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, 12:44

Let's put this in very SIMPLE terms, EVERY single Mustang V6 owner wants EVERYONE to think their car is a Mustang GT by adding a "dual" exhaust, by saying it sounds similar to a GT, has the same suspension, tire, shocks. Well guess what?! The GT has a monster engine with over 300 HP. I am not an engineer but would figure that for a car to handle that horsepower, the suspension, brakes, transmission, tires, etc, would have to be different! Every single Mustang V6 owner constantly has to make themselves feel better about their choice of car by saying the above. A Mustang is NOT a Mustang unless it has a V8 in it! When people envision or dream about driving a Mustang or how fast it is, they are picturing a Mustang GT, NOT a Mustang with a V6 in it.

A Mustang with a V6 is a Mustang missing 1/3 of it's engine.

I as an owner of a Mustang GT would not even look at your Mustang V6. Do us with a GT a favour, do not compare your V6 to a GT. The V6 Mustang is for people who want people to think they have a fast car. Mustang V6 WOW! A V6 with 200 HP is suitable for any car, but NOT in a Mustang or Camaro/Firebird!

19th Aug 2009, 10:46

"A Mustang with a V6 is a Mustang missing 1/3 of it's engine."

Actually doing the math correctly a V6 is missing 1/4 of its engine if you go by number of cylinders. It is, however, missing almost 1/3 of the V8 horsepower, and the very minor improvement in fuel economy doesn't make up for it.

20th Aug 2009, 11:49

The whole V6 or V8 argument hear is pretty sad. For the size of the Mustang, a V6 is quite capable, is a V8 nice? Sure, but personally, I'd take either and be happy. I'm not all about spinning the tires and roaring the engine. Control is more important to me than huge amounts of horsepower. More horsepower doesn't automatically mean better, look at cars like the Honda S2000, and the Mazda Miata. They're best sellers, and neither one has a V8. I'd take one of those before I ever took a Mustang.

21st Aug 2009, 08:15

These two cars should not even be compared with a Mustang as they are an entirely different type of car in that they are small roadsters. Plus, the S2000 has the highest normally aspirated horsepower ever found in a 2.0 liter engine at 240, so if you aren't into high horsepower, why would you be looking at that car either?

21st Aug 2009, 21:01

Horsepower is great when you have a decent car behind it. Mustangs just aren't my thing. They're overpowered, poor handling junk. I want a car that can take a turn at 50 MPH without spinning out of control. American's are all about power, more and more of it. Ever notice that every Porsche sold is faster than any Mustang and it has a significantly smaller engine? That's because foreign car companies know about something called engineering.

21st Aug 2009, 21:07

After seeing the attitude of so many fellow Mustang owners on this thread, I tendered my resignation to the two Mustang clubs I belong to. If this kind of thinking is what owning a Mustang is all about, I'll look at a Camaro.

21st Aug 2009, 21:48

I took my car to my Ford dealer's today for a required warranty service. While there I looked at the used car lot. There were three 2009 GT's. The CHEAPEST was $28,299. I then walked into the showroom where there was a 2009 V-6 5-speed offered for $15,999 brand new, never licensed. That's $12,300 more for a USED GT than a NEW V-6. With less than $300 in modifications the V-6 comes within 1 second of the GT's 0-60 time. That means paying $12,000 MORE will get you a USED car that is only ONE SECOND faster 0-60 than a NEW car that is identical except for the engine (and a smoother ride). I then left and attended a business luncheon where I recounted this story. Everyone agreed it's no wonder our economy is in a mess. If paying $12,000 more for a used car to get ONE SECOND faster 0-60 times is regarded as logical business dealing, we'd all love to approach you with a sales presentation on our new housing development in the Sahara desert.

22nd Aug 2009, 08:49

My C5 Vette cost $5000 more when new for the convertible option vs. the coupe. Years ago it cost the same.

I got a kick out of my sons Viper comment. He said if he ever needed a new hood, the parts alone are $19000. It would be insured, but it's an interesting observation.

He used to have Mustang GT's, a coupe and a convertible, while in school. Probably the greatest used car performance bargain for a teen. Neither were stock for long and easy to upgrade. I was pretty impressed what great cars they are. Plenty of performance parts, great club support for anyone.

My cousin collects early 70 Mopars Challenger RT's and a Cuda. He was smart to hang onto his first cars that he has had since the late 70's. It's pretty cool sharing all our family experiences today. We all have different, but share the same passion. None of us like clones or the sixes other than maybe a Grand National. But I hate its interior and 80 MPH speedo.

I have had true Super Sports since the 60's and wish I could have parked them all. I have owned some daily driver new cars; pretty disposable and not real memorable. It's great to have a nice sports car to enjoy.

My only last comment on the V6 is when you climb hills or are being passed, is you may really wish you had at least bought a used V8. It's worth waiting to get one. Maybe a convertible may soften the lack of it... but it's not "the car". I think the car enthusiasts know what I am indicating with that comment.

22nd Aug 2009, 13:46

I agree that American car enthusiasts DO tend to be "all about power" with little or no regard for much of anything else. And I also agree that Mustangs are horrible for anything but straight line fast takeoffs and making lots of tire smoke. If this is your thing, that is great. The V-6 Mustangs offer better handling due to a better front/rear weight distribution, but even they tend to break away in corners too easily.

The best handling Mustang I have driven was a 1976 2.3 litre 4-cylinder. The balance was excellent and it cornered pretty well. The V-8's are too tail-light and spin out too easily. If I am in a real hurry to get somewhere that requires weaving in and out of traffic or taking fast corners, I leave my Mustang at home and drive my front-drive compact. What I lose in straight-line acceleration I more than make up in agility and cornering ability. Mustangs are all about looking cool (which is why I drive one) and making a lot of noise. They are far from practical, and should never be your primary means of transportation.

As for Porsche, they just plain cost too much. Members of my family drive a 911 turbo and a Boxster, but they do it strictly for ego and not performance. Few people buy Porsches for real driving. They buy them to impress people.

As for domestic makers not being engineering savvy, I disagree. Ford currently builds some of the best cars in the world, and virtually nothing can touch the Corvette for performance in a sports car. Reviewers give it the edge over Ferrari. True, Mustang is not one of Ford's better built cars, though they are reliable. The Mustang is basically a "cult" car that has an almost unexplainable appeal. For me it is the looks. For some it may be lots of tire smoke. It is a good car, but yes, the Miata or S2000 will outperform it going and coming. I drive my friend's Miata a lot. My Mustang can't come close to matching its agile handling because of the better balance and control the Miata offers.