trade gt for v6 vert?
1/28/06, 08:41 AM
#41
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by kevinb120@January 28, 2006, 2:02 AM
Pony feels just like it, only lighter.
Pony feels just like it, only lighter.
A premium vert sixer weights in at 3476lbs.
1/28/06, 08:48 AM
#42
V6 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2005
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was looking for a new Mustang I was trying to decide between a V6 VERT and GT coupe as well. I test drove both and the GT definitely has more power and handles a lot better than a stock v6 vert (a couple sway-bars and some new wheels will change this).
I decided to get the v6 vert mainly because the car was cheaper (the dealers would not negotiate on the price of a GT), the insurance was cheaper, and I was actually able to find the car I wanted on a dealer's lot (GT was on back order for several weeks at the time).
If you get the V6, definitely get a tune, CAI, and exhaust. It will seem like a totally different car (not as powerful as a GT of course but just as fun).
Since getting the V6 in August, I am yet to regret my decision. Having a vert makes the 30 mile commute to and from work that much more relaxing. There have been a lot of 75 degree days this winter and driving around with the top down soon makes you forget the 90 horsepower difference (you get a little better gas mileage as well).
I decided to get the v6 vert mainly because the car was cheaper (the dealers would not negotiate on the price of a GT), the insurance was cheaper, and I was actually able to find the car I wanted on a dealer's lot (GT was on back order for several weeks at the time).
If you get the V6, definitely get a tune, CAI, and exhaust. It will seem like a totally different car (not as powerful as a GT of course but just as fun).
Since getting the V6 in August, I am yet to regret my decision. Having a vert makes the 30 mile commute to and from work that much more relaxing. There have been a lot of 75 degree days this winter and driving around with the top down soon makes you forget the 90 horsepower difference (you get a little better gas mileage as well).
1/28/06, 09:09 AM
#44
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by kevinb120@January 28, 2006, 10:07 AM
The V6 is faster then anything that wore the 5.0 badge.
The V6 is faster then anything that wore the 5.0 badge.
1/28/06, 09:15 AM
#45
Originally posted by freyke@January 28, 2006, 6:22 AM
V6 is a choice for those that don't care for performance and just care about looks only...... Even with the drop top.. the GT wins hands down IMHO.... BTW.. I traded my 03 Zinc Yellow GT premium vert for 05 GT premium coupe.... And I have not a single regret... Not even on nice days.... nnnyaah.... that's no regrets... and my parting shot; let me leave you this thought:
GT = Guy Car (Bullet, Apocolypse Now, Blues Brothers, Full Metal Jacket, etc...)
V6 = Chick Car (Pretty Woman, Driving Miss Daisy, Working Girl, etc...)
V6 is a choice for those that don't care for performance and just care about looks only...... Even with the drop top.. the GT wins hands down IMHO.... BTW.. I traded my 03 Zinc Yellow GT premium vert for 05 GT premium coupe.... And I have not a single regret... Not even on nice days.... nnnyaah.... that's no regrets... and my parting shot; let me leave you this thought:
GT = Guy Car (Bullet, Apocolypse Now, Blues Brothers, Full Metal Jacket, etc...)
V6 = Chick Car (Pretty Woman, Driving Miss Daisy, Working Girl, etc...)
I love the Cobra forums where they are all like 'its just a chick's gt'....
1/28/06, 09:21 AM
#46
Originally posted by nicksolheim@January 28, 2006, 11:12 AM
Are you o.k. in the head??????????
Are you o.k. in the head??????????
1/28/06, 09:29 AM
#47
Needs to be more Astony
stock for stock the 5.0 mustang and the 2005+ V6 would be close but the 5.0 would is still faster due to better torque and less weight.
2005 V6 210hp and 3400lbs
1990GT 225hp and 3200lbs
Its when you start to mod is when you really see the difference!
2005 V6 210hp and 3400lbs
1990GT 225hp and 3200lbs
Its when you start to mod is when you really see the difference!
1/28/06, 09:49 AM
#48
Keep the GT. Period.
1/28/06, 10:06 AM
#49
GT Member
Join Date: October 2, 2005
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it was me, I'd keep the GT and enjoy it for a couple years more, pay it down some so you have more value in it, then go for the best of both worlds and get a GT vert! If you were closer to paying the car off you'd have more to put down and probably could get the GT convertible for no more per month than you're paying now. I think the GTs will hold their value pretty well too.
How often do you use the extra horsepower? I use mine every time I push my right foot down!
How often do you use the extra horsepower? I use mine every time I push my right foot down!
1/28/06, 10:12 AM
#50
Originally posted by Knight@January 28, 2006, 12:32 PM
stock for stock the 5.0 mustang and the 2005+ V6 would be close but the 5.0 would is still faster due to better torque and less weight.
2005 V6 210hp and 3400lbs
1990GT 225hp and 3200lbs
Its when you start to mod is when you really see the difference!
stock for stock the 5.0 mustang and the 2005+ V6 would be close but the 5.0 would is still faster due to better torque and less weight.
2005 V6 210hp and 3400lbs
1990GT 225hp and 3200lbs
Its when you start to mod is when you really see the difference!
1/28/06, 10:19 AM
#51
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: April 2, 2005
Location: Burkburnett, TX
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by kevinb120@January 28, 2006, 11:07 AM
The V6 is faster then anything that wore the 5.0 badge.
The V6 is faster then anything that wore the 5.0 badge.
