Anyone have thoughts what Rental company this is?

Old Dec 7, 2013 | 06:56 PM
  #31  
glc's Avatar
glc
Senior Member
15 Year Member
Veteran: Navy
Veteran: Reserves
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 43,542
Likes: 819
From: Joplin MO
A 3.7 Mustang will eat up an older Mustang with a 4.6, even a GT.
 
Reply
Old Dec 7, 2013 | 07:28 PM
  #32  
TruckGuy24's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 10,731
Likes: 47
From: Concord, NC
Exactly, and it's way more affordable. Great mpg and dressed up a bit most people wouldn't know the difference.
 
Reply
Old Dec 7, 2013 | 09:46 PM
  #33  
KMAC0694's Avatar
Senior Member
Truck of the Month
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 6,677
Likes: 0
From: Houston and College Station, TX
Originally Posted by glc
A 3.7 Mustang will eat up an older Mustang with a 4.6, even a GT.
You've said that before, but no. A 2V 4.6 - yes, they're close. A 3V - no. And all 4.6 Mustangs were GTs lol
 
Reply
Old Dec 7, 2013 | 10:55 PM
  #34  
glc's Avatar
glc
Senior Member
15 Year Member
Veteran: Navy
Veteran: Reserves
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 43,542
Likes: 819
From: Joplin MO
2011-2013 Mustang 3.7: 0-60 5.3 secs, 1/4 mile 14 secs.

2010 Mustang 4.6 3 valve: 0-60 5.1 secs, 1/4 mile 13.8 secs.

2005-2009 Mustang 4.6 3 valve: 0-60 5.3 secs, 1/4 mile 13.9 secs.

1999-2004 Mustang 4.6 2 valve: 0-60 5.6 secs, 1/4 mile 14.2 secs.

Eh?
 
Reply
Old Dec 7, 2013 | 11:23 PM
  #35  
KMAC0694's Avatar
Senior Member
Truck of the Month
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 6,677
Likes: 0
From: Houston and College Station, TX
Well the V8 still sounds better dammit

But the 3V still has it edged, ever so slightly. I thought the 3V's 0-60 was 5.2 though. Either way, I'm extremely surprised the 3.7 is that fast, especially considering the power gap between it and a 3V. I've seen my friend's fully bolted 05 GT beat a cam'd and bolted 3.7 in the 1/8 mile considerably. Guess it was down to the drivers more than I thought.
 
Reply
Old Dec 8, 2013 | 12:09 AM
  #36  
glc's Avatar
glc
Senior Member
15 Year Member
Veteran: Navy
Veteran: Reserves
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 43,542
Likes: 819
From: Joplin MO
Originally Posted by KMAC0694
Well the V8 still sounds better dammit
I just KNEW you were going to say that.

Now, what are you going to say about the 2015, which will have a 2.3 liter 4 banger EB available?
 
Reply
Old Dec 8, 2013 | 12:26 AM
  #37  
KMAC0694's Avatar
Senior Member
Truck of the Month
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 6,677
Likes: 0
From: Houston and College Station, TX
Originally Posted by glc
I just KNEW you were going to say that.

Now, what are you going to say about the 2015, which will have a 2.3 liter 4 banger EB available?
Eh, it's change I have to get used to. I rip on the non-V8s, but I've got enough between my ears to understand that change is coming. The originals had V6's available and this isn't the first time for a 4banger either, if I'm not mistaken. I honestly won't mind at all about other options as long as a V8 is still available. And if a little 4 pot and Vsux are needed to keep em around longer, I'm all for it. The 3.7 is plucky though. And at the end of the day, HP is really all that matters until an exhaust goes on, and most folks don't do that.
 

Last edited by KMAC0694; Dec 8, 2013 at 12:29 AM.
Reply
Old Dec 8, 2013 | 10:37 AM
  #38  
glc's Avatar
glc
Senior Member
15 Year Member
Veteran: Navy
Veteran: Reserves
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 43,542
Likes: 819
From: Joplin MO
The original Mustangs had inline 6 and V-8. The Mustang II originally had 4 and V-6 only, with the V-8 added back in after the first year. Fox bodies had 4, inline 6, V-6, and V-8.
 
