http://www.insideline.com/ford/musta...o-gallery.html

 

Nice pics. I love the Kona/Saddle combo. I think I'll like Atlantis Green/Saddle better though!

 

Agreed, great pics!

 

****! $30,600 for a loaded 6. thats a steep price for a V6.

 

I love the no fog lights look on these.

 

Dude it's not even loaded. No Glass Roof, Elec Pkg or Auto. And no HIDs/Security Pkg, and who knows if it has the Comfor Group....you're looking at $35-6k MSRP for a "loaded" V6....

 

oh well on one of those pictures it stated theirs was loaded. maybe i missread it...

 

Yeah, what a negatively biased review!

The guy's main complaint is that it "only" has 280 lb/ft of torque - am I missing something or are there other cars with a $23K base price with more torque than that?

 

And complaining about the high RPM torque peak of 4250 RPM. I guess he had V8 on the brain, because 4250 RPM is not that high for a modern V6.

 

That a great color.

 

Wow, that was a dumb article. Looks like his expectations were pretty unreasonable. Of course the V6 isn't going to stack up to the V8, but did anyone actually expect that? Someone shopping for the more economical V6 isn't shopping for a V8. Duh! For what it is, the V6 Mustang seems to stack up pretty well against other V6s on the market and in many/most cases, for cheaper.

If he doesn't consider a 305HP, 280lb/ft Mustang a muscle car, what did he consider the old 300HP, 320lb/ft Mustang? The '05-'09 GT still has the edge but there's not a world of difference there...

 

Sorry I didn't mean to sound like I was correcting you. The pic did in fact say "loaded V6". I was just pointing out that this car was actually far from loaded with all the available options. Which is crazy money for a V6, but the performance is just shy of the 2010 GT, and so is the price. I'd be interested to see how the insurance will be compared to a 10 GT....

 

Holy frack. I just realized a loaded V6 vert is pushing/exceeding $40k in msrp. Jeez...

 

I dont understand this guy`s problem!? The e92 M3 has 300 lb ft of torque, thants just 20 lb ft more than the 3.7!!!(and its a V8) I dont remember them complaining about the BMW`s revvy engine at all! It`s !!!
I guess he`s either a camaro guy or in his period.

 

I'm not sure it is fair to call it a stupid article simply because it was not singing the praises of the new Mustang like all the other articles. The article did seem to be a bit overly negative from the start; but as a potential buyer I do like to hear the other side of the story.

I have to admit this article has me thinking twice about my expectations of the V6 Mustang; I guess the bottom line is I have to actually drive it before I spend the money. However a lot of the stuff in the article seems a bit exaggerated; for example I have driven a V6 Camaro which is heavier with about the same torque and assumed similar torque curve (higher torque peak) and I was quite happy with it's performance, I had no problems at all with speeding up upon command! (it was an automatic transmission so it did downshift as needed) Heck, I have no problem placing my 4-cylinder Camry between two trucks on the highway so I have a hard time believing that the new V6 could be worse (haven't looked up the torque curve on the Camry, but it's gotta be a lot lower!)

Probably the most disappointing thing they pointed out was the mileage; their 20 overall average contradicts other reports of 23-27 during hard driving; these guys must have been revving the **** out of the car the whole time?

$30K does buy a nicely equipped V6, but not fully loaded -- $30K "street price" will get a V6 Premium with the MCA package or Pony package, plus Performance Package, security, HID's; I think Nav would bring it to about $31K . . . not much else I would want.

 

I've actually quoted both the 2011 V6 and the 2010 GT. Here are the increases I was given to replace my 2008 V6.

2011 V6 - Premium increased $56 for 6 mos.

2010 GT - Premium increased $232 for 6 mos.

Needless to say, I'm getting the 2011 V6 partly because of this (oh, and also because I drive 50 miles every day).

 

its all good man no worries . id like to compare the V6 to the 05-09 GT. im betting insurance would be a bit cheaper. it seems the V6 matches in every catagory i can think of with the 05-09 GT, although im sure it outhandles it.

 

My loaded 09 Maxima was 39,858. The options that were dreamed of only ten years ago are routinely available on most cars today. Yep, cars are getting more and more expensive. But they are called options for a reason.
A "base" 2011 Mustang far exceeds the content and quality of a loaded 1970 Mach 1, is faster, handles better, brakes better, gets better gas mileage, is infinitely safer, and still looks like a Mustang of old. Adjusted for inflation, I bet the "base" 2010 Mustang is cheaper than the loaded 1970 Mach 1.
I think it's 1970 all over again, only better!

 

Article is 100% right, that's why I didn't waste an extra $5000 on one and bought a '10.
I drove the '10 3.5 6spd Fusion, same thing, car only has real power if you downshift two gears and over-rev the engine.

 

I think the performance numbers speak for themselves. I also think there is no doubt the '11 V6 is better than the '10 V6 in every way except price