6th May 2009, 13:20

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.

6th May 2009, 13:31

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.

6th May 2009, 16:50

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.

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 dong wrong???

7th May 2009, 23:14

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.

8th May 2009, 08:17

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

8th May 2009, 09:36

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.

9th May 2009, 21:29

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.

9th May 2009, 21:34

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.

13th May 2009, 10:57

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.