Reply
Old Dec 8, 2013 | 01:48 PM
  #39  
dirt bike dave's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 0
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Originally Posted by glc
The original Mustangs had inline 6 and V-8. The Mustang II originally had 4 and V-6 only, with the V-8 added back in after the first year. Fox bodies had 4, inline 6, V-6, and V-8.
And there was a turbo 4 in the Fox bodies, as well.
 
Reply
Old Dec 8, 2013 | 02:19 PM
  #40  
KingRanchCoy's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,480
Likes: 6
From: San Angelo, TX
Dad had a 86 Mustang for YEARs and it was a 2.3 liter 4 banger. That was one tuff engine/car. Got rid of it in 95 with over 200k miles for a 94 ranger with the 2.3 in it, once again a great little engine.

id like to drive the 15 mustang with the 2.3 ecoboost. It would be interesting to say the least.
 
Reply
Old Dec 8, 2013 | 02:26 PM
  #41  
RexReid's Avatar
Suspended
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by TruckGuy24
I'm not sure who has looked at these, but I did a nationwide search and they are all around the country. I will be looking for a daily driver in 2014 and I had a few things in mind but something caught me eye. If you look on a site like cars.com, you will see a good deal of white 2011-2013 F-150 reg cab long bed XL's ALL with the 5.0 and rwd. They always have 20k or less on them and look to be in nice shape. The carfax shows a rental company out of Phoenix, Az and many are $15-17k. I may ****** one next summer if I have the funds saved by that point for a nice down payment. I think it'd make a perfect dd as I don't want synch or anything like that and still get respectable mpg. With some Harley heads and tails, PTM Chrome package grille, PTM handles/mirror caps and Fx4 20s, I think it'd make a sharp truck. The 8' bed is a bit quirky, but it is very functional and that's what I'd want in a truck like that.

Anyone know how these trucks are and what the deal is? Enterprise or something?

Link

If you are looking for a good dd, this might work. It seems like a lot of money to me for a used truck. I got the xl with power pkg, 8'box (not very popular) and reg cab. I went 5.0 and limited slip. New it was under 21k. Costco has very competitive pricing at $1200 below invoice. Ford financing was 5.9--not sure what you can get on a used truck, but it is often higher. Good luck.
 

Last edited by RexReid; Dec 8, 2013 at 02:31 PM. Reason: added something
Reply
Old Dec 9, 2013 | 02:15 AM
  #42  
glc's Avatar
glc
Senior Member
15 Year Member
Veteran: Navy
Veteran: Reserves
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 43,542
Likes: 819
From: Joplin MO
Rex, I get the impression you haven't read the whole thread. Those are U-haul trucks.
 
Reply
Old Dec 9, 2013 | 11:25 AM
  #43  
RexReid's Avatar
Suspended
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by glc
Rex, I get the impression you haven't read the whole thread. Those are U-haul trucks.

Oh. I went through the thread. I thought it was about dogs, mustangs and engine debates. When I went back to the original post it sounded like the poster was interested if this was a good deal on an f150 with 5.0 and rear wheel drive. Please help me with what I am missing here because I thought u-haul was selling F150's--not u-haul trucks. I was suggesting those trucks are almost new prices and are typically stripped down. If the OP orders exactly what he wants through Ford, especially now, he can get a new truck for maybe a little more, but make up on the price difference with lower costs on financing.
 
Reply
Old Dec 9, 2013 | 01:25 PM
  #44  
Patman's Avatar
Global Moderator &
Senior Member
20 Year Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 21,337
Likes: 159
From: DFW
Originally Posted by KMAC0694
And all 4.6 Mustangs were GTs lol
I will correct your correction. Mach 1, Bullit, Cobra, Saleen, Roush were all 4.6 and were not GTs
 
Reply
Old Dec 9, 2013 | 03:45 PM
  #45  
KMAC0694's Avatar
Senior Member
Truck of the Month
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 6,677
Likes: 0
From: Houston and College Station, TX
Originally Posted by Patman
I will correct your correction. Mach 1, Bullit, Cobra, Saleen, Roush were all 4.6 and were not GTs
And those are all toyed-with GTs , except for the Cobra. But he made it sound like the GT was the "higher/est" trim with a 4.6 because of the "even a GT" part.
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:58 PM.