29th May 2009, 12:42

Thank you!! My point exactly. They wouldn't put 16/24 on the sticker if the car was getting 11/15 in reality. I just don't get the arguing about it. I know what my figures were and you do as well. Too bad to all that can't drive well enough to get good mileage out of a highly efficient FI system. Get over it and move on people.

29th May 2009, 22:34

"My Altima was anything but dowdy'

Well, it must have been iridescent yellow with massive spoilers and 20" wheels. All the Altimas I've seen look like my grandmother should be behind the wheel. I OWN a 4-door car and even I have to admit it IS dowdy and granny-ish. Hardly sports car material even if it had 500 horsepower.

29th May 2009, 22:42

Interesting that virtually EVERY automotive magazine test of the new 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 V-8 Mustangs returned a solid 15 mpg average. Also interesting that that is an even HIGHER average than we got with any of our 3 Fox 5.0's (2 sticks, one automatic). I don't believe that the average driver gets 27 mpg out of V-8 Mustangs. I doubt ANYONE gets 27 mpg out of a V-8 Mustang with 3.55 gears while street racing. We own 2 4-cylinder compacts. THEY do good to get 27 mpg.

30th May 2009, 08:58

I have a 1998 Ford Escort. It is a 4 cylinder, and I have no problem getting over 30mpg. If you get no more than 27mpg out of a four cylinder, you need to take your foot out of the floor.

30th May 2009, 10:43

Neither of our 4 cylinder compacts is even RATED 30 mpg highway. The Escort does get great mileage, as does the Focus. Our best high mpg cars have been 4 cylinder Chrysler products. They actually exceeded the highway EPA estimates.

31st May 2009, 09:26

I own the above mentioned Mustang, and I never said that 27 MPG is the norm. I said it is POSSIBLE.

Nor did I claim to do it while street racing. 75 MPH on a lonely interstate is not street racing. I plainly stated at least 5 times that my Mustang GT is capable of at least 23 MPG or more at speeds of around 75 MPH. Of course higher speeds will lower that significantly.

I don't drag race, or drive like an idiot. I invested way too much money into my car to tear it to pieces.

My 2006 Nissan Altima always exceeded it highway MPG ratings. This meant over 30 MPG at times, with a 3.5 liter V6.

I see a pattern here. If 27 MPG is the best you can do with a Fusion 4 -cyl, you either don't do any highway driving or haven't figured out how to use this nifty invention from the late 1970's called automatic overdrive. That or you are the one street racing. You are the only one on God's Green Earth claiming these poor mileage figures with a V8 Mustang.

Car and driver claims 15 MPG with a V8 Mustang because THEY ARE STREET RACING. Doing 0-60 burnouts, slaloms, hard braking and hard cornering will not yield high fuel economy in any car. They are only concerned with how fast it is, and how it handles. I remember reading on Car and driver nor too long ago that they road tested a Honda Civic and rated it at 21 MPG. There were STREET RACING the Civic as well. Why don't you go comment on some Honda Civics on this website and say that they only get 21 MPG? I'm sure you will be "savagely attacked" there as well.

And in 10 years if and when V8's are outlawed, I will be proud to own an 8 -cylinder, knowing I bought one of the last decent cars ever made.

31st May 2009, 18:16

AGAIN, Car mags don't go cruising on the highway when they test their cars... and AGAIN I never said ANYONE got 27 mpg while street racing. Please read the comments carefully BEFORE responding. This is the third or fourth time these same comments have been made by you (or whomever). Why can't you get the difference between highway driving and racing (or testing a car to see it's limitations at the track (ie. magazine testing) )??? Magazines are not interested in getting a best MPG unless they are testing a Prius or the like. Sorry AGAIN but I consistently got 26 - 28 mpg on two different fox body Mustangs ('88 and '90 (both with 3.08 traction lok axles) ) when I was taking long trips on the highway. NOT RACING!!! Can we drop it please???

3rd Jun 2009, 10:44

Funny, the last road test in a magazine of a V-6 Mustang I read listed a 19 mpg rating for the test period. I have seen claims of the new V-6 Mustang getting "twice the mileage" of 5.0 Mustangs on this thread. Those of you who claim that also like to quote magazine figures... well here you are. 19mpg. Hmmmm. For the few mpg the V-8 posts less than that I would still opt for the V-8.

How come you can get close to 30 mpg on a car that Motor Trend gets 19 mpg with, but no one else can get 27 mpg with a V-8 car that they get 15 mpg with in the same magazine? I know countless people who have had V8 Mustangs, Corvettes, Hemi powered Dodges and they all were getting into the mid 20's on the highway for mileage. Even the 638 hp ZR-1 is rated in the mid 20's for highway mileage.

Oh, Motor Trend AND Car and Driver also said the Mustang V-6 is raucous and unrefined.. one even stating that it was more suited for a John Deere tractor than a Mustang. Yeah, there's something I want to listen to while cruising around!! Works great in an Explorer, but in a muscle car?? Not!!

3rd Jun 2009, 15:58

Motor Trend and Car and Driver call ANY engine used by American vehicles as "unrefined". And Mustangs are not Muscle cars by any normal definition. 66% are V-6's. The Taurus SHO puts out 60 more horsepower than the new Mustang GT. So does the Pontiac G-8. The Cadillac CTS-V puts out over 200 horsepower more. Are they "muscle cars"? People buy Mustangs for the styling. No one buys cars for street racing anymore. At least not adults.

3rd Jun 2009, 16:00

"Yeah, there's something I want to listen to while cruising around!!"

Go to most Internet sites offering dual exhausts for the V-6 Mustang and listen to the audio. Virtually indistinguishable from the V-8.

4th Jun 2009, 14:33

Funny now that I pointed out the mileage figures from Motor Trend no one is defending their V-6 based on gas mileage... And yes adults do still prefer V-8 muscle cars. Who else can afford a Corvette or a Challenger SRT. I haven't seen too many 20 year olds running around in them have you? Just because you aren't into power and performance doesn't mean it is dead.

Even many V-6 engines are close to or over 300 hp in daily driver sedans like the G37, Maxima, Accord, etc. I don't see too many kids driving them around either. Not sure where your basis for claiming people aren't into more power comes from when virtually every manufacturer continually increases the power of their drivetrains... even the Prius has more power for 2010.

You can call a Mustang whatever you want, but it is still a muscle car and always will be a muscle car. And to me a V-6 is just not part of the whole package. It is a truck engine not suited for a muscle car, which is why it is rough and unrefined UNLIKE the V-8 which is smooth and sounds awesome. And if I have to buy exhaust kits to make the V-6 sound good why not just get the real thing!! You can't tell me you don't want that rush of V-8 power once in awhile. It's not about racing everyone, but more about the feel of it as a whole coupled with the upper level suspension that the base mustang lacks. I didn't go around racing my Mustnags ever, but loved that V-8 feel regardless because of the smooth power delivery and effortless momentum.

Gas mileage is literally only a few mpg difference as stated in both MT and C&D so there is no real advantage to having a V-6 unless you can't afford to insure one... which is another reason you won't see kids driving V-8 Mustangs. Their insurance premium would match their car payment every month.