27th May 2010, 16:15

"This is strictly a matter of opinion, and hardly worth an extra 10 grand."

10 grand? Where do you get that figure? Please enlighten me. Last I checked, it was about 4 or 5 grand difference between the V-6 and a comparably equipped GT.

27th May 2010, 16:17

"I guess the masses would just buy whatever"

"Very true. 66% choose the V-6."

So, that's supposed to make the V-6 better? Please! Most people just don't want to pay to insure a sports car. Plus that figure is inflated due to rental fleets using the V-6 cars and not GT's...

28th May 2010, 13:54

"So, that's supposed to make the V-6 better?"

No one on this thread has EVER said the V-6 was BETTER. All they have done was respond to savage ATTACKS from V-8 owners who put them down and insult them repeatedly. This is why my next car is going to be a Dodge Challenger.

28th May 2010, 16:01

I find the whole V6 vs. V8 argument pretty pointless. With a new V6 that has 305 HP (I believe that's it, correct me if I'm wrong) what more could you want? And if you do want more, buy a V8. Simple as that. The V8 still outperforms the V6 obviously, but the gap has been shortened. Personally, if somebody was going to give me a new 'stang, I wouldn't care which engine it had under the hood. Both are great engines with good power and performance. As long as Ford doesn't bring back the 4-cylinder in the Mustang (or the Foxbody style in general) everything will be just fine.

29th May 2010, 10:17

You know you're absolutely right. Buy whatever you want it is a free country after all... for now anyway.

31st May 2010, 16:27

Looks (and engine types) are basically a matter of taste. Though they WERE the least Mustang-like of any Mustang other than the '74 thru 78 models, I personally LIKE the clean, uncluttered lines of the Fox.

As for engines, I'd jump at the chance to have a smooth-riding edition of the Mustang with the 175 Horsepower Fusion I-4 option at a more reasonable price. I've looked at the new V-6's and they are just too pricey. Not everyone who buys a Mustang plans to race it.

8th Jun 2010, 10:36

They have tried 4 cylinder Mustangs in the past with dismal results as they were very slow, poor handling cars (other than the obvious SVO of course). The newest V-6 now gets into the 30's for mileage, so who cares if you have extra power you don't think you'll ever use? Why downgrade to a 4 cylinder that will get you roughly the same mileage and go back to that annoying grating sound when you floor it to merge into traffic? No thanks! I hope they NEVER consider a 4 cylinder for the Mustang unless it is another high powered turbo.

11th Jun 2010, 11:38

"I hope they NEVER consider a 4 cylinder for the Mustang unless it is another high powered turbo."

Actually, I recently read that Ford is considering a 4 in future Mustangs. The horsepower would be about what the 4.0 V-6 puts out (way more than adequate) and the mileage better than the new V-6. The smaller engine would give the car better weight distribution and better handling. Insurance and purchase price would be way less, so it will no doubt be a big sales success if built. Because of cost and practicality, even the Fox 4's outsold the V-8's.

29th Jun 2010, 18:18

I recently attended a large Mustang show, and the consensus among 99% of the Mustang owners there was that Ford totally blew it with the hideous and very UN-retro restyle of the 2010-2011. A lot of Mustang guys are looking at sticking with pre-2010 Mustangs or buying Dodge Challengers.

30th Jun 2010, 13:28

The only reason the 4 outsold the V-8 in the Fox Mustang was that they were cheap, and people couldn't afford insurance on the V-8. Also it was kind of an all or nothing scenario, with no V-6 offered after 1986. Either you went for the muscle car or you went econobox. The 4 cylinder Fox was a sloppy handling rear drive Escort, and had absolutely no fun involved in its driving experience. Look on Ebay today and you'll find virtually no 4 cylinders left, and only V-8s, because they were the real choice and built to last.

If they do put a 210 hp I4 in the Mustang in the near future, it will probably need a turbo to make that much power which will reduce the mileage to at or below the current V-6's 31 mpg. Also, turbos take premium gas, where you can run regular in the V-6. They have a real winning combo with a 305 horse V-6 that gets into the 30s for mileage. I would think a I4 Mustang would be a waste. Of course, rental fleets would buy them up!

As far as handling, the newest GT pulls .94G's on the skidpad and the V-6 with the 19" wheel package pulls .95G... How much better do you need the car to handle at this price point? They are amazing in the handling department and you quickly forget there is a live axle under there when you are behind the wheel.

30th Jun 2010, 16:36

"The only reason the 4 outsold the V-8 in the Fox Mustang was that they were cheap, and people couldn't afford insurance on the V-8."

So? Is that not a very valid reason for buying ANY car?

1st Jul 2010, 15:45

"The only reason the 4 outsold the V-8 in the Fox Mustang was that they were cheap, and people couldn't afford insurance on the V-8."

Sure, if you are happy always settling for second best because you can't afford anything better! I, on the other hand, had a couple of 5.0's and they were more than worth the differences in price and insurance.

2nd Jul 2010, 11:44

If paying less is settling for "second best", aren't you doing the same thing?? Why not buy a Viper or a Corvette ZR-1?? Sounds like YOU are settling for "second best"!!

7th Jul 2010, 16:05

I was talking about Mustangs. To go with a 4 cylinder just to save a few bucks on insurance and gas wasn't my idea of having a sporty car. I'd have bought something front wheel drive at that point so at least it was good in the snow.

You could always say there is a more expensive car and what you're driving is second best. The Viper and ZR-1 are definitely second best to many other cars out there as well. You totally missed my point.

8th Jul 2010, 13:15

I don't really think the point was missed. The point is that many people like the styling of the Mustang, but could care less about paying much more for un-usable horsepower. They buy for styling, not an extra second 0-60 and a top speed that can't be used anywhere in the U.S.

8th Jul 2010, 17:35

Yeah, the point was surely missed as I was talking about the old Fox Mustang. There was nothing stylish about a Mustang sitting on puny tires with no suspension under it, and a 105 hp 4 banger tapping away under the hood. The cars were horrendous in the handling department. Escorts were a better alternative, as they were even more fun to drive than 4 cylinder Fox Mustangs.

At 225 HP, the 5.0 was not the most powerful car, but was much more fun than anything else in its class then. Plus it was more like 3 seconds difference to 60, and not a second between the 105 hp I4 and the 5.0 V8.

To each their own, but you don't see old 4 cylinder Fox body Mustangs around much anymore do you? If they were so great, wouldn't there be some sort of a following today? Hmmmmm, 5.0's are still everywhere some 17 years later. See how fast your coveted V-6 late model Mustangs disappear in the next decade or so. You'll once again see 15 year old GT's, but the base Mustang will be non-existent. V-6 Mustangs are disposable forgettable cars that will never be collected or preserved like the GT's will be. That fact has never changed!

I guess if your main purpose in life is to buy cars that other people will enjoy looking at, even if it means sacrificing performance and handling, then more power to ya. I'd rather drive something that performs adequately in all the areas that I wish it to. I've heard many complaints about ride and comfort in Mustangs, but people still buy them to look cool in. I have no interest in impressing anyone else and buy cars purely for my own enjoyment. I have a nice diecast collection of cars that I can just look at. What's the point in spending so much on something that is only for looks?