1/28/06, 10:24 AM
#52
Needs to be more Astony
Originally posted by Pitch Black@January 28, 2006, 11:15 AM
umm.. I may get yelled at or something I don't really know but here goes.. I raced a 95' GT 5.0 and bet him in the Quarter... Of course he may have me in the long run but i got him.
umm.. I may get yelled at or something I don't really know but here goes.. I raced a 95' GT 5.0 and bet him in the Quarter... Of course he may have me in the long run but i got him.
.... my friend has a 1988 Vert auto and didn't really take care of maintance and rana 16.3 in the 1/4
what time did you run at the track?
ALso a 1995 does weigh more then the foxes...
1/28/06, 11:16 AM
#53
Problem is with a stock 5.0 it was not long legged so you needed to shift more and the ammount of flex in the old 4link and overall shell stole a lot of usefull power from the car. I just ran a used V6 2004 model up the block out of boredom and omg that car is inefficient, its like a rubber car. If the 06 is 210hp, the 04 feels like 130. :shock:
1/28/06, 12:39 PM
#54
Banned
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by kevinb120@January 28, 2006, 10:19 AM
Problem is with a stock 5.0 it was not long legged so you needed to shift more and the ammount of flex in the old 4link and overall shell stole a lot of usefull power from the car. I just ran a used V6 2004 model up the block out of boredom and omg that car is inefficient, its like a rubber car. If the 06 is 210hp, the 04 feels like 130. :shock:
Problem is with a stock 5.0 it was not long legged so you needed to shift more and the ammount of flex in the old 4link and overall shell stole a lot of usefull power from the car. I just ran a used V6 2004 model up the block out of boredom and omg that car is inefficient, its like a rubber car. If the 06 is 210hp, the 04 feels like 130. :shock:
http://j.mustangcars.com/J/stang/etown-10-...oys-etown05.wmv
http://j.mustangcars.com/J/stang/eto.../j-rampage.wmv
http://j.mustangcars.com/J/stang/etown-10-...-tt-etown05.wmv
http://j.mustangcars.com/J/stang/turbokit/...ne-dynopull.wmv
http://j.mustangcars.com/J/stang/tur...-tt-01-web.wmv
The specs for this car are here..
2000 232ci Vert. TMA Twin Turbo
Twin Garrett T3 Super 60 Trim S3 Turbo(s)
381RWHP/430RWTQ SAE @12.2psi stock motor
Andy@TMA - Justin@VMP
So so it appears that the Mustang is a fun car either way you go.. Whether it be V6 or V8... 5.0 or 4.6... 3.8 or 4.0 We should just all respond to a post isolating the true intent of the poster, without trying to bash because of this or that...
You will need to copy and paste these links into Internet Explorer.. They get an error inside of Mozilla FireFox..
1/28/06, 01:45 PM
#56
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 9, 2005
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a current owner of a 89 5.0 LX sport and 2005 GT - Don't fool yourselves... My 89 is only slightly warmed over - headers, exhaust, ram air underdrive pullies.. it will keep up with the 05 no doubt in my mind. With very little cost/investment the 87-93 fox's are pure beasts... These cars have a massive low end torque band and responds well to simple mods..... The 95 - SN95 5.0 was de-nutted by the factory due to the use of the Thunderbird upper intake manifold. Power was down around 210 and I believe torque was in the high 200 ftlb range (295ish) vice the 300+ of the 87-93 fox's... The 5.0 in the SN95 was a stop-gap while they worked on squeezing a Crown Vic 4.6 into the later GTs... I no longer have my 2003 vert... traded for the 05... no regrets... the 03 was bone stock GT and IMHO was somewhat weak, esp. when compared to the 89 and 05....
1/28/06, 02:00 PM
#59
Banned
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by freyke@January 28, 2006, 12:48 PM
As a current owner of a 89 5.0 LX sport and 2005 GT - Don't fool yourselves... My 89 is only slightly warmed over - headers, exhaust, ram air underdrive pullies.. it will keep up with the 05 no doubt in my mind. With very little cost/investment the 87-93 fox's are pure beasts... These cars have a massive low end torque band and responds well to simple mods..... The 95 - SN95 5.0 was de-nutted by the factory due to the use of the Thunderbird upper intake manifold. Power was down around 210 and I believe torque was in the high 200 ftlb range (295ish) vice the 300+ of the 87-93 fox's... The 5.0 in the SN95 was a stop-gap while they worked on squeezing a Crown Vic 4.6 into the later GTs... I no longer have my 2003 vert... traded for the 05... no regrets... the 03 was bone stock GT and IMHO was somewhat weak, esp. when compared to the 89 and 05....
As a current owner of a 89 5.0 LX sport and 2005 GT - Don't fool yourselves... My 89 is only slightly warmed over - headers, exhaust, ram air underdrive pullies.. it will keep up with the 05 no doubt in my mind. With very little cost/investment the 87-93 fox's are pure beasts... These cars have a massive low end torque band and responds well to simple mods..... The 95 - SN95 5.0 was de-nutted by the factory due to the use of the Thunderbird upper intake manifold. Power was down around 210 and I believe torque was in the high 200 ftlb range (295ish) vice the 300+ of the 87-93 fox's... The 5.0 in the SN95 was a stop-gap while they worked on squeezing a Crown Vic 4.6 into the later GTs... I no longer have my 2003 vert... traded for the 05... no regrets... the 03 was bone stock GT and IMHO was somewhat weak, esp. when compared to the 89 and 05....
It appears you are a true Mustang Enthusiast... This kind of puts you at odds with the statement you made earlier.. Perhaps you were alittle tired, and was not thinking real clearly.. I am willing to except an apology for us V6'ers as a group.. That way we can all just go back to enjoying Mustangs, instead of trying to prove which year and engine is best.. So in that will you admit that your earlier statement was alittle off base?
