mrXniick

Compared to other modern cars with v6 engines.. especially given it was a 4.0 liter v6... it was a slug. A really slow slug.

Your argument is flawed. If the 2010 v6 was around in 1960, sure... it was a fast car. In accordance with modern standards though, especially given the size of the engine-- it is a slooowww car. The 2011 v6 was the only v6 mustang i would ever buy.

White2010

Well that's you. When the S197 came out in 2005 there were a lot of magazine and automotive media outlets that had nothing but glowing remarks about the performance of the 4.0 V6. It certainly smoked the doors off the previous generation V6. I recall one article that called it the fastest accelerating V6 on the market at that time. What you have to remember about buying a new sports car is that the level of performance is directly tied to the price tag. For the money, there was nothing out there that compared to the Mustang in either V6 or GT price level. I'll be the first to admit that the new 3.7 is a fantastic advancement in the Mustang V6 segement. But I'm not going to say the 4.0 is slow because I've owned both the GT and the V6 and while the V6 is clearly not as fast as a GT (nor should it be) it's also not some dog slow POS. That's just a bunch internet drama.

mrXniick

Once again, you are comparing it to older cars. The 2010 v6 with he 4.0 engine was very slow for its time. Other v6s were pushing 300+ hp at the time, and even family cars like the honda accord were putting down 268 hp, and smoking mustang v6s

Flagstang

SVT Focus qt mile time 15.6
2005 mustang v6 15.3

just sayin

White2010

Once again, pricetag dictates performance. An Accord coupe with a V6 starts at 29 thousand dollars. The 2010 V6 Mustang averages 24 thousand (started at 22) unless you get a convertible and yes the Accord is about a second faster in both 0 to 60 and 1/4 mile times. If they were starting the price on the Mustang at 29 grand and it was still the same performance level than you would have a point, but the Accord Coupe V6 is priced in Mustang GT terrirtory. You are comparing the wrong cars. Would you also make the argument that the Subaru WRX should be slower than the 4.0 Mustang by virtue of the fact this it has a 4 cylinder? Because I promise you the WRX will still smoke a 4.0 V6 Mustang and easily hold it's own with the 3.7 V6. But guess what, it costs more too. You get what you pay for. You can't just make the argument that "Well this car has a 6 cylinder and that car has a 6 cylinder therefore they are in the same class." No they aren't. Would you expect a 4.0 or even a 3.7 V6 Mustang to outrun a Porsche 911? I mean afterall the Porsche is only a 6 cylinder engine car. You don't seem to understand how cars are made and sold from the perspective of the manufacturer. If you wanted to make a true comparison between the Accord Coupe and the Mustang you would have to bring out the 4 cylinder coupe that is priced in the same range as the V6 Mustang. Guess who wins that matchup in a race? When buying a sports car, price dictates performance. That's just the way it is and that is why the Mustang is the best bang for the buck around because for the price of the average V6 Accord Coupe you can get a Mustang GT. Please show me some other sports car from 2005 - 2010 in the 22 to 28K price range that was a better bang for the buck than the V6 Mustang?

mrXniick

Good job completely twisting my point and introducing irrelevant facts. I am not going to continue arguing with someone who puts words in my mouth, and distorts my points. Have a good day, and welcome to my ignore list.

Overboost

Sounds like you need to figure out what you're going to buy before you worry about what mods you can do.

White2010

There was nothing twisted Xniick. That's the response of someone who just got proven wrong and is having a bit of a temper tantrum about it.

You were the one compalining about how a 30 grand V6 Accord Coupe can outrun a 22 grand V6 Mustang. It's not my fault if you can't grasp the simple concept of getting what you pay for.

I don't know what car you're driving but I've purchased 12 brand new cars in my life to include two camaros, a firebird and three mustangs. If you think the 4.0 V6 mustang is some dog slow slug than I'm just afraid you don't really know what slow is because there is nothing wrong with the peformance of the car given it's price tag.

Driver72

except "as fast" indicates, as fast.
The 4.0 liter V6 is not as fast as the late 80's early 90's 5.0

I had 3 of the 5.0's then.
They ran 0-60 in the 6.0-6.2 second range and did the 1/4 in the mid 14's.
It's many, many car lengths in front of the 4.0 liter V6 cars and tons more mid range torque.

