31st Jan 2005, 14:08

The Mustang is not a muscle car, but a pony car. Kind of like a scaled down version of the muscle car. But you have to give Ford credit because the Mustang has outlasted it's competitors like the camaro and firebird. The biggest reason is because Ford kept the car at a low enough price that most people can afford. And in the quarter mile a car like the Honda Accord and the Mustang depend more on the torque of the engine not the horsepower. But if you want a good all round car get the echo. It's I.M.A has it's maximum torque at zero rpm and max horsepower at its maximum speed.

2nd Feb 2005, 12:40

Comparing an ECHO to a Mustang, even the V6?

You must be kidding!

Whatever performance the Echo has was not enough to justify keeping it around. It will be gone from Toyota's US lineup after this year.

3rd Feb 2005, 14:32

I have a 2001 v6 Mustang deluxe convertible with an automatic. It is NOT a muscle car.

So what is it and why would anyone want a v6 auto Mustang?

What it is, is a reasonably priced, cool looking, blast to drive, top-down, sun on your head, wind in your hair, Mach 460 cranking, daily commuting, decent mileage getting, taking three friends with you, cruising machine. No more, no less.

But there must be times when you wish for a v8 under the hood?

Yes, but seldom. For my real world daily commute and weekend fun trips the v6 provides all the power required and costs less in gas and insurance too.

How can you not want a manual transmission?

I live in the city with a stop light or sign every 1/4 mile. 40 minute traffic jams are just one accident or storm away. Shifting yourself under these conditions gets old REAL quick.

Not everyone wants a v8, or a convertible top, or a manual transmission. That's why Ford makes all of them optional. There is a Mustang for those of us who want a fun, reasonably economical daily commuting car. There's also one for those who want a fire breathing muscle car.

Mustang (in any flavor) = FUN. Isn't that the point?

3rd Apr 2005, 06:19

You shouldn't really classify your car as a muscle car, though it sure beats what you were riding before. I'm saving up for a v8. have a great time cruising.

9th Jan 2006, 17:55

Seriously, I doubt there are any muscle cars being made today. The new Pontiac GTO is nice, but it isn't the 7.0 Litre monster it used to be. But then again, there's a reason that car manufacturers discontinued these high litre cars. The V6 is smarter to have, and Japanese cars with smaller engines are also extremely fast (and more dependable). This isn't 1978, and gas actually costs money. I have a 2001 Prelude, and the thing is VERY fast, EVEN THOUGH It's a 2.2 V4!!! Its not as good as the older models, but its more ergonomically minded. That's why muscle cars aren't that big nowadays, read the reviews on this site of the Lexus SC400 if you want a fast coupe. Now THAT is an amazing set of reviews...

13th Feb 2007, 19:22

Lets take a second and remember a few things about the V6 'not' being a muscle car. Nobody doubts that the 79-93 V8 Mustangs are 'muscle cars'. 83 5.0 - 175hp. 93 5.0 - 215hp. 2000 V6, 195hp. Yes, the 00 V6 has more hp than the earlier model 5.0 V8's.

Oh, and btw, my 00 V6 is pushing 300hp - at the wheels. Muscular enough for me.

21st Apr 2010, 13:03

Mustangs are pony cars, not muscle cars.

22nd Apr 2010, 13:59

"I have a 2001 Prelude, and the thing is VERY fast, EVEN THOUGH It's a 2.2 V4!!!"

Ah yes, somebody else who thinks they know what they are talking about. The V4 engine was only ever used in motorcycles (another common myth is that V4's do not exist). Your Prelude however, has an 2.2 INLINE 4. The V configuration isn't the only way to build an engine. There's many different configurations, the inline for one, even a W.

25th Apr 2010, 13:47

First, the '93 was 205, and only because Ford revamped their rating system that year; they were actually the same as the years prior back to '87.

Second, the 2000 was 190, not 195. To compare old specs to new ones isn't really a fair way to measure performance. Look at a new Mustang, and yes the V6 is now 305 hp, BUT the V-8 is 412 hp, so it is still a good bit above the V6 level.

And how much did you spend to get to that 300 hp mark with your V6? I'm willing to bet if you put the same amount into the V-8 of the same year, you'd still be left in the dust with your V6. Actually a simple bolt on supercharger on that old 5.0 would even surpass your 300 hp, and probably cost less on an engine that could actually handle that much of an increase. You'll likely be frying your engine and tranny on that 2000 V6, pushing that much power through it.

18th May 2010, 17:42

`Mustangs are pony cars, not muscle cars.`

Opinions are opinions, not facts.

28th May 2010, 19:39

"Oh, and btw, my 00 V6 is pushing 300hp - at the wheels. Muscular enough for me."

Do you keep a rolling road in your backyard? Where are you getting this information from? 300 hp (at the wheels) meaning your brake horsepower is even higher than that... From a V6. A Ford V6 no less. The Germans could do it, but Ford?

Yeah. Right.

(And I don't get me wrong, I love Ford. I currently own four of them.)

29th May 2010, 10:16

A good friend of mine owns a Mustang specialty shop. He says getting 350 horsepower out of the 3.8 or 4.0 Mustang V-6 is very doable. Incidentally, the 4.0 IS a German engine.

31st May 2010, 16:31

"You'll likely be frying your engine and tranny on that 2000 V6, pushing that much power through it."

Probably not. The 3.8 and 4.0 V-6's are VERY rugged engines, and the transmissions are the exact same transmissions used with the V-8's anyway. Once the rear tires break loose, you are not putting any more load on the transmission anyway, and even the stock V-6's will easily break the tires loose.