4th Jan 2012, 11:48
Your 4.0 Mustang does 0-60 in 6.5 seconds ONLY with the manual tranny in it. It is over 7 seconds to 60 with the AT. So, do you have a manual? Not many V6 Mustangs of the 4.0 years do. And you can believe all you want that V6 Camaro's keep up with 5.0 Mustangs, but it will never be the case with any of the Mustangs factory equipped like mine both were. Even the 3800 V6 version of the Camaro was a dog in comparison. Heck, even the brand new Camaro with a V6 only gets to 60 in 6.5 seconds, and that is over 300 HP.
The 2011 and up Mustang V6 is more worthy at 5.4 seconds to 60. Even the AT version will best the 6 second mark. A Mustang with a manual transmission is the only option for me though. There is just no point to owning this type of a car with an AT in it. The manual is a huge part of the fun.
3rd Jan 2012, 15:46
You're right the '93 Firebird V6 did 0-60 in 9 seconds... sorry about that. The 3800 V6 cars did do better, but still only around 7.5 seconds to 60. Both of my 5.0 Mustangs hit 60 in about 6.2 seconds, so a V6 F body was not even in the same league. In fact the V8 F body wasn't in the same league until they upped it to a Vette engine.
Mustangs have pretty much always outsold F body cars 3 to 1 anyway. They are still much more prevalent even today. Plus, if you bolt on a supercharger and did nothing else, the 5.0 Mustang would drop around a second to 60, which would wipe the pavement with pretty much every F body out there.
Go on Ebay any time and look up 5.0 Mustangs year to year through the 80's and early 90's, and there are tons of them. Look up Firebirds and Camaro's, and there is not even a quarter as many of them on there.
If you had an automatic Mustang or a 2.73 rear end in it, it made a huge difference. Why anyone would buy one with an AT is beyond me, and the 3.08 upgrade was FREE to order back then. I have driven a few AT 5.0's, and they were boring and slow comparatively, and were not even close to the potential the car had.