Ford Mustang vs Volkswagen Arteon: 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 $2,700 for the Volkswagen Arteon. That $350 yearly gap compounds to roughly $1,750 over five years and $2,800 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 Volkswagen Arteon leads in both cycles — 25 mpg city and 34 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 Volkswagen Arteon with 1 (SIDI). Across 133 recorded Ford Mustang configurations and 11 for the Volkswagen Arteon, 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 Volkswagen Arteon with All-Wheel Drive, 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 Large 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 Volkswagen Arteon emits 318 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.