, got jipped by purchasing a Mustang V6.

"The 2000-2002 V-6 Camaro V-6 had 200+ horsepower and was definitely competition for the older 5.0's of the late 80's and early 90's."

Even with 200 V-6 HP the heavier Camaro would not even come close to taking out a 5.0 Mustang. 0-60 was in the mid 7's to 8 seconds vs 6.2 stock on the Mustang. I have seen so many people on this forum claim to beat 5.0's with V-6 Camaros. Funny how it never happened in all the years I owned Mustangs out in the real world. Most of the Camaro guys would play with the radio or look the other way when I came up next to them at a light. Hmmmm... If you put the LT1 or LS1 Camaro up against the Mustang of the same year then yes the Mustang will lose... but there hasn't been a V-6 powered Camaro yet that can touch a V-8 Mustang of the same year, so enough already.

I didn't say "Camaros of the same year" with regards to my 5.0 Mustangs. My first 5.0 was a 1985 and was much slower than the 2000-2002 V-6 Camaros, and my 1990 5.0 was just marginally slower. NEITHER would come remotely close to 6.2 seconds 0-60. More like 7-7.5.

As for these rather lofty mileage figures I keep seeing, all I can say is either these people getting 27mpg with a V-8 Mustang must be driving downhill all the time and coasting or they are running phenomenally high rear end gearing. Both my 5.0's consistently got between 12-18mpg.

Car and Driver just tested a 2010 V-8 Mustang. Their average fuel mileage? A whopping 15mpg, which is EXACTLY what my 5.0's got. I'm pleased to get 27 out of our I-4 Fusion. Even driven hard in town my 4.0 Mustang never dips below 21mpg. That's consistently 3-9mpg better than either of my 5.0's. The absolute best mileage I ever got with my last 5.0 was 19.8 on a trip on the interstate with the cruise set on 65. All my friends with V-8 Mustangs report similar mileage. The ones owning mid-80's to early 90's V-8's also readily admit to being beaten many times by early 2000's V-6 Camaros. I test drove a 2001 V-6 Camaro while I still owned my '90 5.0 and there was no question the Camaro was faster.

"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."

First of all, if you got the same mileage with an '85 and a '90 5.0 then something was seriously wrong. The '90 was fuel injected and the '85 was carburated, which made a HUGE difference in mileage.

Secondly, you can talk to me about the mileage... I got around 27 mpg highway with both my '88 and '90 5.0 Mustangs with 5 speeds and traction lok axles. I would say maybe I was off or the odometer was off when I calculated the mileage, but on two different cars with factory new wheels and tires? Not too likely.

The fuel injected cars were very efficient. They were actually rated at 24 mpg highway right on the sticker as I still have the sticker for my '90. It is not unusual to surpass the ratings by a few mpg depending on how you drive. If you smoke the tires at every light and race everything that slides up next to you at a light then yeah, you'll get 14 mpg. I am talking on the road at 70-75 mph cruising. I figured it out to gallons used per miles driven over and over throughout the time I had the cars, as I thought it was a fluke at first, but they both were consistent in the upper 20's...

Oh, and I won't even get into the teenager with the '95... I am sure he buys a new set of tires every 5,000 miles too.

"Car and Driver just tested a 2010 V-8 Mustang. Their average fuel mileage? A whopping 15mpg, which is EXACTLY what my 5.0's got."

Yeah, Car & Driver is a good one to measure the mileage of a car from. They are only interested in the best 0-60 times and lap times, so yes their average is going to be way low. They totally beat on the car and push it to it's limits. 15 mpg is actually pretty darn high given those circumstances. You probably drive similar to that if you got the same on your old Mustang.

I wouldn't waste time coming on here saying I was averaging 27 mpg on two different 5.0 Mustangs if it weren't true. Sorry you blew through so much gas on yours, but facts are facts. I guess I just drove very responsibly for the majority of time with my 5.0's.

