I bought a new 2007 Mustang

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: cjgallen

Originally posted by: Naustica

Originally posted by: eits
so dumb... you do realize gas is like $3.30/gal now, right?

19 mpg city / 28 mpg highway for a fun car. Plus it takes regular unleaded.
Looks good to me.

Those are old EPA numbers. It's rated 17/25 now.

If you have some self control, you could squeeze 26mpg from the V8 like my mother did. Of course, she later ditched the stang for a honda

I hit about 18 mpg in my Mustang GT if I drive normally (a.k.a. like an idiot). Babying it, I can get around 23.5 mixed 70% city/30% highway. I'd assume the V6 mustang gets significantly better gas mileage.

At my burn rate, I end up filling up every 7-9 days for about $45. Costs me around 15-16 cents a mile.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: cjgallen

Originally posted by: Naustica

Originally posted by: eits
so dumb... you do realize gas is like $3.30/gal now, right?

19 mpg city / 28 mpg highway for a fun car. Plus it takes regular unleaded.
Looks good to me.

Those are old EPA numbers. It's rated 17/25 now.

If you have some self control, you could squeeze 26mpg from the V8 like my mother did. Of course, she later ditched the stang for a honda

Just because EPA estimates changed doesn't mean the cars true mileage changed. Ford didn't change anything on the engine to give it worse mileage, it's just the EPA being a bunch of little biatches.

 

[Ktulu]

BTW, I'm amazed ATOT has dedicated 17 pages so far to the '07 v6 Mustang.

 

[codeyf]

Gap insurance???? You finance the whole thing or something?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: TheDroFord should definitely put in a modern fuel efficient V6 instead of the current 4.0.

the weight of the car determines the mileage more than anything else. as discussed above, the torque of the 4 liter should help it out. in comparison, the duratec 3 L in the ford fusion gets 1 MPG better on each of highway and city in the new EPA tests. not much improvement.


these new MPG ratings are way down. i used to get 30 mpg with my taurus on the highway, and it's now rated for 26.

 

[railer]

The 6 stick gets 2 mpg better combined than the 8 stick. That's like $160 bux a year at today's gas price for 10000 miles. Who cares.

That v6 mustang seems like a nice car for the $$$. Ignore the rice-obsessed brainwashed haters. You have the fastest car in your price range. Good job.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Even if you could do better, you could do much worse. This guy at work bought a $22k 130hp Mitsubishi Lancer, almost doubling his $30k debt... to save gas over his SUV. The thing gets 25mpg. He could have paid for a $500 apartment for 3 years with that money and saved most of the gas he uses now living with his parents.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: cheesecurd
another unsuspecting soul duped into buying "gap insurance"

Tell that to the guy I know who wrecked his brand new Mustang GT a month after buying it... that depreciation is a huge hit to your wallet. $300 is nothing for peace of mind.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: senseamp
What's with all the 6 cylinder hate? I hate the foglights on the V8 stang. I think the V6 grille looks much better.

Because 210hp from a 4.0L V6 is akin to a pussy cat.

hmm the 5.0L V8 originally made only 215HP and later 235hp at the top of its factory "GT" levels.

210HP is plenty of power, the V8 is just what alot of people think they need and is an easy upsell.

The V8 costs more to insure and purchase. It may not be ALOT more, but if you don't need it...you don't need it. All those things people add on that they don't need add up.

No one intelligent here would tell someone they have to have a 4GHz processor in a web/email PC, but will argue tooth and nail getting anything but the top powerplant a vehicle offers is rediculous.

 

[railer]

some of you people need to drop in on a high school physics class. You constantly belittle the stang's low specif hp output and ignore torque completely. That engine was designed to be torquey, and it is. That's why it's the fastest car under 20k.

The old 5.0 Mustang GT may have only been rated around 220 hp, but it had ~ 300 ft/lbs of torque, which is why it was a mid 14 1/4 mile car. Pull up to an old 5.0 215 hp GT in your lighter 197 hp Civic Si, and see if you can catch a glimpse of the stang guy laughing hysterically as he blows away from you at the light.

Having said all that I wouldn't buy a v6 mustang. . But it's really not that bad.

 

[canadageek]

edit: wah, I'm an idiot.

but yeah: American cars=torque. that is why people buy them.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: railer
some of you people need to drop in on a high school physics class. You constantly belittle the stang's low specif hp output and ignore torque completely. That engine was designed to be torquey, and it is. That's why it's the fastest car under 20k.

The old 5.0 Mustang GT may have only been rated around 220 hp, but it had ~ 300 ft/lbs of torque, which is why it was a mid 14 1/4 mile car. Pull up to an old 5.0 215 hp GT in your lighter 197 hp Civic Si, and see if you can catch a glimpse of the stang guy laughing hysterically as he blows away from you at the light.

Having said all that I wouldn't buy a v6 mustang. . But it's really not that bad.

