23rd Apr 2009, 21:06
Fully 60% of Mustang sales are the V-6. If they didn't sell the V-6's, they couldn't afford to make Mustang at all.
Chevy's new Camaro is projected to get 66% of its sales from the V-6 model. Of course, as always, the bare-bones basic V-6 Camaro is faster and more powerful than the current Mustang GT. V-6 Camaros have always been faster than the Mustang V-8's. I've been embarrassed by having my 1990 5.0 beaten time after time by basic Camaros with the 6. I love Mustang, and don't plan to buy a Camaro, but I have to say that a $20,000 basic Camaro that can eat GT's for breakfast may give Ford a run for their money.
24th Apr 2009, 15:52
Your 1990 5.0 got beaten by a "basic 6" Camaro? Did you start out in third gear? Pretty tough for a 160 hp heavier car to take a lighter car with 225 HP and 300 lb ft of torque behind it. I never had a 6 cylinder Camaro come close to taking me in any race. In fact anything before the LT1/ LS1 era from '93 up couldn't touch me in my 5.0 stock to stock. Even the 5.7 IROC was slower due to being stuck with a pitiful automatic. I do agree that the new Camaro is going to be spectacular with the 304 hp V-6 in it though. What a bargain... and looks to match.
25th Apr 2009, 13:12
Oh yeah, a 1984 Chevy Camaro with a 125 HP 2.8 liter V6 sure showed those Mustang 5.0 drivers who was boss back in the day... NOT!
"I've been embarrassed by having my 1990 5.0 beaten time after time by basic Camaros with the 6."
Are you sure your car was firing on all 8 cylinders?
25th Apr 2009, 13:44
"My nephew sold my late brother's 1977 Buick LaSabre V-6 a few months back. The car had 277,000+ miles on that "overworked" V-6 and had never had a single repair."
Well, then your late brother was one of a few hundred thousand people to actually own a full size GM V6 from that era that lasted. In high school I owned a 1981 Buick Regal Sedan with the same 3.8 Liter V6. A mid sized 3200 Lb rear wheel drive car. Adequate power, but adequate was all. This car was terribly slow on hills, and constantly forced to downshift between 2nd and 3rd gear due to being SEVERELY UNDERPOWERED. I was not pounding on it, just trying to drive a reasonable speed up a long hill on a rural highway. At only 88,000 miles, this thing had so much blow-by that there was a lake of oil inside the air cleaner.
It went through more oil than my dad's old pickup truck at the time. Every person I've known who's owned a full-sized car with that motor has had similar experiences to mine.
As this engine gained multiport fuel injection and more HP and torque, and GM's cars got lighter through the course of time, it became a real powerhouse. But the early ones were junk.
"I'm a mechanic, and where the idea that pulling a heavy load wears out PISTON RINGS came from is beyond me. That's a new one on me. Pistons go up and down inside the cylinders in the exact same manner whether the engine is a Viper V-10 or a 4-cylinder Aveo."
Any mechanic knows that if you work an engine harder it will wear out sooner. Not only does it wear out piston rings, but the entire engine over time. Whichever engine parts are weaker and more prone to stress will give out quicker, be it lifters, rods, cams, whathaveyou. Why don't you stick the Aveo 4-cyl under the hood of a Silverado 1 ton 4 door dually, and tell me which engine will wear out sooner versus a V8.
25th Apr 2009, 17:16
The 2000-2002 V-6 Camaro V-6 had 200+ horsepower and was definitely competition for the older 5.0's of the late 80's and early 90's.
26th Apr 2009, 08:09
We're comparing same year to same year here. This guy was trying to say the base V6 Camaro was always faster than the Mustang GT/5.0 of the same year.
26th Apr 2009, 08:47
19th Apr 2009, 21:58.
"Gee, I'm SOOOOO embarrassed. Now I have to actually go around worrying that some old lady in a Camry might beat me at a redlight. Gosh, what a horrible thought!! Maybe I should go hide under my bed."
I'll agree that the Camry is becoming a stereotypical car for old people, but not the Altima, Accord, Malibu, and many others that are quicker and more economical than the Mustang V6. I traded my 2006 Nissan Altima SE V6 for a Mustang GT. with 250 HP and 250 Lb/ft of torque, it easily blew away New Mustang V6's and was only slightly slower than the latest GT's, and faster than my friend's 1998 GT. Also high 20's to low 30's MPG highway.
"I bought my V-6 Mustang for LOOKS. I no longer street race. I even made the comment on the Fusion site a couple of years back (when car shopping) that if Ford made a SPORTY TWO-DOOR Fusion, I'd BUY IT. They DON'T. The only sporty looking car Ford makes is the Mustang. I DO have a Fusion I-4. I don't lose any sleep worrying about getting beat out at redlights in it either. If all you want is faster 0-60 times, why not just pass up the Mustang altogether and go for the Nissan GTR, Viper or Corvette. Or maybe an Air Force surplus rocket sled? If all I wanted was speed, I could have it. We aren't poor. I just have no desire to race with every driver I stop beside at redlights anymore. I grew out of that stage a decade or two ago."
I also bought my 2008 GT for looks, power and fuel economy. There is no other traditional rear wheel drive pony car in this price range that gets you from 0-60 as quick, while still delivering highway fuel economy well into the mid 20's. And I am not rich, if I was the above cars you mentioned may be an option. I do not need to lead foot at every intersection either, but I gave up a nice car in trade, therefore I wanted something in return. If I would have bought a Mustang V6, I would now own a car that is slower, less practical, and less economical, and less refined. I much prefer having a smooth, refined engine under the hood of my car (the 4.6) versus a terrible sounding, unrefined hand me down from the Explorer (4.0 V6).
Being that the current GT only delivers 1 to 2 MPG less on the highway, I have given up nothing buying a V8. I own a car that can back up its looks with its power. And gee, look at the other comments on here now. I'm not the only one who can get well over 20 MPG highway with a V8. My dad's 1978 Oldsmobile Delta 88 with a 350 and 3 speed automatic can still manage 20 MPG highway at times. Go look at all the Chevy Caprice, and Rear Wheel drive Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Buick, and Pontiac RWD cars from the 1980's who lauded well over 20 MPG highway. On this website.
As far as the price of the new Camaro, the V6 will start at just over $23,000 per Chevy's website. So a nicely equipped one will be in the $26,000 to $28,000 range. And no, the new Camaro V6 will not be quicker than current Mustang GT. Car and Driver did a road test with V6, and couldn't get a 0-60 time in under 6 seconds. The new Camaro is also heavier than the Mustang GT. All the HP in the world isn't going to replace the torque of a V8. Reportedly Chevy is trying to get the 0-60 time to less than 6 seconds. The 2010 Mustang GT gains I believe 20 more horsies for 2010, so throw the idea of a quicker V6 Camaro out the window. Close this time, but no cigar.
The Dodge Charger RT is also slower than the Mustang GT, due to weighing in at well over 2 tons. The road tests prove this. I said R/T, not SRT.
The proposed V8 Camaro will eat the Mustang GT alive, but for a price starting out around $35,000, it better do that and more. If Chevy gets it right and builds a reliable car, I think the Camaro could be a huge hit. Even the V6 Camaro will be a respectable ride in my opinion. I personally don't like the styling though.
You, however, got jipped by purchasing a Mustang V6.