Oh, and your beloved Car & Driver consistently got around 6.2 seconds from 0 to 60 on the FI 225 HP 5.0 Mustang ('87-'93 (even the re-rated 205 HP '93)) except the '93 Cobra, which was 5.8. This, of course, was with the traction lok 3.08 axle and a 5-speed manual, which both mine had.

"All my friends with V-8 Mustangs report similar mileage. The ones owning mid-80's to early 90's V-8's also readily admit to being beaten many times by early 2000's V-6 Camaros. I test drove a 2001 V-6 Camaro while I still owned my '90 5.0 and there was no question the Camaro was faster."

The only explanation is that you all had the "M" code 2.73 axle and you aren't really good at racing. The 0-60 time with that axle was a pitiful 7.3 seconds. They were much slower than the traction lok cars, and the worst part is the traction lok was a NO COST option on the Mustang. Not every one can shift good or at the right points. That doesn't make the car slower though. Look up C&D's old test results and compare the V-6 Camaro's to the 5.0 times. The Mustangs were always faster. Even the V-8 Camaros, pre- LT-1 were all slower than the 5.0 Mustang. Even the new 304 HP V-6 Camaro is only going to be around 6 seconds to 60 so you can't tell me a 200 HP car is going that fast. Look up your numbers and then report the facts. Just because you and your friends can't race doesn't make the cars slower.

"Just because you and your friends can't race doesn't make the cars slower."

Just how much "talent" does it take to floor an accelerator??

"just how much "talent" does it take to floor an accelerator?"

You are the only one on this site claiming poor fuel mileage with a Mustang. And the only one to claim being beaten by V6 Camaros. No Ford Mustang V8 gets 15MPG highway, not since the Fox platform was introduced in the late 1970's. Period. Point Blank.

The NEW Mustang V-8 gets 15 mpg (Car and Driver test, May 2007). Both my 5.0's and my brother's '86 GT got between 11 and 19 mpg. I don't know anyone with a V-8 Mustang that has EVER, under ANY circumstances, gotten 27mpg. Please show documentation for these claims. The rear gearing must be astronomically high or your driving is ALL downhill coasting in neutral. Our 4 cylinder Fusion does good to get 28mpg. When I polled my V-8 Mustang-owning friends, only ONE claimed more than 20 highway, and even he only claimed 22.

As for the 4-cylinder in the new Mustang, it's coming. See the June edition of Mustang Enthusiast, page 26. Ford seems to agree with me that the 4 is the way to go. They plan to put the Fusion EcoBoost 4 in ALL their vehicle lines, including the F-150 TRUCKS. So much for 175-180 horsepower being "too puny" to move anything larger than a mo-ped. Ford begs to differ.

In concluding the article the writer (very correctly) states: "Other than perhaps some big-block purists, an EcoBoost 4-cylinder Mustang would have FEW DOWNSIDES (emphasis mine) as a production car: Enthusiast horsepower and torque, lighter weight, better handling, lower emissions and of course benchmark fuel economy". I'll be first in line for one.

I've grown accustomed to seeing many inaccurate and unfounded comments on this site, but most are generally from import fans who don't know a piston from a cigarette lighter. It saddens me to see Mustang owners who seem out of touch with reality. The V-8 is a dinosaur. It's GONE. As a mechanic I can assure you there are ZERO practical advantages to a fuel-guzzling V-8 over a V-6 or 4. Just as the Mustang Enthusiast writer so correctly pointed out, the 4 is the engine of the future, even in Mustang. It will handle better, pollute less, and get far better mileage. NO downsides. Mustang has not since its very earliest days sold more V-8's than 6's. It currently sells 60% V-6's. With a 4 option, my guess is the 4 will immediately become the top seller. Better ride, handling, and fuel mileage.

