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.