New Mustang V6 name?

Either way, V6 mustangs suck. I don't understand why anybody, other than a college girl, would buy one. Mustangs, Camaros, and Challengers are meant to have V8s, end of story, and any justification like "oh, but the V6 has 300hp" will just fall flat after the new car charm has worn off by the 5th or 6th payment, you'll be kicking yourself for not getting the V8, and you realize that you're strapped for another 4.5 years of payments for something that's second fiddle.

You only live once, don't lame-out with a V6, if you want a Mustang get the damned V8 and be done with it. It's the automotive equivalent of going to a Korean massage parlor and just getting a regular massage without the happy ending.

And as far as value for money in the current car enthusiast universe, dollar for dollar I'd say there are some way better alternatives the a V6 Mustang, with the BRZ/FRS Subayota being one of them. I've actually seen a BRZ vs rental V6 Mustang battle at an autocross recently, and the results would not make FoMoCo proud.

I'm asking because I think it would be a fun swap candidate not because I want a v6 mustang

The Mustang GTs are much heavier than the notchbacks. Think about all the extra features (power windows, door locks, power seats, 4 channel stereo, etc.) and a hatch on a GT weighs a ton. A stripped LX on the other hand, is a pretty light car. I've owned both, and you can tell the difference between the two. Stock for stock, the speed density cars were quicker than the later mass air ones, and I've seen times of 14.1 for a stripped, stock, speed-density LX notch. Now, add in an pro drag racer who's power-shifting, and I think it would be possible to get it into the very high 13s. It's not the norm, but that time isn't out of the realm of reality. Now, it would be no where near as repeatable as a stock 3.7L V6.

Vigo wrote:

A 1987 Mustang LX 5.0 could get into the thirteens in the quarter mile, stock. With a short belt and drag-oriented wheels/tires out back, twelves were possible.

Those are both close enough to bullE36 M3 that you could say the same thing about the current stock v6 mustang with the same degree of accuracy. Ive driven and raced stock 5.0s. They are NOT stock high thirteen cars 99.9% of the time. Add a few more digits behind the decimal for how often they ARENT 12 second cars even on slicks launched from the rev limiter with a dead hook.

This.......some late fox's could have been close(but still not there) thanks to a better than garbage rear end gear in them, but considering a stock SHO taurus would walk a stock 5-OH from a roll, they aren't anywhere close to what he's thinking.

1990 Weight differences... 90LX Notch=2760 90GT Hatch=2847

I'm sure one could feel a difference, but I doubt it's all that much of a feel.

Edit: this according to edmunds, which is not always the best source.

In reply to Aeromoto:

You probably hated the 2.3L Turbo in the mustang too, didn't you?

Ah here we go, from some Ford friends...

"These are the Numbers that Ford turned into the Motor Vehicles Manufactures Association, it is the Curb Weights with Fluids ready to drive:

LX Coupe 5 Speed 3010 LX Hatch 5 Speed 3069 GT Hatch 5 Speed 3144 LX Conv 5 Speed 3231 GT Conv 5 Speed 3365

Add: A/C 40 Lbs Power Locks 6 Lbs Power Windows 6 Lbs AM/FM Cass 2 Lbs Premium Sound 5 Lbs Radio Delete -9 Lbs"

In reply to Aeromoto:

Uh, I REALLY don't care about the autocross ability of a V6 rental mustang, regardless of who it runs against. I'm just one of thousands, though.

But being a realist, I don't really understand how one can even comapre a BRZ with a rental V6 Mustang. Just the fact that you think there is a comparison speaks VOLUMES of the Mustang, I think. In good ways. No, in great ways. To even put them in the same thought process is just an incredible way of thinking that the V6 Mustang auto is a very capable handling car that has good power.

So I thank you so much for the compliment.

That, and knowing that WAY more v6 Mustangs autos will be sold making WAY more money is a great thing.

