28th Apr 2009, 07:58
The only explanation is that you all had the "M" code 2.73 axle and you aren't really good at racing. The 0-60 time with that axle was a pitiful 7.3 seconds. They were much slower than the traction lok cars, and the worst part is the traction lok was a NO COST option on the Mustang. Not every one can shift good or at the right points. That doesn't make the car slower though. Look up C&D's old test results and compare the V-6 Camaro's to the 5.0 times. The Mustangs were always faster. Even the V-8 Camaros, pre- LT-1 were all slower than the 5.0 Mustang. Even the new 304 HP V-6 Camaro is only going to be around 6 seconds to 60 so you can't tell me a 200 HP car is going that fast. Look up your numbers and then report the facts. Just because you and your friends can't race doesn't make the cars slower.
28th Apr 2009, 07:38
"Car and Driver just tested a 2010 V-8 Mustang. Their average fuel mileage? A whopping 15mpg, which is EXACTLY what my 5.0's got."
Yeah, Car & Driver is a good one to measure the mileage of a car from. They are only interested in the best 0-60 times and lap times, so yes their average is going to be way low. They totally beat on the car and push it to it's limits. 15 mpg is actually pretty darn high given those circumstances. You probably drive similar to that if you got the same on your old Mustang.
I wouldn't waste time coming on here saying I was averaging 27 mpg on two different 5.0 Mustangs if it weren't true. Sorry you blew through so much gas on yours, but facts are facts. I guess I just drove very responsibly for the majority of time with my 5.0's.
Oh, and your beloved Car & Driver consistently got around 6.2 seconds from 0 to 60 on the FI 225 HP 5.0 Mustang ('87-'93 (even the re-rated 205 HP '93)) except the '93 Cobra, which was 5.8. This, of course, was with the traction lok 3.08 axle and a 5-speed manual, which both mine had.