Getting rid of my "trusty" Mazda today. Doing a near direct trade for a 1993 Mustang Convertible. 4cyl, Auto.
Used to have that exact type of car, and I made a stupid decision in trading it for the Wench. (Fell to the power lust). I beat myself up all the time for that mistake, but now, It shall be rectified.
The EPA on the mustang is about 4-5 less MPG than the Mazda, but I also know the motor on that thing is a lot more responsive to hypermiling than the Mazda. Same motor that was in the Wench, and I got her up to 30% over EPA or so. While the Mazda... Working very hard and barely able to get her close to 20% over EPA... Which translated to roughly the same MPG! Not worth the joykill of FWD, and the permanant top.
In my opinion, the 4-5mpg loss is definitely worth the gained fun of toplessness and RWD. Plus, I'm fairly sure that if I work at it, I could get the MPG up to Stumblebee's level (in absolute MPG, not to mention % over EPA).
The auto on that car isn't bad at all. Cruise at 60mph puts the tranny locking at about 2000RPM, easily enough to compensate for the extra .3 liters. (Stumblebee does 60 at around 2600rpm). Plus, it has the trait of dropping to idle speed when you let off the accelerator. I'm sure there's more drag on the system than a manual coasting in idle, but it's still good for cruising to stops or down hills.
(The engine is also really nice for FE. Lots of low end torque. Peak torque on this thing is around 2k rpm)
yea, a mustang wins over a FWD any day. added benefit of it's easier to add a 5-speed to a RWD than change the oil on a FWD
1991 Toyota Pickup 22R-E 2.4 I4/5 speed
1990 Toyota Cressida 7M-GE 3.0 I6/5-speed manual
mechanic, carpenter, stagehand, rigger, and know-it-all smartass
"You don't get to judge me for how I fix what you break"