FWIW, I loved the rental V6 mustang I had a few years ago. I never get to drive them otherwise.

dj06482 wrote: The Mustang GTs are much heavier than the notchbacks. Think about all the extra features (power windows, door locks, power seats, 4 channel stereo, etc.) and a hatch on a GT weighs a ton. A stripped LX on the other hand, is a pretty light car. I've owned both, and you can tell the difference between the two. Stock for stock, the speed density cars were quicker than the later mass air ones, and I've seen times of 14.1 for a stripped, stock, speed-density LX notch. Now, add in an pro drag racer who's power-shifting, and I think it would be possible to get it into the very high 13s. It's not the norm, but that time isn't out of the realm of reality. Now, it would be no where near as repeatable as a stock 3.7L V6.

Stripped is not stock. So the 14.1 time is junk. You're giving the old car the best of advantages available to it then hobbling the new car. Like I said, dirty pool.

The new v6 is in every way faster than the fox body v8 cars, stock for stock.

redhookfern wrote: Ah here we go, from some Ford friends... "These are the Numbers that Ford turned into the Motor Vehicles Manufactures Association, it is the Curb Weights with Fluids ready to drive: LX Coupe 5 Speed 3010 LX Hatch 5 Speed 3069 GT Hatch 5 Speed 3144 LX Conv 5 Speed 3231 GT Conv 5 Speed 3365 Add: A/C 40 Lbs Power Locks 6 Lbs Power Windows 6 Lbs AM/FM Cass 2 Lbs Premium Sound 5 Lbs Radio Delete -9 Lbs"

I wish my 89GT was that light. I weighed it at the "official" State of Michigan registered scale in downtown GR quite a few times after pulling weight out of it. I started at 3400# without a driver. By the time I was done and without cutting on any sheetmetal, I hit 2950# WITH a 180# driver at the race track. It was 2780# at the time on the other scale without a driver.

At least back then, I didn't need $5k in a decent scantool in an attempt fix the "stupid" E36 M3 that triggers the MIL/CEL. All I needed was to dump all that crap and never have to worry about a limp mode kicking in.

2011 Ford Mustang 3.7L V6 0-60 mph 5.1 – Quarter mile 13.7 @ 102 mph (Motor Trend) 1992 Ford Mustang LX 5.0L 0-60 mph 6.2 Quarter mile 14.8 (Road & Track)

Granted, these are based on magazine tests, from much different periods of time, but I think it still pretty accurately exhibits the difference for the 2 stock cars.

Either way, this is not argument, but rather this SHOULD be the case. If any manufacturer can't produce better, more efficient performance over the course of 20 years, they probably shouldn't be in business any more.

HiTempguy wrote: "Hairdresser mobile"?

LOL...

My girlfriend and I flew to Nashville last summer on vacation. The rental car they gave us was a 2013 Mustang V6. Tooling around town, I honestly couldn't tell a difference in power between it and my 2011 5.0. (Well, it did sound differently.) Of course, when you dropped the hammer, there was definitely a difference there.

novaderrik wrote: 3200 pounds is a light car in my world..

Anything over 2500 is a heavy car in my world. But considering I've had fleets of Miatas, Civics, and Saturns (all lighter than that), I admit my perspective is skewed. And outdated, considering all the modern safety, comfort, and convenience requirements.

dculberson wrote: Stripped is not stock. So the 14.1 time is junk. You're giving the old car the best of advantages available to it then hobbling the new car. Like I said, dirty pool.

By stripped I meant it wasn't equipped with all the heavy accessories from the factory (air, pdl, pw, power seats, upgraded stereo, etc.). Not that the interior was ripped out to make it lighter.

If you read my full post, I said that the new V6 was the faster car, stock for stock.

The power seats in the GTs were also very heavy, we're missing those in the weight comparison between the LX and the GT fox body.

dj06482 wrote:

dculberson wrote: Stripped is not stock. So the 14.1 time is junk. You're giving the old car the best of advantages available to it then hobbling the new car. Like I said, dirty pool.

By stripped I meant it wasn't equipped with all the heavy accessories from the factory (air, pdl, pw, power seats, upgraded stereo, etc.). Not that the interior was ripped out to make it lighter. If you read my full post, I said that the new V6 was the faster car, stock for stock.

