|
Producers » rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang » 2005-2006 Mustang V-8
| 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #767792] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 06:25 |
|
2005-2006 Mustang V-8 auto trans
I'm used car shopping and have not had rear wheel drive car in 10 years.
Any comments good or bad (about the car)?
How's the leg room?
Is the window sill too high to hang an arm out the window comfortably?
How's the gas mileage?
Any strange quirks, like not being able to read the gauges in daylight (like many
GM products)?
I'm going to rent one for a few days eventually but would like other's opinions,
too.
Thanks,
Paul
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #767795 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 20:35 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #767796 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 21:26 |
|
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 [at] 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.
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 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 $1,000 more than the one
before. I'm 6'3" 220 LB and 80 years old Hell, I have even picked up some
young stuff. Had one last week that could not have been a day of 59. ;)
mike hunt
"lymee" <irish.lymee [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cSsg.18$Su.6 [at] fe10.lga...
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 04:25:39 +0000, « Paul » wrote:
>
>> 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 auto trans
>>
>> I'm used car shopping and have not had rear wheel drive car in 10 years.
>> Any comments good or bad (about the car)?
>> How's the leg room?
>> How's the gas mileage?
>> Any strange quirks, like not being able to read the gauges in daylight
>> (like many GM products)?
>> I'm going to rent one for a few days eventually but would like other's
>> opinions, too.
>> Is the window sill too high to hang an arm out the window comfortably?
>
>
>
> RWD has only a couple of disadvantages IMHO and they involve snow, slick
> roads and ice.
> I drive a 92 Chevy Caprice RWD that is great until it snows a lot and then
> it is pretty much a wounded buffalo in the snow :)
> However, RWD is cheaper to maintain, easier to diagnose problems with
> (especially noise related problems) and for pure handling and driving fun
> it is superior which is partially why the big 3 are going back to RWD.
> I'm just a rental refugee but I had the V6 rag top for 2 weeks and I
> absolutely loved it.
> In fact I loved it so much, I am shopping for a Stang' as well but I am
> undecided as to V8 or V6.
> I'm 6'1 230lbs and I had no problem at all.
>
>
>
> No problem for me.
> I've had the pre-2005 models as rentals in the past and I did notice the
> window too high thing, but it didn't really bother me.
> They seem to have improved it in the 2005+ models.
>
> I got 27mpg overall (mostly open highway in upstate NY) and I was driving
> it like a maniac.
> The car had a little over 1000 miles on it when I started and almost 2000
> when I gave it back.
> I think you are going to either love it or hate it.
> I loved it and it got attention everywhere I drove it.
> I haven't tried a V8 yet, but the V6 was no slouch at all and who can
> argue with 25+mpg !
>> Thanks,
>> Paul
>
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #767799 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 21:56 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #767802 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 01:53 |
|
"lymee" <irish.lymee [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uoTsg.51$x52.34 [at] fe12.lga...
> 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 [at] 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!
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #767803 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 03:13 |
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 04:25:39 GMT, "« Paul »" <" « Paul
»" [at] houston.rr.com> wrote:
>2005-2006 Mustang V-8 auto trans
>
>I'm used car shopping and have not had rear wheel drive car in 10 years.
I prefer RWD but that's always a subjective opinion, nothing objective
about opinions.
>
>Any comments good or bad (about the car)?
I have a 2005 GT automatic. My only complaint is that I'd have liked
the 5speed, but my wife over ruled that decision but no complaints
other than it's slow off the line, once moving, "LOOK OUT" :)
>How's the leg room?
leg room in the front seat is wonderful, I'm 6'2" 200 lbs and I have
no problem at all with fitting under the steering wheel. Passengers
seat is NOT electric and has no height adjustment. It sits pretty low
in the cabin (or cockpit) depending on your speed <G> and since there
isnt any adjustment, it's kind of hard for "short people" to hang an
arm out the window.
BACK SEAT leg room is NON EXISTANT with the driver's/passenger's seats
all the way back. If you're under about 5'7" and pull the front seats
forward, there'd be some leg room in the back, but if you're over
5'10" you can just about forget anyone sitting behind you. BUT,
truthfully, the back seat is just for looks and an occasional quick
trip passenger. I'd sure hate to be the 12 year old forced to sit in
the back seat from Detroit to Chicago. Talk about a grumpy kid on
arrival !!!!!
>Is the window sill too high to hang an arm out the window comfortably?
Drivers seat, you can adjust up or down almost4" so there's not
problem with anyone short or tall hanging an arm out the window,
passeners seat, however is low in the cabin (see above)
>How's the gas mileage?
I get about 20.5 MPG in town/combined driving ( I live about 15 miles
from work on 2 lane highways) On a recent trip to Dallas, I got 24.8
MPG driving about 85 (average speed for the trip was 78 MPH) I don't
baby it and at least on startup each trip gets a little "squeal" out
of the tires... So, I would say probably 1 or 1.5 MPG better if I'd
just take it easy in town and possibly 1 MPG better on the road with
"SANE" driving speeds. But, don't count on it from me, like I said,
call it a cabin or a cockpit depending on speed.... I've got a bumper
sticker (no I wouldn't dare put it on the mustang that reads< "If
this was a runway, I wouldn't be speeding" I think that says enough
about speed :) <VEG>
>Any strange quirks, like not being able to read the gauges in daylight (like many
>GM products)?
No strange quirks that I've noticed, had the car since October 2004
(It was the first one in town) and I still feel like waking up early
to get ready for work. I know, I know, but I do love driving it and
the "newness" hasn't worn off yet.
