2005-2006 Mustang V-8

As I said, with me driving both vehicles, the Zephyr does get better mileage
but nothing to brag about considering the GT is far more powerful when one
needs to get going or to get out of the way.

mike hunt


"Jeff" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "lymee" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:26:52 -0400, Mike Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> Buy the V8, the percentage of purchase price retained is much better.
>>> I
>>> have a 2007 Mustang GT convertible on order, my fifth GT convertible. I
>>> had
>>> a 1999, 2001, 2003 and currently drive a 2005. I can get 25 MPG
>>> highway,
>>> driving @ 75 MPH and all Mustangs, as do most Ford, use regular grade
>>> gas.
>>> The 300 HP/ 345 FP of torque easily keeps the car in fifth gear most of
>>> the
>>> time Although I have a 2006 Zephyr, I drive the Mustang year around
>>> in
>>> the mountainous area of eastern Pa, no problems. The V6 Zephyr with a
>>> six
>>> speed only does 2 or 3 more MPG. Tractionlox axle and traction control
>>> are
>>> standard. Add a good set of winter tires, NOT snow tires.
>>
>> I have found that with most of the cars I have owned over the years, the
>> larger engine actually got better mileage for me than friends who
>> purchased the smaller motors.
>> My theory is that it's just working less hard and I'm not constantly
>> stomping on it to get the car to go.
>
> Or perhaps, you just drive better.
>
> Cars with smaller engines do usually get better gas milage. That is why
> the EPA ratings are usually better. Of course, we all know that EPA
> ratings are only estimates.
>
> My guess is that if you had the car with the smaller engine, you would
> even get better milage. It all depends on how you drive them and how you
> maintain the cars (e.g., keeping tires filled with air).
>
> Jeff
>
>> My Caprice 305 gets 26mpg overall, mostly because it cruises very well
>> with a light foot on the gas.
>>
>> I agree with you the GT does retain it's value better.
>> By 'winter tires' what do you mean?
>> Blizzaks or something like that?
>>
>>> The 2005 was an all new car, based in the Lincoln LS/Jaguar S chassis,
>>> and a
>>> much better car all around than the previous models.
>>
>> I agree.
>> From what I could tell after driving a 2004 Vert and a 2006 Vert, the
>> 2006
>> feels much more solid to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> I paid around $5,000
>>> total delivered to replace the 99, 01 and 03. The resale on the 2005 is
>>> so
>>> great the 07 is only costing me $3,500, total delivered. Not bad when
>>> you
>>> factor in the selling price on each was at least a $1,000 more than the
>>> one
>>> before. I'm 6'3" 220 LB and 80 years old Hell, I have even picked up
>>> some
>>> young stuff. Had one last week that could not have been a day of 59.
>>>
>>>
>>> mike hunt
>>
>>
>> You sound like a riot Mike!!
>> God Bless ya!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

The Vue has a Honda engine and like most Japanese manufactures they wind up
their engines to get HP and torque suffers as a result. Torque is what gets
you going and keep you going up hills and mountains. That it why Toyotas,
Subarus and the like die on the grades, unless you run the gears. When you
do that mileage drops off.


mike hunt


"lymee" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:53:15 +0000, Jeff wrote:
>
>
>>> I have found that with most of the cars I have owned over the years, the
>>> larger engine actually got better mileage for me than friends who
>>> purchased the smaller motors.
>>> My theory is that it's just working less hard and I'm not constantly
>>> stomping on it to get the car to go.
>>
>> Or perhaps, you just drive better.
>>
>> Cars with smaller engines do usually get better gas milage. That is why
>> the
>> EPA ratings are usually better. Of course, we all know that EPA ratings
>> are
>> only estimates.
>>
>> My guess is that if you had the car with the smaller engine, you would
>> even
>> get better milage. It all depends on how you drive them and how you
>> maintain
>> the cars (e.g., keeping tires filled with air).
>>
>> Jeff
>
> It's possible, but as an example I just had a rented Saturn Vue and it was
> possbily one of the slowest cars/SUVs I have ever driven. Same thing with
> a Suburu Outback I had as a rental a couple of months ago.
> They were both very underpowered and I got horrible gas mileage with both
> of them.
>
> I tend to be gentle on cars, no jack rabbit starts, but I do like to
> cruise fast once on the freeway.
> Every car I have ever had has lasted me at least 100k miles and most go up
> into the 200k range.
> My Caprice is pushing 400k miles with original engine and transmission.
>
> You might have something though about my driving style matching bigger
> motors and thus getting better mileage.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

One can buy a new GT coupe for around 24K, much less than many of its
competitors cars that offer only a V6. For a 'sporty' car they are powering
the wrong set of wheels and therefore do not handle as well



mike hunt


"« Paul »" <"=?x-user-defined?Q?=AB?= Paul
> wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:26:52 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >and all Mustangs, as do most Ford, use regular grade gas.
>>
>> Not Cobra's, not Mach 1's - Premium gas only.
>
> They're out of my price range anyways.

Whatever. What is important is it is developed well of above the 2,000 RPMs
one runs at when dong 65 MPH.


mike hunt


"Bob Willard" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Hunter wrote <and I snipped>:
>> Buy the V8, the percentage of purchase price retained is much better. I
>> have a 2007 Mustang GT convertible on order, my fifth GT convertible. I
>> had a 1999, 2001, 2003 and currently drive a 2005. I can get 25 MPG
>> highway, driving @ 75 MPH and all Mustangs, as do most Ford, use regular
>> grade gas. The 300 HP/ 345 FP of torque ...
>
> 300 HP is correct, but it is rated at 320 FP of torque. Same for 2007.
> --
> Cheers, Bob

"Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
...
> As I said, with me driving both vehicles, the Zephyr does get better
> mileage but nothing to brag about considering the GT is far more powerful
> when one needs to get going or to get out of the way.

Please post inline. It is very hard to follow a thread with your
top-posting.

I guess you are saying that you don't have anything of importance to say.

I would have to agree.

Jeff

I'll try to remember that next time


mike hunt


"Jeff" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
> ...
>> As I said, with me driving both vehicles, the Zephyr does get better
>> mileage but nothing to brag about considering the GT is far more
>> powerful when one needs to get going or to get out of the way.
>
> Please post inline. It is very hard to follow a thread with your
> top-posting.
>

Mike Hunter wrote:
> One can buy a new GT coupe for around 24K, much less than many of its
> competitors cars that offer only a V6. For a 'sporty' car they are powering
> the wrong set of wheels and therefore do not handle as well
>
>
>
> mike hunt

Actually there are parts of the country where a $3,000 markup is not
uncommon...

Jeff wrote:
> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
> ...
> > As I said, with me driving both vehicles, the Zephyr does get better
> > mileage but nothing to brag about considering the GT is far more powerful
> > when one needs to get going or to get out of the way.
>
> Please post inline. It is very hard to follow a thread with your
> top-posting.

I thought TOP-POSTING was dead???


> I guess you are saying that you don't have anything of importance to say.
>
> I would have to agree.
>
> Jeff

Mike. Contrary to Jeff's comments, I find top posting makes it much easier
to find the latest info in a thread.

Bill


"wadner" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Jeff wrote:
>> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > As I said, with me driving both vehicles, the Zephyr does get better
>> > mileage but nothing to brag about considering the GT is far more
>> > powerful
>> > when one needs to get going or to get out of the way.
>>
>> Please post inline. It is very hard to follow a thread with your
>> top-posting.
>
> I thought TOP-POSTING was dead???
>
>
>> I guess you are saying that you don't have anything of importance to say.
>>
>> I would have to agree.
>>
>> Jeff
>