Driving around town at 45 mph in 5th gear in both cars, press down on the accelerator without down shifting and the old torque rich pushrod 5.0 would pull away from a 2010 Mustang V6 without any problems.

I've also rented the 4.0 V6 when I was in Hawaii.
It's not a "slow" car to be sure, it's peppy and torquey in it's own right, but again compared to V8's of even 20+ years ago and even modern V6's (heck even V6 from 5-8 years ago) it's slow. But for the "average" person it'll do just fine. But for the "average" person, so will a 180 hp I4 in a 3300 lbs car.

White2010

We could argue tenths of a second difference but it's not that deep for me. I've driven plenty of those late 80's 5.0 Mustangs too. They were fun as hell, so is the 4.0. In daily driving on the street I would take the 4.0 because it gets better mileage, is "nearly" as quick and handles much better.

As far as V6 cars from 5 to 8 years ago, please show me a V6 sports coupe from 5 to 8 years ago in the same price range as the mustang that performed as well? I can't recall one.

As far as your claim that the late 80's mustang ran 6.0 and 6.2 and mid 14's. The only times I've ever seen from Motortrand, C&D and the like are more like 6.4 and 14.9. But what the heck, if you can claim that than I'll just claim that the 4.0 runs 6.6 and 15 flat. There are so many factors that play into how fast a car runs out that in fact it will vary from car to car and situation to situation. Road surface, air temperature, humidity, tire condition, weather conditions, mechanical condition of the vehicle and especially driver ability will all greatly affect how fast a car actually is. Like I said, we can throw around posted times that are within 10ths' of a second of one another, but in the real world the reality is that the two are so close that to me it doesn't matter. Although I will admit those old 5.0 Mustangs were just so much fun to drive. Great cars. But still, I'd take a modern 4.0 over that simply for handling ability.

White2010

For your viewing pleasure Driver72.

The 93 GT is faster, but barely. On the street, that's too close to call man. At least that's where I come out on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U5q1DFgV_8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxI_u...eature=related

Driver72

Yeah in the top video the GT easily took out the V6
In the second one, the GT driver couldn't drive worth a crap and got beat out of the gate, but still caught and passed the V6.

And these are amateur drivers where it's a lot harder to launch a more powerful car well at a drag strip then a weaker car like the V6 which won't spin the wheels as easily.

As for V6's from 5-8 years ago.
The 3.5 liter V6 in the Nissan made 255 hp back in 2002.
1/2 liter smaller than the 4.0 and making 45 hp more....8 years ago.
The 3.0 liter in the BMW made 255 hp many years ago too.

Current 3.5 liter V6 make 300-305 hp
2-3 years ago they made 280 hp
5-8 year ago they'd make 245-255 hp.

3.0 liter V6 made 190-200 hp in the mid to late 90's
Acura's 3.2 liter made 225 hp in the late 90's early 2000's in base trim, in S type trim it made 260 hp in the 8-9 years ago.

The 4.0 liter V6 in the Ford was an acceptable engine and power for 1995 but they used an equally woefully underpowered and old 3.8 liter V6 that made 190 hp then. The 4.0 became a bit behind the times by 2000 already and they still hadn't even put it into the Mustang.
By 2010 it was just unacceptable for size, power, performance and efficiency.
By the way, I had the 4.0 V6 in my 1998 Ford Explorer too. Toyota's 3.4 liter truck engine in their 4Runners made equal power with less.

Again, point being, it was an old engine by early turn of this century. It was archaic for use in 2010.
The 3.7 liter was long overdue, but we all know Ford could not put it into the Mustang until the 5.0 was ready, otherwise the V6 would be truly nearly as fast as the 4.6 liter V8 GT, which was also quite underwhelming for 2010 when V6's of 1 liter less displacement were making equal power and V6's with .9 liters less displacement were making 15+ hp more for 1-2 years already.

Cheers, over and out.

White2010

Come on Driver, you're making the same mistake that Xniick does. You are comparing cars that cost a lot more than a V6 Mustang and complaining because the Mustang is not as fast? Seriously?

