12th Apr 2009, 21:30

I don't recall anyone on here saying that their mustang GT got 30 MPG highway. I myself stated that my 2008 is good for 26 MPG highway when driven modestly, and 22 to 23 if driven somewhat aggressively. If I go 55MPH on a flat stretch of 2 lane highway the computer has registered over 30 MPG at times, but that is not the norm.

My 1988 Mercury Grand Marquis Wagon with virtually the same 5.0 V8 motor as the 1980's and early 1990's Mustang was good for well over 20 MPG highway, same thing with just about every Grand Marquis or Crown Vic from 1979 or newer with the automatic overdrive transmission. And my Grand Marquis Wagon was a good 700 pounds heavier than any Mustang of that era, so there goes your argument about the 5.0 not being fuel efficient. You are the one who should apply for a place in the book of world records, making a statement that your V6 Mustang gets close to double the fuel mileage of the previous generation's V8. That or you could apply for "worst fuel mileage ever" with a modern, fuel efficient motor.

"My neighbor's teen aged son currently drives a 1995 V-8 Mustang and he says his mileage ranges from 9 to 14."

If I was a teenager with a Mustang GT, there would be a reason for my poor mileage. That reason being my right foot, not the car.

I consider highway driving to be 1 long trip of over 300 miles, or consistent trips of 50 miles or more with little or no stop and go city driving at all. I don't know what your version is, but obviously you are doing little to no highway driving with horrible mileage like that.

My full size 1988 Grand Marquis Wagon was good for at least 13-14 MPG City. My current 2008 Mustang GT 15-16. Yes it is a V8, and V8's do not deliver good mileage in stop and go city traffic. But 9 to 11 MPG? That's garbage. There are 2 1/2 hulks from the 1970's with Big Block V8's under the hood and carburetors way out of whack that aren't even that terrible on fuel.

"I'd LOVE to see the new 175hp I-4 put in the 2010 Mustang. Even it would be plenty to merge and pass."

It's ideas like that that nearly put the Mustang, Camaro, and Firebird to an early grave in the 1980's. That motor does not put out nearly enough power to move a 3100 pound car. After 75000 miles that motor will be shot after working double time trying to make up for the power of a V6 or V8. A V6 Mustang is bad enough, if you want that 4-cylinder there's a Fusion with your name on it, or a Ford Probe since you seem to have a soft spot in your heart for wannabe cheap imitation Mustangs.

27th Apr 2009, 12:26

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.