Well torque is not the end all be all. I had a pretty modified 1988 Mustang GT....I sold and later bought a 1992 Acura GS-R which had less HP but turned times about equal to my modified mustang. Stock for stock I was blowing away Firebirds/Camaro/Mustangs of the same time period (1993-94).

The best friend in many 1/4 mile runs is the ability to get to the end with the least shifting and while torque is big being able to rev to higher RPMs is also helpful.

That all said I got rid of the GS-R because it didn't feel fast. There was no torque at all.

 

[railer]

ok......

1992 Acura Integra GS-R 6.8 15.4

The GS-R had 170 hp and was slower than death. You may be able to "blow away" a v6 camaro with that thing, but only if you're lucky. I'm thinking the reason that it "didn't feel fast" was because it "wasn't fast".

 

[otispunkmeyer]

stop bashing his car choice

im sure its a decent car, its not going bend his face with mind blowing acceleration (not that the V8 stang did that anyway) and he's not going to get that V8 burble, but instead he'll have a silky smooth V6 car to just waft around in, if thats what hes after then that makes the car a decent choice...even though its a 4 liter V6, its probably a bit better on the gas than the v8, plus last i read the V8 in the stang wasnt exactly a technological marvel....

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: railer
ok......

1992 Acura Integra GS-R 6.8 15.4

The GS-R had 170 hp and was slower than death. You may be able to "blow away" a v6 camaro with that thing, but only if you're lucky. I'm thinking the reason that it "didn't feel fast" was because it "wasn't fast".

Here are more times from your same source, which for the Acura seem off.
1992 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 6.7 15.2 (compare that to your times above)
1993 Chevrolet Camaro V-6 9.0 16.6

The later camaro's did better with the LT1, but the numbers below seem extraordinary from what I remember them running here in S. Florida.
1993 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 5.8 14.4
1994 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 5.7 14.2
Maybe these were the SS models. I remember all these cars were mid-6 sec 0-60. The LT1 was quicker, but I don't think a full 1sec off the 0-60 time.

Here are times that were pretty accurate for a stock mustang:
1987 Ford Mustang GT 6.4 14.4
1988 Ford Mustang GT 6.4 15.0
1989 Ford Mustang GT 6.2 14.8
They didn't really change much through the 90's...the cobras were high 5 sec cars the first couple years and then low to mid 5 sec and the 13's later.

Those times for the acura were alot slower than mine...I am at sea level and ran a 14.9-15.2. my 0-60 time was below 6 secs. It had 160hp, not 170hp either (the 1.8 had 170hp, my 1.7L had 160hp). There werent many of them made...less than even the NSX. Maybe I had a rare engine, but it was stock. It rev'd to an insanely high rpm and all it's power was at peak. I am thinking those that tested them shifted like driving a V8 where power was made at 1/2 the rpms.

All I know is I was really into mustangs prior to getting it. I had a fully restored 1966 GT then a 1988 GT. My friends had F-bods and Mustangs. My Acura would beat any of the stock ones, even with better drivers thinking it must be a driver issue. My friends were pretty impressed with it. However the feeling of no torque was what got me. The car was like a motorcycle where you were suddenly going alot faster than you thought but didn't feel yourself getting there.

 

[Thoreau]

Originally posted by: Abel007
I have a 6 cylinder in my and it is a complete blast.

You will enjoy the V6 'Stang. Thats the only thing that matters.

Oh, and don't worry about the price of it, everyone gets taken for a little bit. Even if they THINK they know whats goin on. Dealers have to make some kind of dough.

Everyone? My 2 year lease (15k miles) on an 07 328i Sedan is 322/month with $500 down. Don't think I got taken =)

Okay, I admit, i've gotten taken on my fair share of cars over the years too. No dealership is gonna lose money (except in the case of this BMW) on a deal knowingly.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: railer
ok......

1992 Acura Integra GS-R 6.8 15.4

The GS-R had 170 hp and was slower than death. You may be able to "blow away" a v6 camaro with that thing, but only if you're lucky. I'm thinking the reason that it "didn't feel fast" was because it "wasn't fast".

Here are more times from your same source, which for the Acura seem off.
1992 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 6.7 15.2 (compare that to your times above)
1993 Chevrolet Camaro V-6 9.0 16.6

The later camaro's did better with the LT1, but the numbers below seem extraordinary from what I remember them running here in S. Florida.
1993 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 5.8 14.4
1994 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 5.7 14.2
Maybe these were the SS models. I remember all these cars were mid-6 sec 0-60. The LT1 was quicker, but I don't think a full 1sec off the 0-60 time.

Here are times that were pretty accurate for a stock mustang:
1987 Ford Mustang GT 6.4 14.4
1988 Ford Mustang GT 6.4 15.0
1989 Ford Mustang GT 6.2 14.8
They didn't really change much through the 90's...the cobras were high 5 sec cars the first couple years and then low to mid 5 sec and the 13's later.