The base price on a 350Z in 2002 was 27 thousand dollars. That was Mustang GT terriroty at that time. How many times do I have to point this out? Do you seriously think that the 4.0 Is not capable of making 255 or 300 hp? If Ford was charging 26 grand for a V6 Mustang back in 2002 and it was still only the 3.8 190 hp that it had then you would have a point. You get what you pay for. How many times guys? You get the level of performance that you pay for. Follwing your logic the folks at Nissan should be ashamed because the 2002 Porsche 911 3.6 cylinder made 320 hp and that's way more than the sorry, tired old 3.5 255 hp in the Nissan right? Wrong. You get what you pay for. Everyone say it together now.

And did you seiously just compare a BMW to a V6 Mustang as though the much less expensive Mustang is supposed to be as fast? Come on man. You can't just go by the mentality that because this car has a 6 cylinder and that one over there has a 6 cylinder than they should all be about the same hp. Wrong. If Ford was charging 29 and 30 grand for a 4.0 V6 I gurantee you they wouldn't be selling it at 210 hp levels. It would be upgraded to the 250 to 280 hp range at a minium. You act like 210 hp is all this motor is capable of even though we converse with guys on this forum all the time that manage to get more than that out of it. I've personally read an article about a guy who is pushing 500 hp with his old 3.8 V6. It can be done but when you go and buy a new car, price dictates performance level.

By the way back in 2002 a V6 Mustang had a base price of $17,820. So you're upset that a 2002 17K Mustang was slower than a 2002 27K 350 Z. And if you want to compare it to the new Mustang, ok, it's still 5 thousand dollars more on average for the Nissan. The current base model price on a 370 Z is just over 30 thosuand. Gee I wonder why it's faster than the 22K 4.0 V6 Mustang. I'm not taking anything away fromt he new 3.7, it's a fantastic engine and I'm glad Ford has opted to use it in the Mustang. I'm sure I'lll end up with one. But lets quit comparing car that cost a lot more than a V6 Mustang and act like the Mustang is slow because its not as fast as a sports car that cost anywhere from 5 to 10 grand more.

Flagstang

dont people talk about torq anymore? I am sure most of the motors being talked about lack the torq the 4.0 has and needs to get such a large car moving.

Driver72

So you are using cost as the basis?

I never said 350Z either. The Altima had a 3.5 liter in 2002 that made 240 hp and similar torque.
Cost was around $20k IIRC. The 350Z might have cost a bit more but it's a sports car that would of wasted the V6 Mustang in absolutely every performance category you could muster to think of.
We aren't discussing cars, we are discussing engine power per liter.

Then how do you explain the current 5.0 liter GT that starts at $30k making the same power as the 5.0 liter in the IS-F that costs nearly twice as much.
They can do it now, they COULD OF and SHOULD of done the same back then....by dumping the 4.0 and making a better V6 that made similar power to all the other V6 cars.
The plain and simple fact of the matter is, Ford was too cheap to do it.
They just wanted to take the old 4.0 truck engine, stick it in the pony car and pocket the extra cash. And they knew they could simply because the sales of the Mustang continued to outpace the sales of the Camaro.
Had the Camaro well outpaced the sales of the Mustang in the late 90's and early 2000's Ford would of SURELY made a change to the 4.0 and put an updated and better engine with smaller displacement and more power in it.
And they would of without a doubt done so had the Camaro not stop being made in 2002 either.

So don't bring cost of car price into the equation as the excuse and justification.
Cuz based on that argument the current 5.0 should make only about 350 hp cuz it cost a lot less than the 5.0 in the Lexus and the Jag, and both of those cars cost more so they should have more power with the same displacement right? Sorry, no.
BTW, Hyundai's V6 from several years ago made more power than the 4.0 liter in the Mustang and it was a cheaper car.
Sorry, your point is not valid and not debatable.

Flagstang, the 4.0 had what 240 lbs feet. Most 3.5 liter engines had more than that several years ago too. I think some 3.2 liters from 6-8 years ago had around 230-235 too. The torque rating on the 4.0 is again good 10 years ago, passable 6-7 year ago, and a bit weak 5 years ago.


Later.