I also find HUGE contradictions in many of the comments. It is stated that 1) The purpose of Mustangs is to beat out every Altima, Camry, Accord or 1957 DeSoto Firedome at every stoplight, yet 2) The claim of TWENTY SEVEN MILES PER GALLON is made. You CAN'T have both. If you are drag racing at every stop light, you ARE NOT getting 27 mpg (or even 15). If you ARE driving like you have an egg under the gas pedal, you are in TOTAL CONTRADICTION to your own argument that Mustangs are only for racing.

I much prefer being able to drive my 4.0 in whatever way I choose and still get 21 mpg or better average. I drive it EXACTLY like I've driven both my 5.0's in town. In town they both got between 10-11 and 14 TOPS. I'm getting nearly TWICE the mileage, paying MUCH LESS on insurance and not having my fillings jarred out by the harsher GT suspension. I LIKE That. I'll buy a 4 as soon as it comes out and like it even more.

Yeah, Ford thought the 4 cylinder was the way of the Mustang back in 1974 too when they brought out the Mustang II. That worked out really well for them didn't it? Here we are 35 years later with more powerful (and more efficient) V-8's than ever before (never mind V-6's and turbo 4 cylinders).

I don't care if you agree with me or believe me about my mileage figures. Facts are facts, and I figured out my mileage on a regular basis as I was in college and gas money was harder to come by. If I was getting 11-15 mpg, I would have sold the cars and found something more realistic for daily driving. Oh well... sorry I didn't keep my sheets for you. Look up some Mustang forums online and see what others say about mileage. It varies a lot, but I have not seen 11 mpg, I have seen the upper 20's though even on modified cars with 3.73 and 4.11 rearends.

To me the extra few mpg you'll save just isn't worth the difference in engine performance... or lack thereof of a 4 cylinder in a Mustang. They will surely have to gear the car to compensate for the lack of power if they use a smaller engine. Guess what... taller gears mean lower fuel economy. Plus, they will never equip the car like the GT with all of the performance suspension upgrades which make the driving experience complete (this is already true on the current 6 cylinder cars).

I have driven Mustang Foxbody 4 cylinder's and they are like an Escort with a Mustang body on it, with really sloppy handling and cheaper interior components. You buy an econobox for good fuel mileage and a sports car for excitement. Like you said... you can't have it both ways. Car companies have tried it before and it will fail again.

The only 4 cylinder Mustangs worth anything over the years were the SVO's, and they got about the same mileage as the V-8 cars. I applaud your sense of economizing, but I just can't understand why you find it so impossible that a V-8 could get good mileage with the advancements in FI over the past two decades. Even the 638 hp ZR-1 Corvette is rated at around 23 mpg. I know a few people with Hemi Chargers and they average 24 mpg on the highway with them consistently.... with an automatic.

You think there is this great drive to go with smaller, lower HP engines. Well someone better tell the car companies because all I see is the continuous drive for increased HP. Even the Prius is getting a larger, higher HP engine in 2010 due to the complaints that it is a dog on the highway and in acceleration.

"Just how much "talent" does it take to floor an accelerator??"

Not much, but shifting through the gears with a manual takes a lot of "talent". You will lose every race if you take off too hard and spin the tires, or if you shift at the wrong rpm levels not getting the most out of your drivetrain. Most people redline their car thinking that is the way to race, but they go way past the peak torque level and are just wasting the engine and more gas.

I once kept up with a guy in a Porsche 911 because he had no idea how to drive his car and was over-revving it and mis-shifting it. What was I driving?? A TOYOTA TERCEL!! 80 hp, vs at least 225 for that year Porsche (he was trying too 'cause I was chasing him , not racing him, after he went around me on the interstate in the grassy median (crazy fool) and then got off the next exit... where the pursuit began).

Point is, it does take a certain amount of talent to drive a fast car well. The lack of talent will also cost you on your gas mileage as good driving ability will increase the cars efficiency. Could be why you are getting 11 mpg in a car that is rated at 16-24 mpg. Yes the 5.0 is RATED at 16-24, and while I know they are sometimes off a bit, they are not usually off by 13 mpg, and most cars I have had are underrated including BOTH of my 5.0 Mustangs.

