18th Aug 2009, 09:50
11 MPG? Soo, your previous car was a 1977 Ford F-350 Crew Cab 4 x 4 with a 460 V8? 25 MPG highway with a V6 is pretty rotten by today's standards, my 2008 Mustang GT usually does that and a little more.
"Maybe some day I'll be magically transported to the land of 30 mpg GT's (with 4:11 gearing) that do 0-60 in 3 seconds."
I don't see this posted anywhere. I'm too busy watching pigs flying, The Blizzards in Honolulu and the Sun dancing in the sky to notice V6 Mustangs getting twice the fuel economy of the V8.
18th Aug 2009, 08:27
True, the hilarity of your comments has gone all through this thread. First you claim twice the mileage in the V-6 car over the V-8 when they are pretty much identically rated (even back to 1990 which was 16/24) and I am still waiting to see your 48 mpg results... Just because you can't drive a 5.0 efficiently, you bash others who have achieved in the mid to upper 20's on the highway with theirs... myself included (27mpg on the highway, NOT RACING, in two different Mustang 5.0's, '88 and '90 LX's with the 3.08 traction lok axle).
Second you claim your V-6 is faster than a 5.0... That is hilarious... Last time I checked 6.2 seconds was quicker than 6.5 to 60 and the 300 lb ft. of torque will pretty much keep the 5.0 pulling away from your V-6 from there. (of course I am talking the no-cost option traction lok 3.08 5-speed in the 5.0...if you had an AT or a 2.73 then you just don't know how to order a Mustang) Your V-6 would not have touched either of my 5.0 Mustangs.
And third you are still claiming that it was said, somewhere on this thread, that a Mustang gets 30 mpg with a 4.11 rear end. Please go and copy that post and paste it into a new one so we can all read it from the source you claim you read it from. Oh that's right... it was NEVER said by anyone on here.
What is hilarious is that they make a sports car for speed and performance, which is the heritage of the Mustang and they also release a low end version for rental car companies and people who want to "look cool" and those same people have to viciously defend their choices by bashing the more expensive car.
Oh and 6.5 seconds to 60 is by any imagination slow for a sports car these days when a RAV 4 V-6 can do the same with an AT. The current GT does it in 4.9 seconds and STILL gets 24 mpg ON THE HIGHWAY. Using 25 year old cars as a comparison to your V-6 car is ridiculous as it was a totally different time and "fast" cars were really not that fast compared to todays choices.
I am glad you are happy with your V-6.... but I have to wonder...if you are really so happy with it then why do you feel the need to keep coming back here to slam the GT owners? Hmmmm.... makes me wonder just how satisfied you really may be driving that V-6 around while the GT's blow right on by you. Usually, when you are happy with your car you won't waste time on threads like this, but here you are some months later still trying to defend your choice... interesting.