"Calling this thing a muscle car is like calling Tiger Woods a good family man."

Right off the bat with a comment like that this guy is an idiot. This V-6 outperforms most of the creme de la creme muscle cars of the 60's right up to about 2 years ago. The best of the best muscle cars struggled to do 0-60 in less than 6 seconds and a 1/4 mile in less than 14 seconds back in the day and current muscle cars have only recently improved on that. The V-6 is at 0-60 in 5.1 seconds and a 1/4 mile in 13.7 this is a muscle car through and through.

 

yeah this guy had a bone to pick but all he could do was make these stupid comments because there was no way he could slam the car factually due to the numbers and the numbers don't lie.

 

Oh, so the Infiniti G's are muscle cars? The Nissan 370z is a muscle car? There is more to "muscle car" then track times.

 

I am a big fan of this car, but I was glad to see this review -- puts things in perspective, and makes my expectations a little more realistic . . . .

However, at the same time, even after reading this review, I fully expect that I will be quite happy with the performance of this car; I was quite impressed with the V6 Camaro and the Mustang has a little more torque with less weight, so it can only be better.

 

No, the infiniti G is no more a muscle car than a Jeep Commander SRT-8. Sport coupe would be more appropriate for those two. But I am sorry a 300+hp Mustang is a muscle car period, be it a 66 GT-350, 96 Cobra, 05 GT or a 11 V-6.

 

Maybe it's time to redefine the terms pony and muscle car for today? The V8 Mustang and Camaro as the muscle cars and the V6s as the pony cars.

pony car: a sporty and practical car that's just a bit more fun to drive than its competition.

As a point, a premium V6 is cheaper than the V6 Accord and Altima coupes and has reasonably more engine output. I know it sounds weird to compare a Mustang to an Accord or Altima but I remember reading in one review that the most commonly looked at competitor among potential V6 buyers was the Accord coupe. That's actually what I started looking at when I began my car search.

 

The original definition of an American muscle car was a mid-size two-door coupe with a big-block V-8 and the first car to fit that description was the 1964 Pontiac GTO. It was a Tempest body with the 389 CI V-8. The Mustang was not available with a big-block until 1967 when the 390 became an option. Prior to that the Mustang was always considered a "pony car" and that moniker was in reference to fact that "mustang" is also a name used for wild horses. While the big-block versions of the classic Mustang, Cougar, Camaro, Firebird, Javelin, Barracuda and Challenger blurred the lines between true muscle cars and pony cars they were still considered pony cars. The true muscle cars were the big-block Cobra (Fairlane and later Torino), Mercury Cyclone, SS396 & 454 Chevelle, Pontiac GTO, Buick GS (Skylark), Olds 442 (Cutlass), Plymouth Road Runner and GTX (Belvedere), Dodge Super Bee (Coronet), Dodge Charger and AMC Matador. Prior to 1964 most factory performance models were based on two-door versions of large, full-framed family sedans.

 

Well said. I think people have forgotten what the term "muscle car" referred to in the first place. It tends to get thrown around a bit too easily these days. Just because a car has a V8 in it doesn't make it a "muscle car". The Challenger is the only car that fits the term anymore in my opinion because of it's mid size sedan proportions. The Camaro and Mustang are pony cars IMHO.

 

The Mustang is as big proportion wise as my Accord sedan. That surprised me when I parked the one I test drove next to my car.

 

This article is written for people that drive Toyota Camry's and don't know the difference between a V6 and a V8. Any real car person already knew this, he was just overstating the obvious. It was also an exercise in how many clever phrases he could come up with like "carpet the throttle"!!! LOL

 

I personally feel he's a knucklehead. Some people are just never satisfied. When the Cologne v-6 was in there, all people did was RAG RAG RAG about it. Now we've got the latest and greatest technology found on the road short of $35,000 and this stooge decides to RAG RAG RAG about this one.

DUDE! Its a V-6 MAN. When was the last time you drove one of those that DIDN'T HAVE TO BE REVED!? Its the nature of the beast. And as far as starting to compare it to the Nissan cars, give me a break! Those cars are $35k+. You can buy this one for like $12,000 LESS. How embarressing for NISSAN because it isn't that much slower and I bet before September of '10 you're going to see some **** impressive numbers when people like Bamachips and others get their programming hands on this thing.

Here are some other nice facts:

1) This V-6 Mustang is FASTER than the current V-6 Camaro (he must've really hated that one because its slower than this)
2) This V-6 Mustang is FASTER than the current V-6 Challenger (He must've REALLY REALLY hated that car because not only is their engine on the weak side, the car is fat too)
3) It bests all other Japanese comers with few exceptions such as Subaru WRX, Infiniti G37 etc. Those cars are all much more expensive
4) This Mustang will run with the legendary Buick Grand National and THAT has a big huffer on it, this car doesn't.

Just some interesting facts that make me feel like his rhetoric is just that.

 

I still get the vibe that he's simply telling people who think the 3.7 will be equivalent to the outgoing 4.6 that the V8 still is the "performance" car, and the V6, even in PP trim is more of an economy/cruising car.

 

My Ford Motor Company window sticker list my car (V-6) as a 4-Passenger Sports Car. I would personally call it a 'Pony Car'. In reality i'm just going to call my car a 'Mustang'.

 

The V-6 mustang is faster than the current V-8 Challenger R/T.

 

I personally think the reviewer is an idiot because the crux of his ENTIRE argument is that the car is seriously lacking in torque...and yet I'd like him to show me the car out there that has more torque than 280 lb/ft and cost less than $23K. For the money, you can't buy more torque, and yet he's saying it's not enough?!

Dumb.

 

Yes but the Cobra did not have a 4.236 Low Gear. The 3.7L V6 M6 with the 3.31 Option already has a better launch ratio than a 2005-2010 GT with 4.10 Gears. How do you think they run 5.1 0-60 and 13.7 Quarters? You have to look at overall gearing not just axle ratios.

 

well, he's actually talking about LOW END torque . . . that 280 ft-lb happens at 4250 RPM (if I remember correctly) and I don't think we've seen a torque curve so we really don't know what it has down low, meaning 2000 RPM-ish

anyway I'm still glad I got to read this other point of view so I didn't run out and order one with unrealistic expectations (probably will still order one, I just want my expectations to be realistic)

 

The point is...
Nobody ever claimed it had LOW END torque.
Yet he bashes it for not having low end torque.
That in a nutshell is why the review is based on a false proposition and is flawed.

 

Here's what I'd like to know. If the V6 is so lacking in torque then how did MT get these numbers?

0-30 1.9 sec
0-40 2.8 sec
0-50 3.9 sec
0-60 5.1 sec

 

Read Gene K's post above.