"I also find HUGE contradictions in many of the comments. It is stated that 1) The purpose of Mustangs is to beat out every Altima, Camry, Accord or 1957 DeSoto Firedome at every stoplight, yet 2) The claim of TWENTY SEVEN MILES PER GALLON is made. You CAN'T have both. If you are drag racing at every stop light, you ARE NOT getting 27 mpg (or even 15). If you ARE driving like you have an egg under the gas pedal, you are in TOTAL CONTRADICTION to your own argument that Mustangs are only for racing."

Who said anything about racing all the time... or getting 27 mpg all the time. I stated that on trips on the highway at 70-75 mph, I averaged in the upper 20's with two different Mustangs. Yes, I was getting it both ways because it was one of the faster cars at every stop light too. I didn't waste time figuring my mileage if I was driving harder as OBVIOUSLY it would be much less than my highway figures.

I don't think anyone is claiming great gas mileage when you mash the gas and row the gears like there is no tomorrow, but these cars are extremely efficient, given their power and performance, when you need them to be. If you spent your time racing or even driving around in 3rd or 4th gear when you could use 5th, you probably wasted a lot of gas.

I have ridden with countless drivers that don't know when to upshift, running the car at much higher rpm's than necessary even in regular driving. The Mustang will go around a 90 degree corner and recover nicely in 4th gear if you slow down to less than 20 mph with the torque the 5.0 has. Constantly downshifting is really costly on gas as the tendency to punch it to get up to speed is there instead of letting it return to cruising speed a little slower and more efficiently in the higher gear.

"The NEW Mustang V-8 gets 15 mpg (Car and Driver test, May 2007). Both my 5.0's and my brother's '86 GT got between 11 and 19 mpg. I don't know anyone with a V-8 Mustang that has EVER, under ANY circumstances, gotten 27mpg. Please show documentation for these claims. The rear gearing must be astronomically high or your driving is ALL downhill coasting in neutral. Our 4 cylinder Fusion does good to get 28mpg. When I polled my V-8 Mustang-owning friends, only ONE claimed more than 20 highway, and even he only claimed 22."

The NEW Mustang V-8 gets anywhere from 15mpg city/24 MPG highway under most normal conditions. (Source: Myself, People I know, and thousands upon thousands of internet reviews) This on regular unleaded fuel. My sticker for my 2008 GT California special says 15 City/23 Highway. I usually fuel with premium and set the cruise at 75. As the car continues to break in, my mileage only continues to improve. On rural country roads where the speed limit is 55, I have seen well over 26 MPG. This with a 5 speed, V8 and 3.55 gears.

There would be quite a few people involved in a class action lawsuit against Ford if the mileage was as poor as you claim, myself included. If 28 MPG is the best you can do with a Fusion on the highway, your driving style and methods seriously need to be reevaluated.

My 1988 Mercury Grand Marquis Wagon, weighing in at nearly 2 tons curb weight, was easily capable of over 20 MPG highway. 23 or 24 at times to be exact. It is not that unfathomable that a much lighter Mustang of the same year with the same engine is capable of over 25 MPG highway.

My 1983 Buick Le Sabre that I owned in college had a 5.0 liter 307 cubic inch 4-barrel carburated V8. Still good for up to 23 MPG highway, even at over 300,000 miles.

My father's 1978 Oldsmobile Delta 88 has a 350 V8 4-barrel, and the old Turbo 350 3 speed automatic. 187,000 miles. Still capable of over 20 MPG at times. Not all the time, but not hard to do.

My 1998 GMC Sierra 4 x 4 extended cab with a 350 fuel injected V8 gets up to 18 MPG highway.

And you continue to claim that a modern V8 Mustang gets 15 MPG highway? Car and driver flat out states that they pound on their cars (slaloms, 0-60, hard braking) to achieve that type of mileage. So that argument of yours was never valid.