[bronco2454]

I am looking at buying a mustang. I am interested in a v6 with a 5 speed. I have heard the v6 does good on gas and isn't to bad to insure. Are the v6s a real dog though? I am still looking but this the combination I am currently seeking unless you guys change my mind. Is there anything I should know about the v6 mustang or the 94-2004 mustang at all?

[flyinlo94]

i've got a 97 v6 and a 94 5.0. both are verts. both insure within 9 dollars of each other per 6 months with state farm... i've got full coverage on both. around the 420 dollar mark for either one over a 6 month period.

my v6 gets 39 mpg, pure highway san antonio tx, to lake charles, la I-10 at approx. 80 mph the entire way... without running a/c. in town, about 27-30, depending on how i drive it (with a/c).

happy mustanging! ^_^

[Skymarshal]

Originally Posted by flyinlo94

my v6 gets 39 mpg, 80 mph the entire way...

Were you drafting a truck or getting towed by a friend?

The best I've gotten has been 30 on the highway with a huge tailwind. Most of the time it's about 26 in mostly highway driving.

The V8 can be a lot more to insure. It depends on where you live and your age.

[PancakeOfDoom]

insurance isn't bad at all, same as a camry or something along those lines in my case.

as far as speed goes they're not very fast, but they're not slow either. 0-60 is rated at 7.2 for the 99-04. 193hp and 225ft/lbs of torque isn't too bad. i really like mine, pretty reliable, gas mileage for me is bout 21 city, idk bout highway cuz the interstate here has been shut down for a while in town and wont' be open for a while, but if i remember correctly i think i got bout 28 or so.

all around i like em, i valet at a hotel and stangs definitely hold up nicely and are probably one of the best buys for the cash.


another plus is that when my brother got his integra and i drove it i felt like i was in a go cart. the mustang isn't a lumbering sedan, but it isn't a tiny sub compact, perfect size IMO. the lil bro has an 05 gt now btw, likes it better than his chevy pickup or the integra if that means anything.

[ChingonStang]

Originally Posted by flyinlo94

i've got a 97 v6 and a 94 5.0. both are verts. both insure within 9 dollars of each other per 6 months with state farm... i've got full coverage on both. around the 420 dollar mark for either one over a 6 month period.

my v6 gets 39 mpg, pure highway san antonio tx, to lake charles, la I-10 at approx. 80 mph the entire way... without running a/c. in town, about 27-30, depending on how i drive it (with a/c).

happy mustanging! ^_^

remember you take the number of miles divided by gallons used. Maybe you forgot to reset the trip meter and counted two tanks.....if I could get almost 40 mpg I would not ever trade in my Mustang...

Originally Posted by Skymarshal

Were you drafting a truck or getting towed by a friend?

The best I've gotten has been 30 on the highway with a huge tailwind. Most of the time it's about 26 in mostly highway driving.

The V8 can be a lot more to insure. It depends on where you live and your age.

+1 on

[flyinlo94]

Originally Posted by ChingonStang

remember you take the number of miles divided by gallons used. Maybe you forgot to reset the trip meter and counted two tanks.....if I could get almost 40 mpg I would not ever trade in my Mustang...



+1 on

nope, im sorry that you feel this way, especially enough to call me a bull****ter... but i can guarantee you i'm getting 39 PURE HIGHWAY, this is non stop ok, no red lights, we're talking gas pump to gas pump here... and no a/c. and yes i know how to calculate gas mileage. i was very pleasantly surprised to say the least, myself, after i got this car. my other v6 which i owned several years ago was a 96, and it only got 30 highway (which i consider good, also). my 5.0 gets about 20 on the highway.

i wouldn't say it if it were not true.

[flyinlo94]

Originally Posted by Skymarshal

Were you drafting a truck or getting towed by a friend?

The best I've gotten has been 30 on the highway with a huge tailwind. Most of the time it's about 26 in mostly highway driving.

