33 k is what I paid for my 2012 with rebates, cash back and my ford zplan. My stick was 38k.

people that say things like " the v6 isnt a mustang" should of bought a bmw because they own cars for ego.

 

All 2011-up V6 Mustangs come std. with 8.8" Traction-Lok Rear End with 31 Spline Axles ... just like the GT. So all you really need to do is swap in 3.55 gears.

The only rationale for what you suggest is if you were to get a great deal on a complete Take-Off GT 3.55 geared rear end (freight pre-paid or local sale), swap it in, then turn around and re-sell the stock V6 axle assy. to a 2005-10 V6 owner.


For a DD, I feel the 2.73's are just fine with the M/T ... plenty of snap off the line as the torque multiplication in 1st gear is EXACTLY the same as a 1999-2004 V6 M/T with 3.27's (7 MPH per 1000 RPM) and when crusing at 75 MPH engine is turning under 1900 RPM which is good for 30+ MPG.

Only time I wish I had 3.31's (or higher) is coming out of a slow curve in 2nd gear where it can be a little doggy. With 6 gears, I feel there in no reason Ford could not have spaced the gears just a little more for the best of both worlds.

Doug

 

You're Dumb.

 

What an idiotic statement.

 

You and alcohol/drugs should never be associated. Who knowswhat other kinds of blasphemous things you may utter

 

Oh %$*@#! I know this already. I meant to say 6-cylinder engines in general have always been part of the Mustang heritage therefore they are real Mustangs.

The Mustang was always affordable, economical and could be optioned with any available high performance you wanted if you paid for it. The original Mustang was about the smaller package and style compared to full sized cars with incredible sporty good looks that made it look thousands more. It sold to everyone across vast demographics, genders and age groups. V8 Mustangs are a part of that heritage as well but it does not solely define what made a Mustang a Mustang. If a high performance Mustang was what one desired then it was available at extra cost if you wanted it, just as it is now.

Really this younger generation is so spoiled with the major horsepower increases in the more recent model years that they take everything for granted. With that mentality you might as well say now that all Mustang V8's with less than 300 HP are not real Mustangs. Well I am willing to bet that most of you who proclaim "a Mustang is not a Mustang unless it's a V8" have undersized endowments that make you not a real man because you don't have "X"-sized endowments.

"The 4.6-liter aluminum V-8 has three valve heads and cranks out 300 horsepower. That's more than 50 percent more power than the small-block, 289-cubic-inch V-8 found in the classic 1964.5 model."

And 50% of 300 is 150... Wow.. What a performer that 289 small block V8 was. But at least it was 10 more HP than the 1975 Mustang II V8. The new 3.7 liter 305 HP Mustang makes that old 289 seem no more useful than a boat anchor.

 

After all Mustangs are not real cars because they are not BMW's!

 

If that is your preference that is fine. I have had 4-cyls, V6's and V8's in the 20 some various cars I have owned and if I had a preference, I would very much like to have a V8 again for the same reasons you like them. Until I am ever able to afford such I am happy with the Mustang that I have which is almost paid for.

Anyway, I'd rather spend future money I have completing the restoration of my 1984 Tbird V8.

 

BMW (3s and 5-ers at least) are freakin awesome all-around cars. At least until they start needing $$$ attention & repairs North of 80K miles. First-hand knowledge.

I have a GT, but I am also a fan of the 3.7 V6 Mustangs as well. To say there is no place for a 6-cylinder Mustang is very narrow-minded. Besides, we only have a chance at the GT500 and Boss and the GT because the V6s exist and draw enough sales to make the Mustang viable. Otherwise it could well have disappeared in 2004. Like the Camaro.

 

Actually, the original base 289 V8 made 200hp (2bbl, C-code), not 150hp. The 300hp 4.6L 3V V8 was 50% more than the 200hp 289. However, there was also the 225hp 289 V8 (4bbl, A-code), 271hp 289 V8 (hi-po, K-code), and 306hp 289 V8 (Shelby GT350).

More importantly, torque has always been a V8's strength vs 6 cylinders, so even if many of the baser 289's were down on hp, they had superior torque to the 6 cylinders. As the old adage goes, "hp sells cars, torque wins races."

But, I digress. The OP was noting the lack of 3.31 gears as a stand alone option on the '13 V6 models. 3.31 gears provide a huge advantage in acceleration vs the standard 2.73 gears. Which reminds me to point out a little bit of Mustang II info in its defense since you noted its weak 140hp rating for its 5.0L V8. Keep in mind that the Mustang II V8 made pretty good torque, even though it was down on hp, but it was handicapped with a 3-speed automatic (with very lazy gearing) and 3.00 gears for addtionally lazy gearing to provide the best fuel economy gearing could provide during those dark days of the fuel crisis. That same Mustang II V8 with revised transmission gearing (or the optional 4-speed manual that came eventually) plus steep rear end gearing could be quite a performer despite the 140hp rating. Today's modern Mustangs not only get big hp, but also 6 speed transmissions with steep gearing in the lower gears coupled with lazy overdrives so as to allow decent rear end gearing for excellent accleration and fuel economy.

 

torque rules, horsepower drools.
as for OT, the 3.31 makes a tremendous difference on the 3.7L, they only used a 2.73 in 2011 for the 30mpg fuel rating (they also made the 17" tires taller) and it completely ruins and otherwise good car. 3.31's are an absolute must

 

I want to thank all the V-8 Mustang owners for taking up for the V-6 owners.......

 

I have had four bangers that could keep up and then some in the twisties



I have had some pretty fun sixers also





and I have had a beast or two



and I have love my little car as much as my big ones




and have gotten move love for my slower car which made my brain hurt

 

Doesn't the GT have more torque that the Boss?

 

Yes, 390 lb-ft for the GT vs 380 for Boss. 444 HP for the Boss still wins at the drag strip tho.

 

Boss wins against what? Boss comes with 3.73's, GT w/ 3.31's.. a GT with 3.73's will accelerate faster

 

I think one of the greatest appeals of the mustang is that they do offer a V-6, especially one that isn't a dog. 300+hp, are you kidding me! The idea of the original stang, with all the myriad engine and other options, was that you could get what you wanted. From a secretary's car to a real burner and every configuration in between. Covering the whole market was the reason Iacocca could set sales records that probably still stand today. The 6 cylinder is perfectly in keeping with the original philosophy of the car to me.