Ford Mustang vs Mitsubishi Mirage: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Mitsubishi Mirage burns about $1,600 of fuel annually against $2,350 for the Ford Mustang. That $750 yearly gap compounds to roughly $3,750 over five years and $6,000 over eight — often more than the price difference between two trims of the same vehicle, and the single largest running-cost line item separating these two.

City and highway economy: the Mitsubishi Mirage leads in both cycles — 37 mpg city and 43 mpg highway against 22 and 33 mpg — so its fuel-efficiency advantage holds whether you commute in traffic or cover long highway miles.

Powertrain choice: the Ford Mustang is recorded with 4 distinct engine configurations (5.2, 5.0, SIDI & PFI), the Mitsubishi Mirage with 1 (1.2). Across 133 recorded Ford Mustang configurations and 32 for the Mitsubishi Mirage, the wider the engine spread the more the real-world fuel efficiency depends on which version you actually buy, so check the specific model year and drivetrain rather than the headline number.

Drivetrain and class: the Ford Mustang is offered with Rear-Wheel Drive, the Mitsubishi Mirage with Front-Wheel Drive. All-wheel drive typically costs one to two mpg combined against the same vehicle in front- or rear-wheel drive, which is worth remembering when the gap between these two is small. The EPA classes them as Subcompact Cars and Compact Cars respectively — the class drives the interior volume, cargo space and passenger space each one is measured against.

Tailpipe emissions: at their cleanest configurations the Mitsubishi Mirage emits 225 g/mile of CO2 versus 341 g/mile for the Ford Mustang. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.