V-6 mustang EPA Gas Mileage

[comiskeybum]

Originally Posted by Beamer

yea, epa is just a rough idea, people either get
But those are nice #'s for much heavier car than mine, I'd be real happy with that if I had a stang.

its that reason and month payment that i got the v-6 pony pkg in the first place. this is my every day driver

[kylepo]

Originally Posted by comiskeybum

ok why we gotta go trying to start crap. do you not know that mustang and camaro go in cycles. for the next couple years camaro is the best.

but when mustang has a v-6 at 355hp and a v-8 at 440hp it will be best for a couple years. and so on and so fourth.

this argument is never won........so why have it.

lets just say that all 3........challenger, camaro, mustang are fantastic cars and if i had the money i would have one of each.

cycle? the camaro left in 2002 on top and the mustang has yet to beat that model for performance numbers and now the camaro is much better with the 5th gen. And lol yes I did have go and start shit.

[GatorBlue371]

you drive your V-6 mustang like its meant to be driven...


... so does that mean you drive like a sorority girl?

[nester7929]

Originally Posted by kylepo

cycle? the camaro left in 2002 on top and the mustang has yet to beat that model for performance numbers

The 2003 SVT Cobra had 390-hp, compared to the 350 or so of the 2002 SS. The SS ran a quarter mile of 13.6, and the Cobra ran it in 12.4 and had a 0-60 of 4.5.

Hell, the 2003 SVT Cobra STILL has the best performance numbers out of the big three. Although the 2010 GT500 might have a shot.

[ucla1ove3]

we just be playin man haha. we are all giddy right now cause of production starting....

[kylepo]

Originally Posted by nester7929

The 2003 SVT Cobra had 390-hp, compared to the 350 or so of the 2002 SS. The SS ran a quarter mile of 13.6, and the Cobra ran it in 12.4 and had a 0-60 of 4.5.

Hell, the 2003 SVT Cobra STILL has the best performance numbers out of the big three. Although the 2010 GT500 might have a shot.

SVT cobra=limited production not built the whole model run. OK how bout this match up 02 SS VS 05 GT????? What do you have to say about that.

[kylepo]

and because you brought it up, the SVT cobra. Why dont you go check out some of the GMMG cars they are some nice rides. And as the the cobra being top dog. STILL I think you will be seeing numbers coming from the mags for the SS that are very very close to the SVT. Not to mention you are comparing a NA to a FI lets throw a blower or turbo on the SS and see what happens. lol

[nester7929]

The reason I mentioned the '03 Cobra was because you said no one else has beat the performance numbers of the '02 SS and that isn't true. Whether it's NA or FI is irrelevant, the point is the Cobra put out better numbers.

And I would hope a naturally-aspirated 5.7 liter would put out higher numbers than a naturally-aspirated 4.6 liter. Just kind of common sense. Ford's older, larger volume NA engines put out around the same power as Chevy's LS1 as well.

I'm not a Ford fanboy (or a fanboy of any company, really), but numbers don't really lie.


"SVT cobra=limited production not built the whole model run. OK how bout this match up 02 SS VS 05 GT????? What do you have to say about that."

You're comparing a mid-level Mustang with the top-end Camaro. How about the '02 SS and '02 Cobra instead? That'd be a fair comparison (The SS would probably take it by a hair). In terms of the 2005+ Mustang GT, it falls somewhere between the '02 Z28 and SS. Newer cars aren't necessarily faster (thanks to weight gain from government mandates), they just have more safety features.

[TaylorRyanSS]

Originally Posted by comiskeybum

Yeah i have the pony package. in my opinion the base v6 mustang looks horrible with just the blakc grill. you need some chrome and fogs to make it look better.

pony package also gives you ABS and better suspension.

really? I think the fogs are kinda ugly... even the ones on the GT and I got mine when the new body style first came out so it wasn't an option. As for the chrome... less chrome = less gangsta hahahaha

[kylepo]

Originally Posted by nester7929

The reason I mentioned the '03 Cobra was because you said no one else has beat the performance numbers of the '02 SS and that isn't true. Whether it's NA or FI is irrelevant, the point is the Cobra put out better numbers.

And I would hope a naturally-aspirated 5.7 liter would put out higher numbers than a naturally-aspirated 4.6 liter. Just kind of common sense. Ford's older, larger volume NA engines put out around the same power as Chevy's LS1 as well.

I'm not a Ford fanboy (or a fanboy of any company, really), but numbers don't really lie.


"SVT cobra=limited production not built the whole model run. OK how bout this match up 02 SS VS 05 GT????? What do you have to say about that."

You're comparing a mid-level Mustang with the top-end Camaro. How about the '02 SS and '02 Cobra instead? That'd be a fair comparison (The SS would probably take it by a hair). In terms of the 2005+ Mustang GT, it falls somewhere between the '02 Z28 and SS. Newer cars aren't necessarily faster (thanks to weight gain from government mandates), they just have more safety features.

for 2005 wasnt the GT the best mustang money could buy?

[MLL67RSSS]

As mentioned they totally redid the way the EPA does the mileage testing. The reason was BEFORE people would never get what the EPA stickers said on the windows and they just COULD NOT understand the fact that those numbers were there so you could compare different cars and know that "X" car will get a couple more MPG's than "Y" car. They took those numbers as gospel and were upset when "It said I'd get 25 MPG and I only get 23, stupid EPA what a scam!" So they now do the testing loop differently to get more "real world" numbers and are more conservative with those numbers because a lot of people were/are just stupid.

[kylepo]

Originally Posted by MLL67RSSS

As mentioned they totally redid the way the EPA does the mileage testing. The reason was BEFORE people would never get what the EPA stickers said on the windows and they just COULD NOT understand the fact that those numbers were there so you could compare different cars and know that "X" car will get a couple more MPG's than "Y" car. They took those numbers as gospel and were upset when "It said I'd get 25 MPG and I only get 23, stupid EPA what a scam!" So they now do the testing loop differently to get more "real world" numbers and are more conservative with those numbers because a lot of people were/are just stupid.

My bonneville is rated at 27 Highway. I went from buffalo to mid MI and got gas right before i got on the road and right after I got off expressway. I got 32 we had just changed the plugs and wires....not bad for a 2004 with over 100K and 4 snow tires. I only used 13 gallons the whole trip. and with our firehawk with auto we get 24-25 easy on the highway and thats only rated at 23! I know people with 6 speed ls1s who can get damn dear 30 and they are only rated for 25

[nester7929]

Originally Posted by kylepo

for 2005 wasnt the GT the best mustang money could buy?

Sure was, but it wasn't the top dog of that generation, the GT500 was. Right now, people compare the 2010 SS to the 2010 GT500 because as of right now, the SS is the top dog. However, if a Z28 comes out, it'll shift to where the SS is compared to the GT (which should be a 5.0 by that point) and the Z28 will be compared to the GT500.

[fdjizm]

i get 26-27 on the highway at 65mph in my GT those are pretty bad numbers for a v6