8th Jul 2010, 13:09

Ah yes another Ford fan with their superchargers. Nice price tag to go with it. The Mustang GT did not destroy anything or flat outscore either the Camaro or the Challenger.

8th Jul 2010, 21:06

Read the CD article that tested the three of them, and the Mustang outscores BOTH the Camaro and Challenger. Oh and this was with 315 HP. Now that it has 412 HP, it will really wipe the pavement with both of its rivals. The Camaro and the Challenger are bigger and heavier, which creates a car that won't handle as well and is slower off the line, even with more power. The 315 HP Mustang was only 1/10th of a second slower than the Camaro SS to 60. Now it is about 3/10ths quicker with the new 5.0.

Where it really scores the biggest is price. The Mustang is by far the best value of the three, and is thousands less than either of the other two. You could pretty much supercharge it and still not spend more than the other two cars. You'd have well over 500 HP to play with too!

9th Jul 2010, 17:38

The last Mustang show I attended had a whole slew of 4.0's with superchargers and several that were not supercharged. As for GT's tailgating and passing you, that is not quite as easy as it sounds. The stock 4.0 is only 1 second slower to 60 than the GT, and passing a stock 4.0 that is floored takes an awful lot of room.

10th Jul 2010, 14:17

Boy that's a stretch! 1 second? 0-60 is 4.9 for 2010 GT's and 6.5 with a 4.0 STANDARD SHIFT base Mustang. AT cars are about 7.3 to 60. If you were talking the 2011 3.7 V6, it is now only 0.8 seconds slower to 60 than the GT. The 2011 V6 Mustang is the FIRST worthy Mustang with less than a V8 under the hood (other than the SVO cars of course). You are making pretty steep claims for the 4.0 engine there though. Better check the facts before making such claims, as you are off a bit.

It's all fine and good to be a V6 fan, and it is great you love driving them, but let's keep the facts as facts, instead of blurring the edges to make an argument look stronger.

Also, you wouldn't have to be "flooring" the V8 to pass any 4.0 on the road. You have over 100 HP and 85 lb/ft of torque advantage over the 4.0 when you have a 2010 GT. Trust me, the 4.0 would be a distant memory pretty quickly as it disappears in your rear view mirror. People used to claim the same thing with the turbo cars of the 80's and the 5.0. I once raced my cousin in his Turbocoupe T-bird with my 5.0, and in less than a minute he was so far behind I couldn't tell what kind of car he was driving anymore. He was a speck in my mirror, as would the 4.0 Mustang be in the GT's mirror today.

Funny how the V6 guys keep saying they aren't into racing and don't car about "unusable HP", but they always come up with these bogus comparisons of "1 second slower to 60" and such. They also drive around "flooring" their V6 cars.. hmmmmm. Also all this talk about supercharging V6's.... why would you spend thousands on something you don't care about? Yeah, thought so! People do care more about performance than they like to admit!

1st Jan 2011, 22:46

Is it crazy to anyone that this conversation has been going on for almost 10 years? And the 94 is RAW. No questions asked.

2nd Jan 2011, 19:39

This is true of the pre-2011 GT's. Numerous sources list the 4.0's 0-60 times as between 6.5 and 6-9. That IS one second slower to 60 than the 2005-2009 GT's. And yes, passing a stock 4.0 that is accelerating flat out DOES take more space than most people think. 1 second difference 0-60 means a very slow rate of passing. As for the '94 GT, I'm sure it was basically the same as the '96, and we had a '96; it was definitely not as fast as a 2005-2010 4.0 V-6 0-60 or 0-100. Ours took 7 seconds to 60.

3rd Jan 2011, 16:38

Okay, the real facts are the '05-'09 Mustang GT with the 300 HP V8 did 0-60 in 5.1 seconds. The V6 of the same years did it in 6.5 seconds. Both times were with manual trannys. The AT in the V6 was over 7 seconds to 60. The GT was probably around 5.6 or so. It was almost 1.5 seconds difference, which doesn't seem like a lot, but it is quite a lot.

Now as far as passing a floored V6 car. Well this has absolutely nothing to do with the 0-60 times, so I am not sure why you are saying that the one second difference will make it harder to pass the V6... etc, etc. When you have a 90 HP advantage, you will have a lot more top end power. Passing a V6 would be no problem for a GT, whether it was floored or not. You can only run to redline floored in any gear, so it isn't going to make much of a difference, and if you are talking about just flat out flooring a V6 AT, then you are driving an even slower car to begin with.

