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

"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."

A 4 cylinder Mustang will simply allow Ford to lower the sticker price. The only 4-cylinder I've heard about returning to the Mustang is a turbo version of the ecoboost.

As with all 4 cylinders, even with a turbo, It will lack the torque of a v-block and will require faster gears, thus negating any substantial fuel savings. As with previous 4-cylinder Mustangs, a base 4 cylinder Mustang will be cheap and unrefined with a sloppier suspension, like today's V6 Mustang.

GM, namely Buick, had the Turbo thing right with the Grand National and Regal T Type. It was one of the only Turbocharged engines from its era to be fast, powerful, reliable and reasonably fuel efficient. I would take a 1987 Buick 3.8 V6 Turbo over a modern Mustang V6 any day.

"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."

The only inaccurate and unfounded comments here are yours, every last one of them. You go get that 4-cylinder, get in line. If you can't drive fuel efficiently, go get yourself a Prius or Insight. Stay in the right lane and leave the roads open for those of us who know how to drive and get 24 MPG in V8 Mustangs at 75 MPH without even trying.

"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."

I'm a member of two car clubs. No one I know in either has ever even heard of 27 mpg out of a V-8 Mustang. Virtually every single magazine review of these cars state emphatically that they averaged 15 mpg or so. That means some of the time they were getting less than 15 (such as 10-12).

Getting 27 mpg with a V-8 with a 4:11 rear end would be like getting 80mpg out of a V-10 Viper. More like 8-10 mpg with a 4:11. If Ford could get 27mpg out of a V-8 Mustang, believe me, they'd be shouting it from the roof tops.

One of my co-workers is in his 60's and bought a GT convertible last summer. He goes on lots of trips with his wife. I asked him what his mileage was and he said 15 average and maybe 21 on the trips. That's what I hear from everyone with a V-8.

Maybe a specially prepared V-8 with really high rear gearing might get 27, but I don't know anyone who has ever heard of that. As for the Mustang forums, I'd sort of take that with a grain of salt. There are import owners on forums who claim outrageous gas mileage and longevity out of imports, but I don't know anyone in the real world who achieves those claims either.

Gosh, none of those blue-haired old ladies in their Camrys, Altimas and Accords ever want to race me at stoplights. What am I dong wrong???

"Stay in the right lane and leave the roads open for those of us who know how to drive and get 24 MPG in V8 Mustangs at 75 MPH without even trying."

I'm too busy looking at all those flying pigs up there to worry much about those magical 30 mpg Mustang V-8's. There are so many MORE of the flying pigs.

Whatever! I got the mileage I got. I don't care much if you believe me or not. MOVING RIGHT ALONG...

"I'm a member of two car clubs. No one I know in either has ever even heard of 27 mpg out of a V-8 Mustang. Virtually every single magazine review of these cars state emphatically that they averaged 15 mpg or so. That means some of the time they were getting less than 15 (such as 10-12).

Getting 27 mpg with a V-8 with a 4:11 rear end would be like getting 80mpg out of a V-10 Viper. More like 8-10 mpg with a 4:11. If Ford could get 27mpg out of a V-8 Mustang, believe me, they'd be shouting it from the roof tops.

One of my co-workers is in his 60's and bought a GT convertible last summer. He goes on lots of trips with his wife. I asked him what his mileage was and he said 15 average and maybe 21 on the trips. That's what I hear from everyone with a V-8.

Maybe a specially prepared V-8 with really high rear gearing might get 27, but I don't know anyone who has ever heard of that. As for the Mustang forums, I'd sort of take that with a grain of salt. There are import owners on forums who claim outrageous gas mileage and longevity out of imports, but I don't know anyone in the real world who achieves those claims either."

I have to take everything you say with a grain of salt as well. If I were you I would start a complaint to Ford, because if their cars are rated at 16-24 for mpg and you are only getting 11-15 mpg, it is an outrage.

I think you saw an opportunity on here to start an argument, but have no basis for disbelieving so many who have their own claims to higher mileage.

