27th Apr 2009, 12:04

I didn't say "Camaros of the same year" with regards to my 5.0 Mustangs. My first 5.0 was a 1985 and was much slower than the 2000-2002 V-6 Camaros, and my 1990 5.0 was just marginally slower. NEITHER would come remotely close to 6.2 seconds 0-60. More like 7-7.5.

As for these rather lofty mileage figures I keep seeing, all I can say is either these people getting 27mpg with a V-8 Mustang must be driving downhill all the time and coasting or they are running phenomenally high rear end gearing. Both my 5.0's consistently got between 12-18mpg.

Car and Driver just tested a 2010 V-8 Mustang. Their average fuel mileage? A whopping 15mpg, which is EXACTLY what my 5.0's got. I'm pleased to get 27 out of our I-4 Fusion. Even driven hard in town my 4.0 Mustang never dips below 21mpg. That's consistently 3-9mpg better than either of my 5.0's. The absolute best mileage I ever got with my last 5.0 was 19.8 on a trip on the interstate with the cruise set on 65. All my friends with V-8 Mustangs report similar mileage. The ones owning mid-80's to early 90's V-8's also readily admit to being beaten many times by early 2000's V-6 Camaros. I test drove a 2001 V-6 Camaro while I still owned my '90 5.0 and there was no question the Camaro was faster.

27th Apr 2009, 12:26

First of all, if you got the same mileage with an '85 and a '90 5.0 then something was seriously wrong. The '90 was fuel injected and the '85 was carburated, which made a HUGE difference in mileage.

Secondly, you can talk to me about the mileage... I got around 27 mpg highway with both my '88 and '90 5.0 Mustangs with 5 speeds and traction lok axles. I would say maybe I was off or the odometer was off when I calculated the mileage, but on two different cars with factory new wheels and tires? Not too likely.

The fuel injected cars were very efficient. They were actually rated at 24 mpg highway right on the sticker as I still have the sticker for my '90. It is not unusual to surpass the ratings by a few mpg depending on how you drive. If you smoke the tires at every light and race everything that slides up next to you at a light then yeah, you'll get 14 mpg. I am talking on the road at 70-75 mph cruising. I figured it out to gallons used per miles driven over and over throughout the time I had the cars, as I thought it was a fluke at first, but they both were consistent in the upper 20's...

Oh, and I won't even get into the teenager with the '95... I am sure he buys a new set of tires every 5,000 miles too.

28th Apr 2009, 07:38

"Car and Driver just tested a 2010 V-8 Mustang. Their average fuel mileage? A whopping 15mpg, which is EXACTLY what my 5.0's got."

Yeah, Car & Driver is a good one to measure the mileage of a car from. They are only interested in the best 0-60 times and lap times, so yes their average is going to be way low. They totally beat on the car and push it to it's limits. 15 mpg is actually pretty darn high given those circumstances. You probably drive similar to that if you got the same on your old Mustang.

I wouldn't waste time coming on here saying I was averaging 27 mpg on two different 5.0 Mustangs if it weren't true. Sorry you blew through so much gas on yours, but facts are facts. I guess I just drove very responsibly for the majority of time with my 5.0's.

Oh, and your beloved Car & Driver consistently got around 6.2 seconds from 0 to 60 on the FI 225 HP 5.0 Mustang ('87-'93 (even the re-rated 205 HP '93)) except the '93 Cobra, which was 5.8. This, of course, was with the traction lok 3.08 axle and a 5-speed manual, which both mine had.

28th Apr 2009, 07:58

The only explanation is that you all had the "M" code 2.73 axle and you aren't really good at racing. The 0-60 time with that axle was a pitiful 7.3 seconds. They were much slower than the traction lok cars, and the worst part is the traction lok was a NO COST option on the Mustang. Not every one can shift good or at the right points. That doesn't make the car slower though. Look up C&D's old test results and compare the V-6 Camaro's to the 5.0 times. The Mustangs were always faster. Even the V-8 Camaros, pre- LT-1 were all slower than the 5.0 Mustang. Even the new 304 HP V-6 Camaro is only going to be around 6 seconds to 60 so you can't tell me a 200 HP car is going that fast. Look up your numbers and then report the facts. Just because you and your friends can't race doesn't make the cars slower.

28th Apr 2009, 08:53

"Just because you and your friends can't race doesn't make the cars slower."

Just how much "talent" does it take to floor an accelerator??

29th Apr 2009, 20:08

"just how much "talent" does it take to floor an accelerator?"

You are the only one on this site claiming poor fuel mileage with a Mustang. And the only one to claim being beaten by V6 Camaros. No Ford Mustang V8 gets 15MPG highway, not since the Fox platform was introduced in the late 1970's. Period. Point Blank.

1st May 2009, 19:08

The NEW Mustang V-8 gets 15 mpg (Car and Driver test, May 2007). Both my 5.0's and my brother's '86 GT got between 11 and 19 mpg. I don't know anyone with a V-8 Mustang that has EVER, under ANY circumstances, gotten 27mpg. Please show documentation for these claims. The rear gearing must be astronomically high or your driving is ALL downhill coasting in neutral. Our 4 cylinder Fusion does good to get 28mpg. When I polled my V-8 Mustang-owning friends, only ONE claimed more than 20 highway, and even he only claimed 22.

As for the 4-cylinder in the new Mustang, it's coming. See the June edition of Mustang Enthusiast, page 26. Ford seems to agree with me that the 4 is the way to go. They plan to put the Fusion EcoBoost 4 in ALL their vehicle lines, including the F-150 TRUCKS. So much for 175-180 horsepower being "too puny" to move anything larger than a mo-ped. Ford begs to differ.

In concluding the article the writer (very correctly) states: "Other than perhaps some big-block purists, an EcoBoost 4-cylinder Mustang would have FEW DOWNSIDES (emphasis mine) as a production car: Enthusiast horsepower and torque, lighter weight, better handling, lower emissions and of course benchmark fuel economy". I'll be first in line for one.

I've grown accustomed to seeing many inaccurate and unfounded comments on this site, but most are generally from import fans who don't know a piston from a cigarette lighter. It saddens me to see Mustang owners who seem out of touch with reality. The V-8 is a dinosaur. It's GONE. As a mechanic I can assure you there are ZERO practical advantages to a fuel-guzzling V-8 over a V-6 or 4. Just as the Mustang Enthusiast writer so correctly pointed out, the 4 is the engine of the future, even in Mustang. It will handle better, pollute less, and get far better mileage. NO downsides. Mustang has not since its very earliest days sold more V-8's than 6's. It currently sells 60% V-6's. With a 4 option, my guess is the 4 will immediately become the top seller. Better ride, handling, and fuel mileage.

I also find HUGE contradictions in many of the comments. It is stated that 1) The purpose of Mustangs is to beat out every Altima, Camry, Accord or 1957 DeSoto Firedome at every stoplight, yet 2) The claim of TWENTY SEVEN MILES PER GALLON is made. You CAN'T have both. If you are drag racing at every stop light, you ARE NOT getting 27 mpg (or even 15). If you ARE driving like you have an egg under the gas pedal, you are in TOTAL CONTRADICTION to your own argument that Mustangs are only for racing.

I much prefer being able to drive my 4.0 in whatever way I choose and still get 21 mpg or better average. I drive it EXACTLY like I've driven both my 5.0's in town. In town they both got between 10-11 and 14 TOPS. I'm getting nearly TWICE the mileage, paying MUCH LESS on insurance and not having my fillings jarred out by the harsher GT suspension. I LIKE That. I'll buy a 4 as soon as it comes out and like it even more.