Trust me, there is no area of performance that the GT wouldn't wipe up the pavement with the V6 of the same year. I do, however, find it interesting that we are even having this discussion. V6 owners claim to have no interest in unusable HP and the like, but here we are talking about 1 second difference from 0-60 and flooring your cars. Hmmmmmm... How long does it take to get to 65 floored in ANY car? Seems that should be all you are interested right? Yeah, thought so!

4th Jan 2011, 19:10

I think the major issue is that V-8 Mustang owners continually refuse to accept that buying ANY car is a personal choice. If a car buyer chooses a V-6, why is this somehow perceived as an insult? We constantly see comments like "You should have bought a Fusion" What if the buyer doesn't WANT a Fusion? We see remarks such as "It isn't a Mustang if it's not a V-8" Someone needs to tell Ford. The last time I looked they were selling cars labeled clearly "Mustang" with V-6's.

We hear "No GT owner would ever want a V-6" Not true at all. Three guys I know traded their GT's for a post 2005 V-6 (and all three LOVE their 4.0's).

Finally, we have even seen arguments to the effect that the insurance is just as cheap for the V-8. I have worked in the insurance business and I don't know of any planet in the Solar System where you can insure a V-8 for the same rate as a 6. They fall into a totally different rating category entirely.

Basically I really think it's the car buyer who should choose what they want. The last time I looked it was a free country (of course the Republicans are trying to change that!!)

5th Jan 2011, 13:13

I think the major issue is that you have a major issue with anyone else's opinions on here, and continually go on about why you own your V6 Mustang. Like I said, I don't care, never have cared and never will care what anyone else drives. I also never claimed a V6 Mustang was not a Mustang. Unfortunately they have even put a 4 cylinder in the Mustang but it was still a Mustang. Ford's choice, not mine... but I still don't care.

The Mustang goes like this. V6 base and premium... then up to a GT and GT premium, and then to the top of the line Shelby. A Mustang GT is a higher end car that offers more than the V6 car. This is a fact, not an opinion. If you don't need the extra HP or features on the V8, that is your preference. However, the GT would not be priced higher than the V6 if this was not true. It wouldn't make sense. All any GT owner is saying is that they would never consider downgrading to a V6.

Your friends... did they trade in current model GT's for the V6 cars? I seriously doubt it. You are the one that had the old Foxbody GT right? Yes, the new V6 performs somewhat close to the old 5.0 and it is newer looking, smoother and more refined so it would be considered an upgrade to buy the newer V6 car. Take someone that owns a 2011 GT. Would they consider ever purchasing a V6 car after owning that car? Only if they are getting three tickets a week, they lost their job and had to take a major pay cut or some other unforeseen economic disaster happened to them. When you bought your old GT back in the Fox days, why didn't you look at the 4 cylinder car and buy that one instead? While you owned the GT, did you wish you had a 4 cylinder instead during any of the years the Foxbody was still around? Most likely not, or you would have bought one. This is the same scenario. What if someone told you that you wasted money on your Foxbody GT because their 4 cylinder was cheaper to insure and cheaper to run. You would have told them to take a hike and mind their own business right? Okay then!

So now you are over the performance, and just want the looks right? Well not everyone is you. Ford surely wouldn't have developed a new 5.0 if people weren't interested in it. SVT would not exist either if this was the case. These are multi billion dollar installations all for the sake of pure performance. You can go on about "no one can tell a V6 form a GT" and this that and the other but you are wrong. Companies like Ford don't invest such an insane amount of money on something that is not going to be noticed by anyone. That makes absolutely no sense. Maybe you and your group of friends just want the looks. I don't have any friends into cars that can't instantly spot a GT, and especially a Shelby Mustang on the road.

People have become defensive because you keep going on about how they are wasting their money, and you pay less insurance and gas and so on. You seem to think you are some kind of authority on how much is too much. This is why people are telling you to go buy a Fusion. It is cheaper to buy and own than your V6 Mustang, so did you spend so much on the Mustang?

I'd like to hear your reasoning for owning a sports car at all if the GT is soooo expensive. You do understand that the Mustang GT is by far the best bang for the buck on the market right? Whether you can use its full potential is irrelevant, as once again your V6 will be over the speed limit in about 8 seconds or so too. To me you have wasted the most money by purchasing a V6 loaded up, and then adding more expense to it in add-ons. I most likely paid less for my GT then you did for your V6. My insurance is a little higher, yes, but look what I've got to play around with!