2007 Ford Mustang V6 Pony Package from North America - Comments

23rd Dec 2010, 19:51

I guess it depends which part of North America you are from, but my insurance rates were not higher from getting the GT versus the 6. Also, the difference in fuel economy is only 1 mile per gallon per the EPA, so I think the GT was a clear choice. Also, I do use the GT's full potential at the track and on the highway when the opportunity presents itself, not to mention any time I accelerate hard. I personally wish it had more power myself.

24th Dec 2010, 22:03

Okay, okay we get it. If it is no one else's business but yours, why do you keep telling us about it? And why are you so angry about your choice if you aren't feeling inferior? You are the one that keeps rehashing your same points about owning the V6 vs. the GT. So let it be already.

Not everyone who drives a Mustang wants to show it off to everyone. Like I said, give me my black on black GT right out of the box with the 3.73 rear end and a Manual tranny and I am good to go. That is HARDLY a car your grandmother would drive! I have no interest in parades and shows with this car. That is what old Bosses and Mach's are for!

As a designer, I can appreciate the actual design of the car instead of tacking on junk that makes it look goofy and just like everyone else's overdone car. The Mustang stands on its own as a sharp looking car, and doesn't need any extras on it. Besides, once again you admit to putting more money into it for extras, but then go on about how much of a waste of money the GT is. You are playing both sides of the argument here. You waste extra money on upgrades that will get you a 0% return on your car when you sell it, instead of going for the better model that holds its value better.

So, who are you to decide what is too much money and what is too much performance? Any car you buy can go over the speed limit, so there is no point in arguing which one can do it faster. What if I like the quick 0-60 time in the GT. I am not really breaking any laws going 0-60 on any highway entrance ramp. I never spin the tires so I am not wasting any money on new tires like you claim every GT owner does. My insurance isn't that much more, and I get around 27 mpg on trips.

My base GT most assuredly cost less than your V6 after you loaded it up and then added even more in extras after the fact. The V6 Premium with the Pony package is $28,685 (not including aftermarket add-ons) The base GT is $29,645 as per Ford's site. Less than $1K difference. Didn't you quote a $6K to $8K difference? Where did you get that difference? I have 202 more HP than you do, and you paid more for your car... and mine will hold its value better as the 4.0 Mustangs lost a ton when the new V6 was released with 305 hp.

At the end of the day, there is no point in this argument. You like what you like, so go... like it. By coming on here and repeatedly defending your purchase, you are only contradicting yourself. You are the one who is defensive, which clearly shows that you feel like you are missing out on something. Maybe you really don't feel that way, but seriously, the more you go on about the V6 and your reasons for buying one, the more you look like you wish you had the GT... no matter what you say. It is about the way you say it. ALL CAPS makes you look mad about it. It's okay to love what you drive, no matter what anyone else thinks. We all have our own opinions, and the only ones that matter to each of us are our own. Never forget that! Merry Christmas!

24th Dec 2010, 22:04

If you could afford any car you want, how about a new Vette? I like Mustangs and my son likes them. He has owned all GTs; great bang per buck used. But I like the Vettes, and I too can afford most cars as well. . My insurance over 50 is 800 a year. My fuel consumption is 30 mpg on trips staying off the throttle. Great aerodynamics. The new ones with an automatic are cake to drive; very refined.

26th Dec 2010, 07:14

If you go back in time, a base Mustang in 1964 was $2360... for the performance oriented in the 60's you could easily double that. No wonder so many base 6 cyl were sold in comparison. The entry cost to own the cheaper models opens up more people able to afford and buy. The same holds true today. Not everyone can spend twice as much.

Insurance was a factor as well. I paid $1000 year insurance back then. Sure I had some points, but that was the toughest hurdle, even more than the Super Shell or Sunoco 260 at every stop. The problem during the oil embargo 70s was we sold our cars, worrying if we could buy gas (odd even days) and bought crappy cars with good mileage. A lot of my friends in the late 60s bought Cougars to escape the insurance trap. And they were no slouches. A luxury Mustang 4 speed and big blocks available. The other manufacturers had many cars that slipped through the insurance traps, such as LeMans, not a GTO, but you could order it up. I never wanted to lose the performance and handling to ever go the disappointing 6 cyls route, and if I had to work some extra overtime at work to afford one, I did.

My only mistake was not keeping them all! One of my friends bought the 2 seat Cobra upon return from the service, and I still hear his sob stories on selling a real deal, not a kit. Not the best family car, and he bought a Granada no less.

29th Dec 2010, 18:11

"Not everyone can spend twice as much."

In what world is the Mustang GT TWICE the price of the base Mustang?

1st Jan 2011, 15:54

"I have NOT met one single Mustang GT owner that said he wished he had a V6 Mustang instead"

Well, I had a GT and an LX V-8 before switching to the 4.0. I could care less what anyone else thinks, and to say that no GT owner wished he had a V-6 is ludicrous. Not everyone is into smoking tires. And nowhere on the planet can you insure a V-8 for the same price as a 6.

2nd Jan 2011, 11:28

I am saying today if you had a current model GT, you aren't going to see a V6 Mustang and wish you had that instead. Comparing a 20 year old GT to today's V6 doesn't make sense. Of course the new car is more refined, and it is new, so yeah most 80's or early 90's GT owners would opt for a new V6 if given the chance.

What you have said is that GT owners are envious in some way, because V6 owners pay less for insurance and gas. That will never be the case, as any GT owner knows what they are getting into, and they know that performance comes with a premium. The good news is that I most likely paid less than you did for my 412 HP. A loaded up V6 with Pony Package and leather seats, AT, etc., etc.... is more than I rolled off the lot for in my GT...... not including any extras that you wasted even more money on. The best part is that mine will hold its value way better than yours does. If you had the new V6, maybe you'd be in good shape, but who wants that boat anchor under the hood when you can now get 305 HP.... for the same price?