Plus you claim the same mileage figures out of carbeurated and FI 5.0's, which is way off, leading me to believe you have no basis for your arguments.

Sorry you can't achieve good mileage out of a V-8. The guys in your so called club probably all run their cars pretty hard as well. And STOP quoting magazines as a reliable source for mpg. They admittedly beat on the cars for performance numbers and are always way below average for that reason. Car and Driver can't even get an economy car to meet its low city mileage figures because they need to see what it'll do 0-60 in and how fast it will cover the 1/4 mile. It is wrong to use these sources for reliable best mileage figures.

My two cars physically covered the miles per tank, that when divided out to the gallons used, was around 27 mpg PERIOD!!! I figured this over and over to make sure I was right with my figures as I couldn't believe it either until I experienced it. They were not "specially prepared" V-8's, and they had the larger 3.08 Z code axles.

Next you'll be claiming your 4 cylinder Fusion is outrunning Mustang GT's.

"And STOP quoting magazines as a reliable source for mpg. They admittedly beat on the cars for performance numbers and are always way below average for that reason. Car and Driver can't even get an economy car to meet its low city mileage figures because they need to see what it'll do 0-60 in and how fast it will cover the 1/4 mile. It is wrong to use these sources for reliable best mileage figures"

It's interesting to see how fickle car owners can be. If a magazine SUPPORTS their claims then that magazine is cited ad nauseum. If it DOESN'T support their claims we are told "STOP quoting MAGAZINES"!! And in one comment we are told "Mustangs are made to be drag raced at every light", and in the next sentence we are told how car magazines "flog" their test cars. As for the carbureted 5.0 getting worse mileage than the injected version, no, not in my case. The mileage was virtually identical in both cases, as was that of my brother's '86 GT. I have no reason to make this stuff up. Getting low mileage is hardly something to brag about. It just happens to be a fact.

And it wasn't me who "started an argument". I was savagely attacked and maligned because I chose to trade a 5.0 guzzler for a 4.0 that can be driven hard and still deliver nearly exactly twice the mileage. That is nobody's business but mine, nor is it anyone's place to attack the 60+ percent of Mustang buyers who choose the more economical and better riding 4.0.

"My two cars physically covered the miles per tank, that when divided out to the gallons used, was around 27 mpg PERIOD!!! I figured this over and over to make sure I was right with my figures as I couldn't believe it either until I experienced it. They were not "specially prepared" V-8's, and they had the larger 3.08 Z code axles."

Are you sure your calculator is working correctly? My wife has a horrible habit of putting the numbers in wrong when she checks her fuel mileage. She has come up with some pretty bizarre figures at times. You divide the miles traveled by the number of gallons (including tenths) used to refill the tank.

"As for the carbureted 5.0 getting worse mileage than the injected version, no, not in my case. The mileage was virtually identical in both cases, as was that of my brother's '86 GT."

Gee, Ford did all of that research and development to make a fuel system that is more economical and efficient only to get the same mileage? I don't think so. There is something wrong with your car if the FI version gets the same mileage as the carb version. Go back and check your precious C&D articles on the two different years and I bet they come up with much less on the older engine for mpg. I don't know why you'd be getting the same from both unless your driving habits are just so bad that you can't get any good mileage out of a V-8. I have no reason to make up the numbers I have gotten either, nor do the people on every forum that talk mileage and get into the mid 20's consistently with their old 5.0's even after 200,000 miles. I guess we can agree to disagree. As long as you are happy with less power good for you. I am sticking with V-8's in Mustangs for as long as they produce them.

Oh, they did try to get rid of the V-8 Mustang in the late 80's and go to a different platform. It was eventually called the Probe. Loyal Mustang enthusiasts couldn't stomach a front driver with less powerful engines offered over a rear drive V-8 car... the car the Mustang was born to be.

"Are you sure your calculator is working correctly? My wife has a horrible habit of putting the numbers in wrong when she checks her fuel mileage. She has come up with some pretty bizarre figures at times. You divide the miles traveled by the number of gallons (including tenths) used to refill the tank."

