Modern Camaro Forums banner
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://mustangs.about.com/b/2007/12/03/sales-of-ford-mustang-down-281-in-november.htm


Sales of Ford Mustang Down 28.1% in November
According to November sales figures released by Ford Motor Company today, the Ford Mustang experienced a 28.1% decrease in sales this November, when compared to November of 2006. This November Ford sold 7,352 total Mustangs. In November of 2006, Ford sold 10,230 Mustangs. In all, sales of the Mustang are down 18.7% for the 2007 year. It's doubtful Ford will make up the difference this month.
On the other end of the spectrum, the Ford Focus posted a 18% sales gain and Ford Fusion sales were up 39% in November. Fuel-efficient cars are becoming increasingly popular for the company. According to the EPA's recent gasoline consumption estimates, the 2008 4.0L Mustang (auto transmission) gets 16 city/24 highway miles per gallon on average, while the 2008 4.6L Mustang (auto transmission) averages 15 city/22 highway miles per gallon, and the 5.4L (manual transmission) averages 14 city/20 highway miles per gallon. The automatic transmission Focus averages 24 city/33 highway miles per gallon.

In 2008 Ford will offer a number of special-edition Mustangs. Although these will likely create enthusiam and consumer interest, their limited production numbers should not have a significant impact in overall sales figures. What's next for my favorite Pony car? With the Chevy Camaro slated to return in 2009, things will likely get very interesting in the years to come.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 · (Edited)
Why are the Mustangs rated at such low MPG?

Even the LS1 98-02 Camaros got 3mpg higher rating and most of us know that they get a lot more than that really. I don't think the Mustang gets much better than its rated if any.

Also the Camaro had more HP and 1.1 more liters
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,420 Posts
Mustangs are rated for normal octane gasoline, that probably contributes to the low HP/MPG numbers. That and Ford engines just blow. They're not as bad as Chrysler engines. Ford is the middle child of the Big Three. They're not as BAD as Chrysler's stuff..but not as good as GM's stuff.

And oo..they're finally getting a bigger engine in the Mustang? About **** time. I hope it's better than the 5.4L they have in the F-150s..since they're rated for the same HP as the old mustang 4.6L.

EDIT: Unless that was a horrible typo on the article's behalf..MSN autos still shows the engine as the 4.6L V8.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,153 Posts
I'm sure Pherd expected this slump. This far into it's life cycle with the new muscle cars just around the corner...I just wish fewer sales numbers meant I'd see fewer on the road...They're disgustingly retro.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,135 Posts
The problem with fuel economy doesn't lie so much with Ford's engine as it does their drivetrain. I test drove one of those things and it rus probably 500-750 rpms higher than my Camaro. The engine runs so high that its impossible to have good fuel economy, but people must really love that gas guzzling rumble.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,135 Posts
They have to have high gear ratios just to try to keep up with their 5 year old competitors. ;)
Heck my Camaro is almost 20 years old and it can still beat a few of the new Mustangs. Most likely this is due to Mustang operator error, but seeing a 20yr old car beat a dealership new car anyday is still cool:roxor:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,420 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,257 Posts
Mustangs are rated for normal octane gasoline, that probably contributes to the low HP/MPG numbers. That and Ford engines just blow. They're not as bad as Chrysler engines. Ford is the middle child of the Big Three. They're not as BAD as Chrysler's stuff..but not as good as GM's stuff.

And oo..they're finally getting a bigger engine in the Mustang? About **** time. I hope it's better than the 5.4L they have in the F-150s..since they're rated for the same HP as the old mustang 4.6L.

EDIT: Unless that was a horrible typo on the article's behalf..MSN autos still shows the engine as the 4.6L V8.
5.4L SHELBY GT500(500HP)
5.4L sHELBY GT500 SUPER SNAKE (750HP,BEAT THAT ZR-1!)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Were working on it. We already have the LS9 at 525hp so give us about a year and you'll be seeing our tail-lights:eek::roxor:

I thought the LS9 was going to be ~650HP and LSA or LS8 going to be in the 550HP range.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,420 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
Why is there a hardcore pro-mustang guy on a hardcore pro-Camaro(And mostly hardcore pro-Chevy) forum? D:
The same reason S10 guys are, I guess.:rolleyes:

Im moving over from mustangs and a moderator of a "hardcore pro-camaro" forum. I like to think of the 5th gen to bring car guys in general to the table, like myself. Objectivity is a good element to any forum.

As mentioned, The super snake isnt a in-house car like the GT500. So, yes its like a Lingerfelter vette. So I would keep the topic on in-house numbers for good measure. (BTW, a LS9 prooly really has 700hp at the crank; and 400hp vettes can beat GT500 with 500hp. So with that said, I doubt a ZR-1 will have any trouble with a 750hp, 4000lbs car. And that is coming from a "mustang guy".)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,257 Posts
Absolutely Correct! :thumbsup:
The reason why i'm defending mustangs is because i don't doubt the LS9 can handle 700hp,but bone stock the LS9 handles 1.82hp per cu in,the GT500 Super snake handles 2.27 hp per cu in from LESS Displacement(both blown mind you).and to answer brandon's question the supersnake can be ordered either with the car or after you buy a GT500.the cost of that package is an unreal $28k.and by the way i'm not hardcore ford it's just that i've owned mopar and blue oval and against any import i would use any american muscle available to me no matter wether it came from GM,Ford or dodge:patriot::patriot:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
The reason why i'm defending mustangs is because i don't doubt the LS9 can handle 700hp,but bone stock the LS9 handles 1.82hp per cu in,the GT500 Super snake handles 2.27 hp per cu in from LESS Displacement(both blown mind you).and to answer brandon's question the supersnake can be ordered either with the car or after you buy a GT500.the cost of that package is an unreal $28k.and by the way i'm not hardcore ford it's just that i've owned mopar and blue oval and against any import i would use any american muscle available to me no matter wether it came from GM,Ford or dodge:patriot::patriot:
Your still comparing apples to oranges;)

also what about HP to weight
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top