Sorry, I misunderstood that.

alfadriver wrote: S197 vs. Fox... AKA, Lincoln vs Fairmont. you choose. (although, the relative age of the Fox between '79-93 to it's original chassis is pretty close to the current Mustang and it's original chassis. It came out back in the late 90's, I think the degree of updates between '79 and up is close to what we see today)

the current Mustang was an all new chassis that came out in '05.. well, it wasn't "all new" since some of it had already been used on other Ford products for a couple of years at that point.. but the '05 was an "all new" Mustang for the first time since 1979... the '94-'04 Mustang was a refinement of the old Fairmont chassis, but it was still the old Fairmont chassis...

In reply to novaderrik:

The 05 Mustang was (and still is) a derivative of the Lincoln LS platform. If you want to be snooty- it's also a jaguar. Since the LS came out in '99, the platform was already 6 years old when the Mustang started using it. Now it's 14 years old.

On the other hand the Fairmont was not that old when it was used in the Mustang.

What I was responding to was the relative age that the platform was when the Mustang using it was first introduced- since it was claimed that the Fox mustang was more out of date when it came out compared to the current one- which isn't actually accurate. I would expect that the current platform will last about as long as the Fox did.

It's a running joke around here about the IRS + nice double front being "updated" to a stick and struts.... But that's what happened.

I don't get the "need a v8" thing. I had CrownVic Interceptor a few years ago and just couldn't love it if my life depended on it. I could live with a v6 manual stang pretty easy though. How many time while driving does some one tell them self that they really needed a v8? I know the v8 sound better, but that's really it on what would sell me on a v8.

Volksrodden wrote: I don't get the "need a v8" thing. I had CrownVic Interceptor a few years ago and just couldn't love it if my life depended on it. I could live with a v6 manual stang pretty easy though. How many time while driving does some one tell them self that they really needed a v8? I know the v8 sound better, but that's really it on what would sell me on a v8.

I'm still a flip-floppin' over a '11 Challenger 3.6L V6 w/ 305 HP VS Mustang GTs w/ 300 HP. Actually what matters right now is 'the noise factor' from the V8 (low end torque too). My practical side likes 305 HP/ 27 highway, my inner old school car guy says berkeley it and go V8 w/ FlowMasters and tune. WTF

Volksrodden wrote: I don't get the "need a v8" thing. I had CrownVic Interceptor a few years ago and just couldn't love it if my life depended on it. I could live with a v6 manual stang pretty easy though. How many time while driving does some one tell them self that they really needed a v8? I know the v8 sound better, but that's really it on what would sell me on a v8.

V8's are addicting. The amount of power and downlow torque is typically intoxicating to most car guys. It's a drug.

I drive like a berkeleyING idiot in a Camaro. And I constantly have a E36 M3-eating grin on my face. It's why my rallycar has anti-lag and launch control, so I can launch with 300+ wtq. It's just the way it is.

Sky_Render wrote: The Fox Body Mustang was a dated chassis even during the '80s. It wasn't that light, the four-link suspension earned the name "Quadra-Bind" for a reason, and the rigidity of its chassis was rivaled only by moist balsa wood.

If this doesn't make it into the next magazine, I might have to cancel my subscription!

OK, 1988 Hatchback 5.0 was 3193lbs, made 225hp/300tq and is rated at 16/24 with a redline around 5500rpms. 6.4sec 0-60, 15.0 1/4mile stock. .82g skidpad.

2013 V6 coupe 3503lbs, makes 305hp/280tq and is rated at 19/29 with a 7k redline. 0-60 5.3seconds, 13.9 sec 1/4 mile. .91g skidpad

I'm sorry... how is it NOT better? It's just barely 300lbs heavier. It makes 80hp more. It gets better fuel economy. It's faster. It holds the road better.

Bobzilla wrote: OK, 1988 Hatchback 5.0 was 3193lbs, made 225hp/300tq and is rated at 16/24 with a redline around 5500rpms. 6.4sec 0-60, 15.0 1/4mile stock. .82g skidpad. 2013 V6 coupe 3503lbs, makes 305hp/280tq and is rated at 19/29 with a 7k redline. 0-60 5.3seconds, 13.9 sec 1/4 mile. .91g skidpad I'm sorry... how is it NOT better? It's just barely 300lbs heavier. It makes 80hp more. It gets better fuel economy. It's faster. It holds the road better.

It's way uglier, bigger, and weighs 300lbs more on top of an already fat pig of a car?