16th Jun 2009, 11:41

And you CAN'T prove my personal experience wrong either. I consistently got 27 mpg highway with 2 different 5.0 Mustangs with the 3.08 traction lok rear end. They weren't modified and they did not have 4.11 gears PERIOD. Get over it and move on.

Obviously you drive too hard and have a lead foot, otherwise you would be doing much better on gas. You yourself said you are only getting 27 mpg with a 4 cylinder didn't you? You should be well into the 30's with that engine. Of course, you once again go by magazine mileage figures so I guess you drive like they do running hard 0-60 times and slamming on the brakes and you are only interested in how well your car performs (like they are!!) and not how efficient it is. Again, magazines ONLY are interested in performance so they will never get good mpg figures (of course, even hammering the car they did better than you did). The Mustang V-6 was rated at 19 mpg (observed) by C&D, however you say you are getting twice the mileage of your old 5.0 with the same engine. That would be close to 30 mpg right? So, why can you get so much higher than a magazine quoted mpg in your car but no one else can? You are contradicting everything you say at this point. You want to conveniently quote magazine figures to prove everyone else wrong but then when they get lousy mileage on your V-6 you don't seem to want to mention it. Hmmmmm. Go do some research on C&D and MT test of the Mustang V-6 and then come back and tell me they get real world mileage figures... c'mon! enough is enough with the magazines already.

I just don't know why you are having such a hard time with this. I am sorry you blew through so much cash on gas while owning your Mustangs, but learn to show restraint when hammering the gas and you may get the best out of something besides a Prius. Like I also said, I was a poor college kid when I had both of mine and if they chewed up that much gas I would have sold them immediately!