White2010

Thank you for making my point. Had you been reading my posts all along you could have saved yourself the time. I have already said numerous times that what makes the Mustang so successful is that it delivers more bang for the buck than almost any other sports coupe. That is what has made the car a success for decades now. Yes I'm using cost as a basis because I live in this place called "reality".

As far as using the 4.0 in the Mustang. When Ford came out with the 4.6 powered GT in the S197 it was about 26 grand (base) and 300 hp. That made it competitive with cars like the afore mentioned 350 Z at 255 hp and the like that are also in that price range. Because you see, in the real world, cars are made and sold by price range, like it or not. So, 300 hp Mustang GT or 255 hp 350 Z for the same price? Hmmm, seems like Ford had more bang for the buck didn't they? Gosh where have we heard that before?

Now if Ford had wanted to, they could have fit a V6 in the Mustang GT that got 350 hp. I mean this is the company that had no problem getting 220 HP out of a 3.0 V6 in the SHO Taurus back in the day when the 5.0 Mustang was only putting down 225 hp. So, Why didn't they use a V6 like everyone else? Because its a Mustang and what Ford buyers expect in a Mustang GT is a V8 powerplant. It's just the tradition with this car. If they had gone and made the Mustang GT as fast as a Corvette (which they could have; see 4.6 powered Koenigsegg) than they would have to put a larger price tag on it. That would have put Mustang outside it's intended demographic. Instead it got set up for 300 hp and that meant that whatever the base model Mustang was would have to be less hp obviously. By the way you do realize that the 4.6 engine was also used in the "trucks" just like the 4.0. Oh and by the way the legendary 5.0 Mustang engine of the 80's and 90s, yep it found its way into trucks too. Oh let us not forget that the newly released 3.7 and 5.0 engines will also be used in guess what, . . . the trucks. Just because the 4.0 was used in the trucks does not mean it was some sort of insult to the Mustang.

So anyway, what to do with a base model Mustang given that the GT (circa 2005) was a 300 hp 4.6 engine car? We don't want it to be too fast because it will take sales away from the GT and we don't want it to be too slow because it needs to be an improvement over the old 3.8 powered Mustangs. It needs to be a good peformer at a reasonable price for the segment. Enter the 4.0 set up to produce 210 hp and 240 ft lbs torque. It delivers better performance than any other car in the 20 to 27 thousand dollar sport coupe between 2005 and 2010. What's that you say? Better bang for the buck out of the Mustang? Gosh where have we heard that before? This is what has made the Mustang a success time and again.

Now finally, lets deal with your V6 Hyundai claim. I'm assuming you are talking about the Tiburon because it is the only sports coupe Hyundai sold several years ago.


http://www.new-cars.com/2003/2003-hyundai-tiburon.html

Oh I'm sorry, you were wrong again. 170 hp is not more than either the 2003 Mustang V6 nor the 2005 Mustang V6 fit with the 4.0 engine. It had a base price of $17,999 which put it in the same category as the V6 powered Mustang that was $17,820. Why is that? Because they were at the same level or performance. And? You get what you pay for.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...31/158442.html

Now 2003 was the first year that Hyundai offered a V6 in the Tiburon and it was quicker than the V6 Mustang. So, what did Ford do? My goodness they released the 4.0 that was quicker than the Tib in 2005.

PS, I'm sorry I must correct myself. The Tiburon was faster than the mid 90's 3.8 V6 that was 145 hp. By 2003 the 3.8 had been amped up to 190 hp and 225 ft lbs torque. I have a hard time seeing the Tibby running away from that. If I can find some actual specs I'll let you know. But it's not looking good for the Hyundai, lol.

PSS, Ok, 2003 V6 Mustang 0 to 60 was 7.5 and 1/4 mile was 15.9
2003 V6 Tiburon was 7.8 and 16.0.

Hmmm and the Tibby was more expensive. Seems like once again, Ford had the better bang for the buck.

Driver72

White, you are a "kid" aren't you?
You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about.

Let's go over a few points yet again for you're young and challenged mind.

First we are NOT discussing individual cars, we are discussing engines and the power they make.
You stated the 4.0 liter is "as fast" as the 87 GT 5.0
I pointed out that is completely incorrect.
You covered by saying, "as fast" means nearly as fast.
That is still incorrect, it's not "as fast" or "nearly as fast".

