6th Jan 2011, 17:13

Ten years is an amazingly long time to bash Camaros and V6 Mustang owners ridiculous claims.

However, with that being said, I own a 94 GT Cnvt. 5.0 Auto. I love it; I have 3:73s Long tube headers, Flowmaster cat back, off road x-pipe, K&N air intake and the Edelbrock ported upper and lower intake. I did have a 01 GT Convt. with 4:30s and new upper/lower plenum, K&N intake, chipped, short throw shifter and off road x-pipe.

With my 01 I could at 60 no problem smoke the tires. My 94...not so much, however I love it. This spring I will be getting a supercharger.

9th Jan 2011, 14:12

"If you don't need the extra HP or features on the V8, that is your preference"

Then why all these 10-page diatribes if someone mentions the term "V-6"???

10th Jan 2011, 15:04

It's just to discuss the 20 page posts by the V6 people that just wish they could swing a GT...

11th Jan 2011, 20:32

And what is that if not an attack on V-6 owners who by their own choice opt for a V-6? People are free to buy whatever they CHOOSE. My boss is a multi-millionaire and chooses to drive a Ford Escape. I don't bash him for not driving a Mercedes.

12th Jan 2011, 11:29

Hey, you are the guys who come onto Mustang GT threads and go on about how much better the V6 is basically because it is cheaper. That is and always will be the only advantage to owning a V6 Mustang... it is cheaper.

Seriously, go start a thread on your V6 and I'll surely avoid making any derogatory remarks on it, as that is the car the thread is supposed to be a discussion about!

12th Jan 2011, 16:58

An Escape is cheaper than a Mercedes. So what??

18th Apr 2011, 06:57

You're incorrect, as the older you get and your driving has far more bearing on the insurance rate.

I own a 2007 4.0 V6 and 2010 Mustang GT.

Do you want to know the difference I pay?

25 dollars a month. I pay 124.00 for both full coverage.

Yikes! Right? That's because I'm 40 years old, no claims, accidents or tickets since I was 15 years old.

So while the car has some weight after 30 years of age, the insurance company looks more at the person's age and driving history. And that totally makes sense. It shows they can have a car with any amount of horsepower and they are responsible enough to drive the same as a 4 cylinder.

And street roads aren't for racing. So if you're an insurance rater, then can you explain why I'm paying 70 a month full coverage on 2010 GT and 54.00 for the 07 V6?

It's the driver... age... and not always the car. Insurance companies do take that into more consideration.

If you don't believe me I'd be happy to scan my insurance form and email it to you so you can see it for yourself.

I'm just saying that if you're an agent, what you said doesn't add up to why I pay what I do for 2 very nice sports cars.

And I love my V6... but the 2010 V8 cremates it around corners and on take offs in a very big way. I mean dusts it. But I still love the V6, and it's a better work car than the V8, which guzzles more gas.

18th Apr 2011, 11:08

The 2011 V6 would cover both performance and gas mileage for you. It is almost as quick as your 2010 GT, and it handles even better if you get the 19 inch wheel package, all while getting around 30 mpg. If I had a GT and an older 4.0, I would trade them both for the new V6, and have extra room in the garage.

18th Apr 2011, 12:08

"That is and always will be the only advantage to owning a V6 Mustang... it is cheaper."

I second that.

30th Dec 2014, 02:52

This is funny, the V6 thing going on here.

The 4.0 Mustang is slow. With a 5 speed, headers, SCT tune, CAI, exhaust, etc... it's still slow and still 6 cylinder.

Mustangs represent the pony car tradition that has been going on for years. Muscle cars. Yes, I see people with 6 cylinder Mustangs with Cobra body kits, wheels, etc... and hey, to each his own. I don't hate on them at all. My opinion is that a 4 or 6 cylinder Mustang is for someone who likes the look and concept of owning a Mustang themselves, but doesn't really need performance, but rather fuel economy and a cheaper price tag. That's all. By putting a supercharger on a 6 cylinder, you are pretty much going after the V8 model Mustang's throat, wanting to overpower it. That isn't the idea, and is a waste of money and time. Thus the reason they have the GT followed by the Shelby, Saleen, Rousch etc.

Some people just love the fact that they have a V8 under the hood, modify it, and love it dearly like myself.

I wouldn't EVER buy, or drive for that matter, a V6 Mustang. No desire to. Ford made them for people who love the looks of the car, but aren't looking to fry their tires, drag race or rumble down the road; they just simply like the looks of the car and prefer the cheaper benefits of it.

What got me is the supercharger nonsense. Why in god's name would you install an AFTERMARKET blower on a V6? You obviously want horsepower, so why not get a GT, throw a few bolt-ons at it and have the satisfaction of knowing that you're now a big boy with a big boy toy, and not a matchbox car with a bottlerocket taped under the hood? Following what I'm saying?

No one will never ever, ever tell me a V6 will out perform a V8. The V6 engine, chassis, junk open end rear, and everything else would approach its limits a lot faster than the V8 model will in terms of performance, and financially of course.

For instance my 94 5.0 auto with 225,000 miles, with light bolt-ons, WALKS 4.0s and old 3.8s all the time, not to mention that people know when I'm coming down the street vs the faint, Honda Pilot sounding V6.

And then to compare a new tech car vs an old tech car is just foolish. We have evolved guys; bigger, better and easier ways of getting power out of engines, hello? But all is not lost for the old dogs. My old bolt-on SN95 coming out off the line with a 1.9 60ft on drag radials and running 13.86 with her mileage can't be topped by a 4.0, and would be laughed at trying. All I'm saying here is don't come into a review forum for GT Mustangs with that little V6 talk.