Ford Mustang vs Subaru WRX: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Ford Mustang burns about $2,350 of fuel annually against $3,150 for the Subaru WRX. That $800 yearly gap compounds to roughly $4,000 over five years and $6,400 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 Ford Mustang leads in both cycles — 22 mpg city and 33 mpg highway against 21 and 28 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 Subaru WRX with 2 (SIDI, 2.5). Across 133 recorded Ford Mustang configurations and 32 for the Subaru WRX, 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 Subaru WRX with All-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 Ford Mustang emits 341 g/mile of CO2 versus 374 g/mile for the Subaru WRX. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.