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.
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.
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!