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

I own a 2006 Mustang GT. I've seen 15 MPG a few times, but ONLY after very hard driving. I've also never seen 27 MPG to the best of my knowledge, but 25 MPG or more is not hard to do, even with an automatic transmission. I put anywhere from 220 to 330 miles on average on a full tank of fuel. I run the fuel down usually till the gage is halfway between 1/4 and E.

This usually equates to between 12.5 and 13 gallons of fuel added. These cars don't have very high cruising ranges even with a V6, only a 16 gallon tank. I always make sure the tank is FULL, till the pump doesn't pump anymore, till the fuel is just about running out of the filler neck. So you all can use the above four variables and do the math. 330/12.5 is not quite 27, but 220/13 is still above 15. And 220 miles on a full tank is about the WORST I have ever done on a full tank.

"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."

One reason we switched from Explorer to the far better GMC Envoy was fuel mileage. We owned three Explorers. None ever saw over 19.8 mpg on ANY trip on the interstate. The GMC with the much more powerful 275HP I-6 gets 24 highway and averages 19 in the city. It is smoother, MUCH faster than the V-8 Explorer and rides much better. I still love Fords but I can't for the life of me figure out where people are buying these specially prepped V-8's that get 27mpg while drag racing with 4:11 rear ends. Please cue me in. After reading some of comments, I checked to see if there were any claims of 40mpg out of the V-10 Viper, but didn't find any.

"I always make sure the tank is FULL, till the pump doesn't pump anymore, till the fuel is just about running out of the filler neck."

On older cars I think I was warned not to fill the gas tanks that full because liquid gasoline could make it up a charcoal canister, part of the emissions control system, and ruin it so you couldn't pass an emissions check. Especially in the summer when cool gas from underground is then pumped up to a hot environment where it expands and gas to go somewhere. Was that true back then? Is that still true?

"I still love Fords but I can't for the life of me figure out where people are buying these specially prepped V-8's that get 27mpg while drag racing with 4:11 rear ends. Please cue me in. After reading some of comments, I checked to see if there were any claims of 40mpg out of the V-10 Viper, but didn't find any."

Go to Google and put in "5.0 carb vs. FI mpg" and see what the results are. Also ask the forums to see why Mustang guys switch to FI whenever they can... FI is much more efficient.

You are the one who got the same mileage with both FI and Carb right? Well, there is something major wrong with your FI car if that is the case. Again, I see many people getting in the mid 20's with their FI Mustangs. Oh, but they are all just making up their numbers just to feel better about themselves right? Yeah, that's a good reason to spend thousands to change over to a FI system from a carb... And Ford should have saved the billions in research and development to come up with a multi-port fuel injection system that gets EXACTLY the same mileage as the old fashioned carb. Yeah, keep telling yourself they get the same mileage. Maybe you had a 4.10 rear end in your '90 and you drove on the highway in 4th gear.

"On older cars I think I was warned not to fill the gas tanks that full because liquid gasoline could make it up a charcoal canister, part of the emissions control system, and ruin it so you couldn't pass an emissions check. Especially in the summer when cool gas from underground is then pumped up to a hot environment where it expands and gas to go somewhere. Was that true back then? Is that still true?"

It actually wasn't true then and isn't now. You can fill the tank full without doing any harm. But yes, higher temperatures DO cause fuel to expand, but even then unless you park the car immediately after filling it there is still no problem. Just driving a mile or so will lower the level enough to prevent it from expanding too much.

"17th May 2009, 12:36.

One reason we switched from Explorer to the far better GMC Envoy was fuel mileage. We owned three Explorers. None ever saw over 19.8 mpg on ANY trip on the interstate. "

Well, I don't know what you were doing wrong, but I routinely get 23-25 mpg on the highway in my 4.0 L SOHC V-6 Explorer Sport with 5-speed automatic, with the cruise set at 65 mph. Even better mpg if I'm on state and county highways doing 55 mph. I know you don't want to accept it, but that's how it is.

Our carbureted Ford V-8's actually got slightly better mpg than our later fuel-injected models.

"Well, I don't know what you were doing wrong, but I routinely get 23-25 mpg on the highway in my 4.0 L SOHC V-6 Explorer Sport with 5-speed automatic, with the cruise set at 65 mph. Even better mpg if I'm on state and county highways doing 55 mph. I know you don't want to accept it, but that's how it is."

Believe me, I'd LOVE to get the outrageous mileage figures I see posted for Ford V-8's. It would have saved us a TON of money. Our 2001 4.0 V-6 Explorer Sport simply didn't deliver in the mileage department. It's also not a matter of driving style, as we always took trips on the interstate with the cruise set at 5 mph over the speed limits. Absolute top mileage ever recorded was 19.8. The car was meticulously maintained, as are all our cars. I have no idea what you can "do wrong" with an automatic with the cruise set on 65 on an interstate highway. All you do is sit there and watch the scenery go by. The in-town mileage was somewhere between 14-16 most of the time, which was right in line with the EPA estimates.