I then pointed out that "compared to V6's 5-8 years ago" the 4.0 is slow and underpowered.
You then asked, "show me a V6 sports coupe" and then went into power for dollar.
I never mentioned power for dollar, just that 5-8 years ago V6's made much more power at smaller displacement.
You then go into cost for dollar again. I called you on that and pointed out by your wrong and twisted logic if you are solely using cost per horsepower, how do you explain the 5.0 now makes as much if not more power than other 5.0 engines in more expensive cars?
You couldn't because we are NOT talking about cost per horsepower in overall CARS.

I pointed out that smaller V6's made more power years ago, those are the FACTS.

Now you mention 350Z. Who was talking about a 350Z??
Oh and you don't even know the power of the 350Z. It didn't come out with 255 hp, it was 286 hp in 2003. The 3.5 made 255 hp in 2002, but not in the 350Z.

But you keep on going on about the bang for buck in CARS, not engines.
You seem to over look the fact that, as I pointed out, when you paid 27k for a 350Z, you got more than just a much faster car than the $17k 4.0 Mustang, you get a sports car that will run circles around the $17k 4.0 Mustang back in 2003. The extra price is NOT just for the engine. LOL

You are not very good at debating are you?

Then you bring up the 220 hp 3.0 in the SHO saying, "this is a company that had no problem getting 220 out of 3.0 liter V6"
Clearly you are too young (or too clueless) to know that Ford did not make the 220 hp 3.0 V6. It was Yamaha.

Then you ramble on about the GT and it's power. Were we discussing the 4.0 V6.
You are the one that claimed the 4.0 was "as fast" as the 87 Mustang GT 5.0. LOL
You are so confused you don't even know what you are talking about.

Lastly, then you bring up my point of your irrelevant and invalid cost argument in discussing the power of cars engines. I wanted to rub it in a bit more by pointing out to you that even that argument of yours is not valid because a cheap old Hyundai from several years ago could be had with a smaller V6 that had more power than the 2010 Mustang 4.0 V6.

You "assumed" I was talking about the Tiburon. You do know what they say about assuming right?
Apparently not.
The Sonata had a 3.3 V6 that made more power than the 4.0 liter Mustang several years ago.

Dude, give up, you don't know what you are talking about, you don't know how to debate, you don't know the power of cars (350Z), you assume stuff, and you think "slower" means "as fast", though I clearly stated, "other V6's from 6-8 years ago made more power" than the 4.0 you bring up CARS and the price of them as your justification.
You post videos of the V6 cars losing to older 5.0's as some way to "support" your wrong theory that the 4.0 V6 is "as fast" as the older 5.0. LOL

Give up dude, you aren't in the same league and don't know WTF you are talking about.
As stated, the 4.0 was purely, utterly and undeniably solely about Ford saving money and not wanting to put a proper V6 in the Mustang until now with the 3.7 liter (which at 305 hp is still a bit short for it's displacement compared to other V6's of smaller displacement).

Now for the love of your mother, don't embarrass yourself further with your lack of ability, give up and move on. I've exhausted myself correcting you and don't want to have to do it any further.

White2010

No I'm not going over any points and I quit reading your post right here. You got proven wrong and you're getting upset about it. I don't want to argue anymore because it's not worth it and there is no reason that you and I need to develop hard feelings over this. I'm done with it. Let's just drop it and move on. Ok with you?

mrXniick

QFT. Didn't want to waste time posting this, glad someone else did

White2010

LOL, Just as a quick note, the 3.3 Sonata has a 0 to 60 time of 7.3 and the 1/4 mile is 15.3. Which is, . . . . nope still not faster than the dog slow 4.0. Yes I assumed you were talking about a Tiburon because we were afterall talking sports cars. It's all good man. I'm done with it. You won't change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. There is no sense in getting upset about this. It's not that deep.

PS On today's Hyundai you have to opt for the Azera in order to get the 3.3 engine. It has a base price of $25,495, which is over 3000 dollars more than a base 2011 Mustang and it's still only a hair faster than a 4.0 and it gets smoked by the 3.7, which is cheaper.