>
>I'm going to rent one for a few days eventually but would like other's opinions,
>too.
I don't know where you'd be able to rent a GT, but from what I've seen
of other people's comments (mostly those who haven't yet driven a GT)
they are all impressed as heck with the V6 performance. I didn't get
to drive a V6 until I'd had my GT for about 6 months and I was
disappointed with the performance of the V6/automatic. But, that's
after getting out of the cockpit of my GT and getting into the cabin
of a V6. Yup, it does seem like that much difference when comapring
one after immediately driving the other.
BUT, either one is a "head turner" and either one is fun to drive.
Try them both, see which fits you, your subjective opinion and your
wallet. Get what makes you happy and causes you to wet your pants
with joy, hmmmm let me stop right here before I get into trouble
<G>
John
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #767805 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 03:40 |
|
Thanks for everyone's replies. Mustang sounds better all the time.
I've got to fly into Newark in two weeks. I think both Hertz and Avis rent
Mustangs. I'll be in NJ & NY on business and then drive to Cleveland, OH to see
relatives. Drop the car off there and fly back to Houston.
Paul.
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #767806 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 03:51 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #767811 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 04:34 |
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:26:52 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2 [at] mailcity.com> wrote:
>and all Mustangs, as do most Ford, use regular grade gas.
Not Cobra's, not Mach 1's - Premium gas only.
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #767812 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 04:42 |
|
kheyde [at] millvaley.net wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:26:52 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
> <mikehunt2 [at] mailcity.com> 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. :(
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #776689 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 12:42 |
|
nobody [at] myhouse.com wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 04:25:39 GMT, "=AB Paul =BB" <" =AB Paul
> =BB" [at] houston.rr.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> I have a 2005 GT automatic. My only complaint is that I'd have liked
> the 5speed, but my wife over ruled that decision but no complaints
> other than it's slow off the line, once moving, "LOOK OUT" :)
<SNIP>
Have you thought about getting an SCT X-Cal2? Will greatly improve the
performance and feel of your automatic!
The are a number of good tuners out there but for automatics I highly
recommend Lidio at Alternative Auto (www.alternativeauto.com). When
it comes to tuning automatics, Lidio is on top!
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #776690 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 13:18 |
|
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 [at] 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
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #776692 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 15:47 |
|
> By 'winter tires' what do you mean?
> Blizzaks or something like that?
Yes, but I have found Blizzaks not to be as good as similar tires from other
manufactures.
mike hunt
"lymee" <irish.lymee [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uoTsg.51$x52.34 [at] fe12.lga...
> 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 [at] 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.
> 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.
>
>> 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 $1,000 more than the
>> one
>> before. I'm 6'3" 220 LB and 80 years old Hell, I have even picked up
>> some
>> young stuff. Had one last week that could not have been a day of 59.
>> ;)
>>
>> mike hunt
>
>
> You sound like a riot Mike!!
> God Bless ya!
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #776693 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 15:52 |
|
As I said, with me driving both vehicles, the Zephyr does get better mileage
but nothing to brag about considering the GT is far more powerful when one
needs to get going or to get out of the way. ;)
mike hunt
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LRWsg.3339$vO.2196 [at] newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "lymee" <irish.lymee [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uoTsg.51$x52.34 [at] fe12.lga...
>> 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 [at] 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 $1,000 more than the
>>> one
>>> before. I'm 6'3" 220 LB and 80 years old Hell, I have even picked up
>>> some
>>> young stuff. Had one last week that could not have been a day of 59.
>>> ;)
>>>
>>> mike hunt
>>
>>
>> You sound like a riot Mike!!
>> God Bless ya!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #776694 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 15:57 |
|
The Vue has a Honda engine and like most Japanese manufactures they wind up
their engines to get HP and torque suffers as a result. Torque is what gets
you going and keep you going up hills and mountains. That it why Toyotas,
Subarus and the like die on the grades, unless you run the gears. When you
do that mileage drops off.
mike hunt
"lymee" <irish.lymee [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:EAYsg.172$x52.35 [at] fe12.lga...
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #776695 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 16:04 |
|
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
=?x-user-defined?Q?=BB?=" [at] houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:44B46281.6ACA158B [at] houston.rr.com...
> kheyde [at] millvaley.net wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:26:52 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2 [at] mailcity.com> 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. :(
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #776696 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 16:07 |
|
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" <BobwBSGS [at] TrashThis.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-ZqdnS-DEqngRynZnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> 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 [at] 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
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #776698 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 16:16 |
|
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2 [at] mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:ZhGdnc_cT_AVYynZUSdV9g [at] ptd.net...
> 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
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #776700 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 16:32 |
|
I'll try to remember that next time ;)
mike hunt
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Su7tg.7639$cd3.1832 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2 [at] mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:ZhGdnc_cT_AVYynZUSdV9g [at] ptd.net...
>> 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.
>
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #776702 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 16:58 |
|
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...
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #776707 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 19:00 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #776711 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 21:08 |
|
Jeff wrote:
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2 [at] mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:ZhGdnc_cT_AVYynZUSdV9g [at] ptd.net...
> > 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
|
|
|
| Re: 2005-2006 Mustang V-8 [message #776726 ] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 15:13 |
|
Mike. Contrary to Jeff's comments, I find top posting makes it much easier
to find the latest info in a thread.
Bill
"wadner" <wadner [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152731338.794452.74590 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jeff wrote:
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2 [at] mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:ZhGdnc_cT_AVYynZUSdV9g [at] ptd.net...
>> > 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
>
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 16:56:49 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.20336 Sekunden |
