Shelby CS6

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Nov 6, 2005 | 08:43 AM

#41

Boomer

I Have No Life

Joined: January 30, 2004

Posts: 10,446

Likes: 12

From: Canada

k...I want that hood....

Nov 6, 2005 | 03:01 PM

#42

eighty6gt

Team Mustang Source

Joined: December 17, 2004

Posts: 356

Likes: 0

15K USD + install is a travesty. Otherwise a blown V6 would be kind of cool (except for the rotten exhaust note, sorry). You can probably get the blower kit for 2500-3k and install it yourself, then add suspension stuff (if desired, if necessary) as you need to.

Nov 6, 2005 | 03:46 PM

#43

Rampant

Cobra Member

Joined: September 25, 2004

Posts: 1,470

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally posted by MSP@November 5, 2005, 6:40 PM
Is it not a fact, the Shelby CS6 has just as much right to be considered worthy, just as much as a GT? ....Also, the CS6 may use a 7.5 Rear-end, but it can surely handle the amount supplied by the engine.. So thats not a factor.. With all things being equal, is it not a fact, that based on numbers alone, the Shelby CS6 is a most worthy and robust competitor, in terms of a Sports car you would park in your own garage..? Forgetting the fact that its a V6?

Quoted post

I am not saying the CS6 is not a great machine -- of course it is. I am not saying it isn't worthy. All am I asking is is there something I am missing as to why Shleby would start with a 6 in the first place considering all the inherent advantages with the GT (need for less mods to get the power figures, more robust drivetrain, etc.).

It's true, maybe they (Shelby's people) might know something we don't about the V6 and I am just trying to uncover what that might be.

I don't care about power per cylinder or anything like that (there are more important things like total power under the curve, etc.). I care most about power to weight ratio (which is why I wish the V6 was lighter). But beacause the weight is close, that isn't much of an issue either.

Now, a 3300# AL block, F/I V6 would be fun....

Not taking anything away from the CS6, just trying to understand the rationale behind it, that's all.

Nov 6, 2005 | 09:19 PM

#44

Pitch Black

Team Mustang Source

Joined: July 9, 2005

Posts: 405

Likes: 1

Quote:

Originally posted by CurtisH@November 4, 2005, 9:08 PM
Just nitpicking here. There were no V6 Mustangs in the 60's, only in-line 6's. But your point is still valid.

Quoted post

Bro actually their was v6's in the 60's i'm writing a report on Mustangs and we'll sounds like you should do the same.

Here is a Part of my Report:
The Ponyâ€™s Specifications:
Length: 181inches
Engines: 1. 170 C.l v6â€”164hp
2. 260 C.l 2bbl V8 â€“210hp
3. 289 C.i. 4bbl V8 â€“271hp
Transmitions: 1. Three Speed
2. Four Speed
3. Automatic
Prices??
V6 3-speed $2320

Do some research bro

Nov 6, 2005 | 10:23 PM

#45

AFBLUE

Dethroned Nascar Guru

Joined: January 30, 2004

Posts: 10,059

Likes: 2

Quote:

Originally posted by Pitch Black@November 6, 2005, 11:22 PM
Bro actually their was v6's in the 60's i'm writing a report on Mustangs and we'll sounds like you should do the same.
Here is a Part of my Report:
The Ponyâ€™s Specifications:
Length: 181inches
Engines: 1. 170 C.l v6â€”164hp
2. 260 C.l 2bbl V8 â€“210hp
3. 289 C.i. 4bbl V8 â€“271hp
Transmitions: 1. Three Speed
2. Four Speed
3. Automatic
Prices??
V6 3-speed $2320

Do some research bro

Quoted post

You may want to make some changes to your report before you turn it in.

The 170-cid (1964 1/2) was an inline 6, not a V-6 and it was rated at 101hp, not 164.

The 260-cid V8 was rated at 164hp not 210.
The 289 cid 2bbl was rated at 210 hp.
The 289 cid 4bbl was indeed rated at 271hp.

To my knowledge, the first V-6 did not appear in a mustang until the 1974 Mustang II. It was a German built 171-cid/2.8liter engine used in the European Ford Capri. It made 105hp.

Sources: Standard Catalog of Mustang 1964-2001, by Brad Bowling
Mustang Field Guide, also by Brad Bowling

Pix of Inline 6 on the original Mustang