I think maybe people in colder climates may get better mpg. (Cars perform better in cold and damp due to the denser air). The best mileage any V-8 Ford we ever had got was 22mpg highway. That was a 1973 Maverick my nephew owned.

"I think maybe people in colder climates may get better mpg. (Cars perform better in cold and damp due to the denser air)."

Actually the exact opposite is true. Cars get better mileage in warmer temperatures. I always notice a significant drop in mileage in the winter months.

Cars do get better mileage when it's warm. My mileage has jumped from 18 or 19mpg back up to 21mpg since it has gotten warmer. I live in the south so winters aren't just really cold.

The fact is that with colder temperatures, the air is denser so you get what seems to be BETTER PERFORMANCE or acceleration. The denser the air the more fuel used. The car will still try to maintain a 14.7/1 air/fuel ratio.

"20th May 2009, 11:18.

Believe me, I'd LOVE to get the outrageous mileage figures I see posted for Ford V-8's. It would have saved us a TON of money. Our 2001 4.0 V-6 Explorer Sport simply didn't deliver in the mileage department. It's also not a matter of driving style, as we always took trips on the interstate with the cruise set at 5 mph over the speed limits. Absolute top mileage ever recorded was 19.8. The car was meticulously maintained, as are all our cars. I have no idea what you can "do wrong" with an automatic with the cruise set on 65 on an interstate highway. All you do is sit there and watch the scenery go by. The in-town mileage was somewhere between 14-16 most of the time, which was right in line with the EPA estimates."

I think that extra 5 mph could be part of the problem. It seems like mileage really starts to drop off fast once you get over 2,000 rpm's, and that is right about where 65 mph is. Push it up to 2,500 rpm's, and that could have been the difference between you getting just under 20 mpg, and me getting 23 mpg.

Also, I don't know what gear ratios were available, or if there is some other difference between a 2001 and 2002.

Between the three Explorers we've had at work as company cars, I have driven four generations of them: 1997, 2002, 2005, and 2009. They have definitely gotten better with each design.

The 1997 was a puddle jumper, very under-powered with the 4.0 L V-6 pushrod engine, and poor mileage; I would rave about my 2002 with the 4.0 L SOHC; the 2005 was smooth riding and dependable, getting 24 mpg on the highway with a 4.0 L SOHC; the 2009 is a fabulous vehicle -- quiet, comfortable, good mileage, really nice, and also with the 4.0 L. Maybe you ought to consider another Ford Explorer.

"Cars get better mileage in warmer temperatures."

Yes, that is true. But airplane jet engines are more efficient at high altitude due to the colder air. That is a big reason why they fly airplanes so high. Cars are different - lots more mechanical pieces in the drive train that have lower friction losses when warm. I suppose there are other reasons too.

"Maybe you ought to consider another Ford Explorer.'

Yes, we will definitely consider another Explorer. Since posting my previous comment I have spoken with two owners of newer (2006 and 2007) Explorers and both say their mileage is over 22 on the highway. We LOVE Fords and I have great respect for the fact that Ford now matches or beats Toyota and Honda in reliability. We are also happy that Ford is the only one of the Big Three not facing bankruptcy. We are very happy with our 2006 Fusion and 2007 Mustang. When it's time for another SUV (if ever) the Explorer will be on our list of test-drives.

1st May 2009, 19:08

"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."

I'm still waiting to see the huge class action lawsuit brought against Ford over Mustangs getting 5-10 MPG below advertised Fuel economy. Where are the other hundreds of thousands if not millions of people sueing Ford because of the 5.0 and 4.6 V8 only getting 15 MPG highway? All the Crown Victoria, Mustang, Grand Marquis, and Town Car owners out there since 1979? If the V8 Mustang or even Crown Victoria was that terrible on fuel, no one would buy them, or the other cars I mentioned, and Ford would have long been put out of business. Yet they continue sell, easily meeting if not exceeding their 15 City/ 23 MPG highway figures.

My car is a 2008 GT with a manual transmission and 3.55 rears. Unless it is a extremely windy day or I'm driving like a maniac, my car has no trouble getting well over 23 MPG highway on long trips, at constant speeds over 70 MPH. If you can't drive efficiently like the thousands upon thousands of us getting well over 20 MPG on the highway with a V8 Mustang, the problem is not your engine.

6th May 2009, 16:53

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

When I owned my 2006 Nissan Altima 3.5 SE, I had no problem beating the 2005 and newer V6 Mustang from a stoplight. And I made a point of doing it, often. All while getting better fuel economy in a car that was faster, better handling and more economical than the V6 Mustang.

There are plenty of other people who own V6 Altimas, Accords, and Camrys as well who enjoy humiliating slow uneconomical and unrefined V6 Mustangs.