I know that engines are getting more powerful and more efficient with time. BUT. why do our V6's make roughly... 190 HP.. it seems way too low compared to V6's in Imports.
I mean, the other day i saw a commercial for the 07' or 08' eclipse.. i personally don't like it.. but anyway.. it's being advertised with like 260 HP.. Thats as much HP as our V8 GT's!
Posts: 11528
Joined: 9/19/2005 From: Pearl River, Louisiana Status: offline
Price for one thing, do you think you'd be able to own your car if it had 260 hp? Quality is another thing to keep in mind. Ford made their cars for a reason and a purpose, the V6 is the entry level car, it's not intended to compete with other V6s on the market of higher level, hell it's not made to compete at all. It's simply an easy way for somebody to own a Mustang that doesn't want the original cost of a V8, doesn't want to pay for the hair pin extra gas the V8 uses, cares less about performance, just wants to own a Mustang, I mean the list is endless. In short, you're comparing cars in two different classes with two different intentions. You don't compare the Eclipse GT to a baseline outdated Mustang V6 which is an entry level car, you compare the Eclipse GT to the Mustang GT, a car in the same relative class.
Posts: 1731
Joined: 9/25/2006 From: New Braunfels, Texas Status: offline
What year is your mustang? The pre-99 are slow as balls stock.
If you are going to compare the v6 mustang, compare base models, because that's what a v6 mustang really is. Sure ford could make more power out of thier v6, but that's what the GT model is for. I think 190hp and 210lbs of torque is pretty dam good for just a "base model" car.
Stop your bitching.
Dam, you beat me to it jthorn.
< Message edited by l_shizzle_l -- 7/14/2007 11:02:28 PM >
Posts: 1294
Joined: 8/25/2006 From: Santa Barbara, CA Status: offline
you cant make the v6 faster then the gt or no one would buy the gt. just like how chevy was making the chevelles w/ 454 faster then the vett's. no one bought the vett's same concept.
Posts: 1294
Joined: 8/25/2006 From: Santa Barbara, CA Status: offline
I wish ford would stop with the small motors and start bringing back the 5.8l and start putting some technology in that beotch. be spanking ls1 all day
I wish ford would stop with the small motors and start bringing back the 5.8l and start putting some technology in that beotch. be spanking ls1 all day
With these gas prices? Shyt, everybody might as well start buying vettes.
I wish ford would stop with the small motors and start bringing back the 5.8l and start putting some technology in that beotch. be spanking ls1 all day
LS1.. what a joke, theyve got to worry about hte LS3 now... Reguardless, the 3.8L Camaro makes more power than the Mustang does it not? Though it took the Camaro forever to actually manufacture a 3.8... and when they did they ended up being discontinued kuz the cars cost so damn much.. Its still a powerful V6 domestic car.. that was ment to compete with Ford and others.. And now look, Chevy has the Cobalt SS which isnt a V8, but its still a "high performance" vehicle. If Chevy is competing with Ford and Ford with Chevy... im pretty sure Ford wins looks Chevy wins performance.
Posts: 11885
Joined: 12/22/2004 From: Ludlow, Mass Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: 85GTsleeper
you cant make the v6 faster then the gt or no one would buy the gt. just like how chevy was making the chevelles w/ 454 faster then the vett's. no one bought the vett's same concept.
there will still be hardcore stang guys that say a mustang is only a mustang if it has a V8
Posts: 1758
Joined: 1/12/2007 From: Eureka, Ca. Status: offline
I think the real problem is most of you are jaded by the 3.8 V6. They have a lot more power and get better mpg than most of the 6 cyl that was used in the 60's / 70's & 80's. Most of those had less than 150 hp and only got low 20's (mpg). So before you bitch and moan to much about what a turd you have find a 65 -66 Mustang or Falcon with a 170 6 cyl and then you'll really be glad you have a 3.8.
_____________________________
My 04 Mustang is a hybrid, it burns gas and rubber.
Posts: 1061
Joined: 7/18/2006 From: Champaign, IL Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: raz54
I think the real problem is most of you are jaded by the 3.8 V6. They have a lot more power and get better mpg than most of the 6 cyl that was used in the 60's / 70's & 80's. Most of those had less than 150 hp and only got low 20's (mpg). So before you bitch and moan to much about what a turd you have find a 65 -66 Mustang or Falcon with a 170 6 cyl and then you'll really be glad you have a 3.8.
you are 100% correct. my first car had a 200ci Inline 6 cyl, it was a 1966 mustang. That thing was slow as ****, maybe 100hp in todays terms.
the 3.8L V6 ford makes is a ohv pushrod design, it is cheap and easy to produce, with little advanced technology. When I bought my 2002 brand new I got it for $15,500 before tax, title and all that jazz. You tell me who makes a 15,500 car with 190hp and 225 ft/lbs of torque. You should compare the 3.8L V6 to ford's new 3.5L DOHC V6 that makes 265 hp and is designed to go plus or minus 20 hp on that depending upon the configuration. However you will not find the 3.5L in anything less than a 22k+ car, just as you wouldn't see an import manufacturer put a high technology DOHC V6 pumping out 265 hp in a base model. Please compare base model to base model, and premium model to premium model as others have stated. I do not believe there was much better value for my money than when I bought my Mustang for $15,500, seriously you get a lot of power for that price range.