Yeah, thanks for the lesson in math there... I actually did it by hand, not with a calculator... you know back in the day when people knew how to do math without assistance? And since I got all "A's" in math back then, I figured I knew what I was doing.

"It's interesting to see how fickle car owners can be. If a magazine SUPPORTS their claims then that magazine is cited ad nauseum. If it DOESN'T support their claims we are told "STOP quoting MAGAZINES"!! And in one comment we are told "Mustangs are made to be drag raced at every light", and in the next sentence we are told how car magazines "flog" their test cars. As for the carbureted 5.0 getting worse mileage than the injected version, no, not in my case. The mileage was virtually identical in both cases, as was that of my brother's '86 GT. I have no reason to make this stuff up. Getting low mileage is hardly something to brag about. It just happens to be a fact."

Never did I say that racing a Mustang would produce 27 mpg. Nor did I say that Mustangs are meant to be drag raced at every light.

Magazines are a poor resource because the journalists that do the testing run the car as hard as they can for performance numbers, therefore the cars mpg is way less than normal driving habits would warrant.

Okay, now... my mileage was based on cruising on the highway at around 70 mph, NOT racing and trying to get the most out of the car. There is a huge difference. I am merely stating that it is possible to get those numbers on the highway as I did. Did I get 27 mpg all the time? HECK NO!! Around town I probably got around 18 - 20 mpg if I was driving civilized.

You had major problems with your car if you averaged 11-15 mpg. Sorry, but I would have had it in the dealer shop so they could explain to me why a car rated at 16-24 was getting roughly half of that. I know the ratings are not the word of God, but they are never off by that much unless driving habits come into play, which the dealer mechanic would have told you... lighten up on the lead foot!!!

Every car I have had has exceeded the ratings including both of my 5.0 Mustangs. Okay, I am done explaining this.

"Are you sure your calculator is working correctly?"

I had a friend in college who was always telling us what great mileage his Mustang got. We all finally got tired of it and insisted he tell us how he did the calculation. He said he figured fuel consumed by knowing how big the gas tank was and always filling up when the needle got to the half-way mark. He refused to believe that wasn't a good way to judge fuel consumed. If he ever got around to recording what the fuel pumps dispensed and figured his real mileage, he never told us.

I put more credence on personal experience with calculating gas mileage than with any other source, including magazines or even the official EPA estimates. I have beaten the published EPA estimate by 5 mpg on every vehicle I ever owned, and that is even the OLD EPA estimate, which was recently downrated because it was felt to be too idealistic. I could probably beat the new estimate by 10 mpg!

For instance, Fuel Economy. gov says my 2002 Ford Explorer gets 13 city/18 highway, while I routinely get 18-20 city/23-25 highway, with some values up to 27 mpg (U.S. gallons). These values are not based on one or two times, but dozens and dozens of times. I check every time I've filled up for the past two years.

Similarly, the same site says my 1985 Dodge Ram would get 10 city/12 highway, while I routinely got 15 city/18 highway.

My parents have had similar results with their vehicles, a 1997 Mercury Sable (EPA says 24 highway, while they get 28-29 mpg), 1993 Cadillac Seville (EPA says 23 highway, while they got 27-28 mpg), and 2008 Cadillac DTS (EPA says 23 mpg highway, while my parents get 27 mpg).

All values are calculated by hand (okay fine, using a calculator for division), zeroing the trip odometer at each fill-up, and consistently filling up until the pump clicks off with the handle on the lowest setting, so we know that the fuel tank is always starting at the same level.

Accept it, guys. Driving habits make it possible for people to beat mileage estimates shown in some magazine.

I've known people who used some very bizarre ways of figuring fuel mileage. Using the "half tank" method is certainly NOT effective, as most guages are not very accurate. The only really effective way to figure mileage is by dividing miles driven by gallons used. I don't trust Ford's computer mileage readouts either, as computers are notorious for errors.

Over the years I've gotten some great fuel mileage in various cars. Dodges of the late 80's and early 90's seemed to be the best. My Daytona got 37mpg on one trip and my Omni got 35 in town sometimes. My V-8 Mustang never got over 19.