The V8 can be a lot more to insure. It depends on where you live and your age.

i've really got no explanation for it... but i'm serious. and i've never gotten below 27 with in-town driving with this car. i've got a thunderbird with a 3.8 and even it only gets 27-29 highway.

[ChingonStang]

I still say . You need to call Ford and report this and possibly the media. Otherwise....

[flyinlo94]

Originally Posted by ChingonStang

I still say . You need to call Ford and report this and possibly the media. Otherwise....

why is it so impossible for you to believe someone is telling the truth? especially on something that isn't such a big deal in the first place? just because you were not witness to it does not mean it did not happen. *see signature*



whatever though, i'm stopping here to prevent clogging the thread with pointless arguments!

g'day to you!

[MustangLX-5.0]

Not gonna argue with the guy.Maybe his air/fuel is runnin way lean.Never know.If it is,it's gonna hurt his motor in the long run.Most my car (96) ever got on highway was 28 mpg.And that's doing 80 on the I-75.I'm sure I'd probably get 30 mpg if I had dropped my speed to 70.Then again,everyones ridin your ass.

Maybe he gutted his spare tire and backseat ? shrug.I just never heard that much mpg reported on a v6 stang.Most I heard was 32 mpg.

[RED98]

I call big time on the 39 mpg. I drove a long trip on the interstate two separate times, once in the summer and once in the winter. Both times I topped off the tank at a truck stop gas station right next to the highway and filled up again as soon as I got off. (The highway.) I got 30 mpg in the summer, with the heat expanding the gas to help the fuel economy, and on my winter trip I got 28.5, partly because there were some hills that took a little extra rpm's to get over.

I'm not looking for an argument, or calling anyone a liar, I am just saying there is no way a 94-04 Mustang with the factory engine and drivetrain is getting 39 mpg. I have never seen that claim before, even when Ford was making 4-banger Mustangs. If the Mustang could beat the accord, camry, civic and corolla for highway fuel economy, don't you think someone might have mentioned that by now??

[MustangLX-5.0]

The 2.3 got worse gas mileage than the 94-04 V6's did.That old school 4 popper was never all that efficient...let alone reliable.

Maybe he is reporting this mileage in the correct manner.Someone installed a set of gears without a new speedo gear or he's using super small donut tires.

I asked a couple techs here at work about this mileage.According to them,there's no way it could get that mileage.Not even running extra lean.Running too lean and you'd overheat or cause detonation.Most mileage out of lean would be 33 maybe.

[flyinlo94]

Originally Posted by MustangLX-5.0

The 2.3 got worse gas mileage than the 94-04 V6's did.That old school 4 popper was never all that efficient...let alone reliable.

Maybe he is reporting this mileage in the correct manner.Someone installed a set of gears without a new speedo gear or he's using super small donut tires.

I asked a couple techs here at work about this mileage.According to them,there's no way it could get that mileage.Not even running extra lean.Running too lean and you'd overheat or cause detonation.Most mileage out of lean would be 33 maybe.

Man. I know I swore I was done with this post, but a big ole' pile of "guh!" is rising up in me right now. I shouldn't have said anything in the first place... though now I'm quite curious as to why my car goes so far on a tank. 39 is the best that I calculated over the time I've owned the car. The USUAL mpg that I get when traveling the 120 mile round trip from two cities which I regularly frequent is between 30 and 35. When I made my Lake Charles, LA to San Antonio, TX round trip during Hurricane Gustav, I calculated 39. (The day I brought the car home from the person I purchased it from, I calculated 37... was pleasantly surprised at this... but then thought I perhaps had not filled the tank fully the first time when the rest of my mpg's came up as, again, between 30 and 35). Perhaps, in this case also, I did not fill the tank fully when I left Lake Charles. I give. You win.

I honestly hate to say this, but MAYBE there was a miscalculation. If that will make everybody feel better, then so be it. I am no where near infallible, that's for sure. I get way too much valuable information from this forum to discount it's members' knowledge base.

G'day~

[Stopsign32v]