As far as the 3.8L camaro they made 200 hp which is 10 more than the mustang, that is not a significant amount, there biggest strength over the base model was a superior transmission.
I think the real problem is most of you are jaded by the 3.8 V6. They have a lot more power and get better mpg than most of the 6 cyl that was used in the 60's / 70's & 80's. Most of those had less than 150 hp and only got low 20's (mpg). So before you bitch and moan to much about what a turd you have find a 65 -66 Mustang or Falcon with a 170 6 cyl and then you'll really be glad you have a 3.8.
The only people who bought slant 6s back in the day were old women and people who didnt/couldnt handle a V8... my grandpa told me all about what it was like back in the day.. Gas prices were cheap, muscle cars were cheap and parts were cheap. It was hardly a problem to go down pick up and maintain a V8. Matter of fact they were the most commonly driven cars until insurance/gas prices skyrocketed.
< Message edited by xX98StallionXx -- 7/15/2007 10:18:15 AM >
the 3.8L V6 ford makes is a ohv pushrod design, it is cheap and easy to produce, with little advanced technology. When I bought my 2002 brand new I got it for $15,500 before tax, title and all that jazz. You tell me who makes a 15,500 car with 190hp and 225 ft/lbs of torque.
Thats the problem its cheap... if they made a stronger engine it would cost more... And you cant compare classic models to late models its like apples and oranges. Theres huge advances in technology compared to the cars your talking about too.. Its called Electic Fuel Injection... Its more efficient than a carb giving the newer stangs an upper hand in power and its ALOT more advanged than a carb.. All the components in cars now days that control everything is alot more advanced than your check engine light and AM-FM Cassette/ 8 Track from years past.
ford can build performance engines , but they need to sell them before others imports just take the price from a mustang V6 vs. any import V6(do some math) the difference of $ results the difference in performance, but anyway with that difference you can make the stang faster
Posts: 1758
Joined: 1/12/2007 From: Eureka, Ca. Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: xX98StallionXx
quote:
ORIGINAL: raz54
I think the real problem is most of you are jaded by the 3.8 V6. They have a lot more power and get better mpg than most of the 6 cyl that was used in the 60's / 70's & 80's. Most of those had less than 150 hp and only got low 20's (mpg). So before you bitch and moan to much about what a turd you have find a 65 -66 Mustang or Falcon with a 170 6 cyl and then you'll really be glad you have a 3.8.
The only people who bought slant 6s back in the day were old women and people who didnt/couldnt handle a V8... my grandpa told me all about what it was like back in the day.. Gas prices were cheap, muscle cars were cheap and parts were cheap. It was hardly a problem to go down pick up and maintain a V8. Matter of fact they were the most commonly driven cars until insurance/gas prices skyrocketed.
True cars and gas didn't cost as much but wages weren't near as high then either so it's no different than today. If you did buy a V8 muscle car it was a gas hog with high insurance rates, most only got around 10-12 mpg. BTW. the only cars with a slant 6 were Plymouth, & Dodge, most were a straight 6 as V6's hadn't been made yet (in the 60's). Most chose a 6 cly for the same reasons they do now, to save on insurance and gas and still have a nice looking sporty family car. our comment about old ladies and people that can't handle a V8 is totally moronic and shows a lack of intelligence or are you saying you are an old woman that can't handle a V8 and that's why you have a V6?
< Message edited by raz54 -- 7/15/2007 10:50:54 AM >
_____________________________
My 04 Mustang is a hybrid, it burns gas and rubber.
Nope, it doesnt mean im an old lady that cant handle a v8 or any of you are, and i was only refering to early models, not late. It means that back in the day they were just another coupe. If you can find me sales report saying othewise i still believe more V8s were sold then than inline 6 (sorry about hte Slant 6 i had been looking at some old GM cars). Meaning that most people bought the 8 rather than the 6 and for obvious reasons. I dont have a car any more remember because i was tired of how low on performance the V6 was. Im looking for something has has alot of horses or isnt hard to reach it. but a 98 V6 as we all kno wasnt gonna get me there easily.
< Message edited by xX98StallionXx -- 7/15/2007 11:05:34 AM >
Posts: 1758
Joined: 1/12/2007 From: Eureka, Ca. Status: offline
If you compare the first base model Mustangs to the ones made today the newer one have a hell of a lot more power and handle much better too. Even if you take an early V8 Mustang the newer V6 Mustangs will blow their door off so to say the base Mustang V6 is slow is wrong. Sure when you compare it to a higher end model import it is but that's apples and oranges. "(sorry about hte Slant 6 i had been looking at some old GM cars)" Gm did not make a slant 6, those were Mopar only.
_____________________________
My 04 Mustang is a hybrid, it burns gas and rubber.
Printable Version
Why does our V6 seem....like a POS - 
because i was tired of how low on performance the V6 was. Im looking for something has has alot of horses or isnt hard to reach it. but a 98 V6 as we all kno wasnt gonna get me there easily.