Those times for the acura were alot slower than mine...I am at sea level and ran a 14.9-15.2. my 0-60 time was below 6 secs. It had 160hp, not 170hp either (the 1.8 had 170hp, my 1.7L had 160hp). There werent many of them made...less than even the NSX. Maybe I had a rare engine, but it was stock. It rev'd to an insanely high rpm and all it's power was at peak. I am thinking those that tested them shifted like driving a V8 where power was made at 1/2 the rpms.

All I know is I was really into mustangs prior to getting it. I had a fully restored 1966 GT then a 1988 GT. My friends had F-bods and Mustangs. My Acura would beat any of the stock ones, even with better drivers thinking it must be a driver issue. My friends were pretty impressed with it. However the feeling of no torque was what got me. The car was like a motorcycle where you were suddenly going alot faster than you thought but didn't feel yourself getting there.

Ehh I highly doubt ur 0-60 times were below 6 with those 1/4 times and as we all know, you can't take off fast in FWD cars.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Ehh I highly doubt ur 0-60 times were below 6 with those 1/4 times and as we all know, you can't take off fast in FWD cars.

huh?

less than 6 secs 0-60 can be high 14's/low 15's. Mid 5's can be still high 14's in the 1/4, depends a lot of gearing.

You do realize there are 9sec and better FWD cars right?

 

[Nutdotnet]

Originally posted by: Thoreau

Originally posted by: Abel007
I have a 6 cylinder in my and it is a complete blast.

You will enjoy the V6 'Stang. Thats the only thing that matters.

Oh, and don't worry about the price of it, everyone gets taken for a little bit. Even if they THINK they know whats goin on. Dealers have to make some kind of dough.

Everyone? My 2 year lease (15k miles) on an 07 328i Sedan is 322/month with $500 down. Don't think I got taken =)

Okay, I admit, i've gotten taken on my fair share of cars over the years too. No dealership is gonna lose money (except in the case of this BMW) on a deal knowingly.

Was the $500 "down" a security deposit or acq. fee? Or was it a cap cost reduction?

If it was the latter...then yeah...not necessarily "taken" but you didn't make a wise move lease-wise.

Nice car though! Seems like you got a good all-around deal. How's the mpg?

 

[Regs]

I was thinking about the Ford but I bought a Mazda V6 07' 6s instead. They look nicer with the same power and less weight. It handles like a charm.

Unfortunately I got bad luck with it so far. Parking ticket, faulty gas cap, and then slid on oil/water into a curb wrecking my 400 dollar rim and 60 dollar hub cap.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Ehh I highly doubt ur 0-60 times were below 6 with those 1/4 times and as we all know, you can't take off fast in FWD cars.

huh?

less than 6 secs 0-60 can be high 14's/low 15's. Mid 5's can be still high 14's in the 1/4, depends a lot of gearing.

You do realize there are 9sec and better FWD cars right?

That are HIGHLY modified but in street trim, it is very difficult to take off fast in a FWD car. Trust me I know.

 

[Laminator]

Of course, there are Civics that run 8 seconds flat but those are for NHRA, etc. I wonder how much money it takes to modify a compact car to produce those numbers...for the street, might was well get a Corvette or an STi/Evolution.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Ehh I highly doubt ur 0-60 times were below 6 with those 1/4 times and as we all know, you can't take off fast in FWD cars.

huh?

less than 6 secs 0-60 can be high 14's/low 15's. Mid 5's can be still high 14's in the 1/4, depends a lot of gearing.

You do realize there are 9sec and better FWD cars right?

That are HIGHLY modified but in street trim, it is very difficult to take off fast in a FWD car. Trust me I know.

We know you are a bad driver then.

Think of the SRT4...think Eclipse / Eagle / Laser non-awd models, the Omni GLHS, etc. Throw a Quaiffe in a hot FWD, etc.

Getting around a 6 sec 0-60 time for a FWD is hardly very difficult. Driving skill matters a lot.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Regs
... my 400 dollar rim and 60 dollar hub cap.

Rim and hub cap?

 

[natto fire]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Ehh I highly doubt ur 0-60 times were below 6 with those 1/4 times and as we all know, you can't take off fast in FWD cars.

huh?

less than 6 secs 0-60 can be high 14's/low 15's. Mid 5's can be still high 14's in the 1/4, depends a lot of gearing.

You do realize there are 9sec and better FWD cars right?

That are HIGHLY modified but in street trim, it is very difficult to take off fast in a FWD car. Trust me I know.

We know you are a bad driver then.

Think of the SRT4...think Eclipse / Eagle / Laser non-awd models, the Omni GLHS, etc. Throw a Quaiffe in a hot FWD, etc.

Getting around a 6 sec 0-60 time for a FWD is hardly very difficult. Driving skill matters a lot.

But a 6 second 0-60 is NOT fast. Weight transfer will always kill FWD launches. Even the best limited slip differential will not help that.