I don't care if it was an 09, I would never have or own a V6 Misstang.

I have a 92 GT. It needs work and most of the new V6s could probably beat it but I couldn't care less. When I'm done it will smoke them.

How could someone pull up to the light with the windows down look over and smirk while sitting in a V6. You'd beat me off the light because of the tears in my eyes from laughing.

Sorry I can't respect a V6 mustang. A V6 Grand National? Sure.

 

It goes back to having *****. Do you want to say you have a V6 performance car(not counting the Fiero, GN,) or do you want to say proudly, Americanly, that you indeed have 8 cylinders? I don't think I will ever own anything with less than 8 cylinders(except my neighbors AMG).

But anyway, the newer Stangs with the 4.0 V6 have all out acceleration, but from 35 MPH+, the things just don't go no where. I get to drive all sorts of mustangs at work. The Newer GT's and the 4.0 stangs have very close accel, but after the 30 MPH range, the 4.0's die out it seems.

 

Id take a Vette.

 

Ive owned two V6s. The Capri, wish it had the 5.0 but damn near impossible to find any at all, never mind with the 8. But it looked and sounded mean enough no one wanted to pull up to it

Same with the Cougar, but that car was way too heavy to be considered performance. Just a really comfortable luxury coupe, with kick *** handling to boot.

I dont think I could ever buy a V6 Stang, when you think of Mustangs you think of that tire smokin gear grabbing V8 under the hood

 

The V6 might be a "girl car" version of the Mustang, but- in stock trim, it'll still smoke a 1997 V8 GT.

it won't sound bad doing it either, if you get the V-6 with a stick.

2006(7) V-6 Mustang

Pros :
1.) Warranty
2.) Warranty
3.) Warranty
4.) Bigger
5.) Equal if not more power than the 215 HP of the 1997 V-8 GT.
6.) Should be a lot cheaper to insure.

Cons:

1.) Girl car. (But, that can be rectifies by removing the "mustang" letters down the side, and adding some nice wheels, and tint. If you really want to fake it, have a y-pipe installed, and run duals out the back.

******************************

1997 GT

Pros:
1.) It's a V-8
2.) There are a ton of aftermarket go-fast components to make it a serious beast.
3.) Should be dirt cheap.
4.) I bet the insurance will still be crazy.


Cons:
1.) No warranty
2.) Anything that break (And, I'm sure there will be a lot) will come out of your pocket to fix.
3.) It's 10 years old.
4.) Did I mention it has no warranty.

 

Warranty what is this warranty you speak of

 

I have a 95 GT; sold a 93 coupe that was a heads, cam, intake car about 6 months ago. The newer V6 cars will probably out run my 95, but I just can't own a V6. Even if it did blow my doors off, I just can't stand the sound of them. I'd take a slow V8 over a fast V6 anyday.

That doesn't count the GN's though. I would love to have one of those cars.

 

I wouldn't buy a V6 Mustang but for my girlfriend it's a good car with enough ***** for her, not to mention she can still hit up the SCCA low speed courses. .

 

there is something about a v8 at wot

 

Yep that is correct. A lot of people laugh about it being a V6. But if you think back to the day when GT-350s were built--they had less HP than this new car. A Ford hipo 289 block made 271 HP and the Shelby GT-350 mods took it to 306 HP, still less than the 350 from the new six-banger.

I attend a lot of the Shelby-sponsored open-track events (member), where replica Cobras, Gt-350s, GT-500 go out and play race and also the regional and national SAAC (Shelby American Auto Club) events where real Cobras, etc. go out on the track. The CS6 more than holds its own on most courses. I am friends with a Shelby employee who flogs the living daylights out of the CS6, new GT-500s and more and I have seen it myself--the CS6 is a well-balanced package.

Having said that, I will also say, I am only interested in vintage, big-block Ford cars from back in the day; just pointing out what some may not be aware of.

BTW, if I had to choose, It would be GT Mustang all the way, for me.

 

The gap widens further when you consider that back in the 60's & 70's, the horsepower measurements were gross, rather than the net HP numbers we have today.

Heck, that 300 HP, 5.4L under the hood of the F-150, in yesteryears terms would probably be 380 HP. So, that 271 in the 289 HiPo was probably more like 215 today. A freind of mine from Alabama had a baby blue Ford Fairlane- a '65 if memory serves, and had "CHRISTINE" on his back window. His had the 289 in it, and about a ton of bass in the trunk.

I rode in it a few times after PLDC, but never saw Ray or Christine again after we all deployed to Desert Shield/Storm.

 

the 05 and 06 GTs do more like 13.7 at the track, and thats bad, ive seen stock ones do 13.5, but the new 07 has different gears so that my change it a little
they are not slow, and really open up with some light mods

 

Heh heh, i'll take a 7.3L with a bit of money and whoop em both.

Adrianspeeder

 

MrSquirrel is right, stock GTs with automatics can pull a 13.7s.

Not to mention that I've got a friend with a GT500 with a tune and is running high 11s.

No doubt but I'm positive that your 7.3L won't due too well on a SCCA course.

 

Yes true. As a practical example, the optimistic ratings of yesteryear were taken with no belt-driven accessories such as p/s pump, alternator, and so on. The difference today with the "net" ratings is those devices are factored into the measurement. To further confuse things there were A, B, and C engineer spec ratings for many engines.

At the end of the day you are talking about maybe 10 -20 per cent difference comparing net and gross ratings.