18th Jun 2009, 08:11

The new Camaro V-6 doesn't even compare to the new Mustang GT. The Mustang actually performs just about identical to the Camaro SS with 111 more HP in 0-60, and it kills it in handling even with its live rear axle (latest C&D article).

Oh, and C&D stated that the Camaro would be much less than advertised mpg in the real world even with the V-6, so you can expect about 19 mpg the way you drive. I will post an actual test mpg when I find it for you so you can NOT comment about C&D test numbers on V-6's AGAIN even though you are happy to believe their test mpg on any V-8 as the word of God.

And where do you shop for Mustangs? $15K difference from the Camaro? Hmmm, the Camaro starts at $22K so that would mean, at your dealer, the cheapest V-8 powered Mustang was $37K??? I don't think they'd sell too many of them if that were the case, and on Ford's website the GT starts at $27,995.

I think the $6K would be well spent over the Camaro since it is more than likely the Mustang has many more upgraded standard options than just the V-8. Compare apples to apples and tell me how cheap the SS Camaro would be against the Mustang GT. And hold your breath on the 4 cylinder Mustang. Even if it ever did happen, it'd be a turbo, which is just about as efficient as the V-8 and takes super unleaded to boot.

18th Jun 2009, 09:55

I have achieved that in my Corvette 28 mpg and my son over 20. In a a Viper barely idling in 6th gear and a very light throttle. Not really concerned with fuel anyway, but interesting observation. Great technology to achieve impressive figures today.

18th Jun 2009, 10:47

Okay, you need to read carefully BEFORE posting. No one said anything about getting 27 mpg with 4.11 gears while street racing. Highway cruising with 3.08's yes... 27 mpg is easily doable. That's all that is being claimed here.

The global warming comment is pretty out there for sure... I'll give you that.

18th Jun 2009, 11:11

"People on this site have stated their V-8's average 27mpg while street racing with 4:11 gears."

AGAIN you need to read comments before commenting! NO ONE said they were street racing with a Mustang that had a 4.11 rear end all while getting 27 mpg. NO ONE! Everyone who has claimed in the mid 20's for mpg on a Mustang stated that this was achieved by highway cruising and NONE of them listed a 4.11 rear end in the car.

18th Jun 2009, 12:26

"1:32 is perplexing. Why buy a sports car when you could be happy driving a 3 cylinder Geo perhaps?"

I bought a Mustang (my 7th) because I like the styling. I don't race, and usually am stuck behind people who drive like snails and can't use the potential of a 3-cylinder Geo even. Some people are not into buying huge engines (at least not in our more gas-costly times) but still prefer the styling.

The V-6 Mustang is the exact same car in every respect to the V-8 except for the engine and a less harsh suspension. Mine actually looks better than most GT's because of customizing touches I added with the money I saved over the purchase price of the V-8. I get far more positive comments on my V-6 than I ever did on any of my previous V-8's because of the appearance.

I could NOT be "happy" driving a Geo because it isn't styled like a sports car. Why is it so hard for people to get it when someone says "I like the styling, I don't race". I would absolutely LOVE a Mustang with the great I-4 engine out of the Fusion (which I also own) and the soft suspension of a Buick Lucerne. I no longer care for performance I can't use, insurance and gas prices I can't afford and tickets I don't need. I DO care about styling, which is why I bought my 7th Mustang. Why is that such a hard thing to understand??

"And where do you shop for Mustangs? $15K difference from the Camaro? Hmmm, the Camaro starts at $22K so that would mean, at your dealer, the cheapest V-8 powered Mustang was $37K??? I don't think they'd sell too many of them if that were the case, and on Ford's website the GT starts at $27,995."

Ford's website is very atypical on pricing. I visited 3 Ford lots with my wife (who is also a car enthusiast) and the cheapest list price on any Mustang GT on any of the lots was $34,000+. Most dealers order the most expensive, fully loaded premium models in my area. A GT with the plexiglass roof was listed at over $36,000. The base V-6 listed at just over $21,700 (including transportation). The figures vary in different regions due to varying cost factors involved in shipping and inventory costs. Ford's website doesn't include some of those costs.

I come from a family of car enthusiasts and we have either owned or still own a huge variety of vehicles. My late brother's family owns a 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T, 1955 Pontiac, 1967 Dodge Charger R/T and a 2009 Charger V-6 (they like Chrysler's obviously). Another brother owns a Dodge Viper, a Land Rover and a Hummer H2 (needless to say, he doesn't share my ecological views). A sister's family owns a Porsche Boxster, an E-class Mercedes, a Nissan Xterra, a Shelby Cobra (with a BLASPHEMOUS small-block CHEVY engine, God forbid) and two Trailblazers. We've had experience with the C-class Mercedes and 5-series BMW's, but realized it made a lot more sense to use the same amount of money and buy a Mustang, a Fusion, a two-week Mediterranean cruise and have money left over.

I don't shed any tears over not driving a car with power I can't use that costs 10 grand more. If you have to have a V-8 engine, then you have my blessings. I just don't understand all the insults and hostility because I exercised my free choice to own a car that better suits MY needs. It's not like I'm a domestic-hating import fanatic screaming "Toyotas are better".