alright.. SO..


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!

Can someone explain why we seem so... $hitty?

Thanks, Erich

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 aV8, 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 You don't compare the Eclipse GT to a baseline outdated Mustang V6 which is an entry level car, you compare the Eclipse GT to the Mustang GT, a car in the same relative class.

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.

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.

I think he's just comparing V6's to V6's. But you are 100% right jthorne. You can't compare an imports best car to the domestics base car.

Their base: ENGINE: 2.4-liter, 162-horsepower, four-cylinder Mivec engine (msrp $20k)
Their top car: ENGINE: 263-horsepower, 3.8-liter, Mivec V6 (msrp $23.6k)

Our base: Engine: 3.8L, 190hp, six cylinder (msrp $18.15k)
Our top car: Engine 4.6L, 265, eight cylinder (msrp $23.7k)

So, you just compared a car that's over $5000 more to our car, take that five grand and put a blower on your car and see who wins.

ORIGINAL: WhitePony02

I think he's just comparing V6's to V6's. But you are 100% right jthorne. You can't compare an imports best car to the domestics base car.

Their base: ENGINE: 2.4-liter, 162-horsepower, four-cylinder Mivec engine (msrp $20k)
Their top car: ENGINE: 263-horsepower, 3.8-liter, Mivec V6 (msrp $23.6k)

Our base: Engine: 3.8L, 190hp, six cylinder (msrp $18.15k)
Our top car: Engine 4.6L, 265, eight cylinder (msrp $23.7k)

So, you just compared a car that's over $5000 more to our car, take that five grand and put a blower on your car and see who wins.



Actually your numbers are new Eclipse, old Mustang.

New numbers are:
Base 4.0L V6 - 210 hp (msrp $18-23K)
Mid 4.6L 4.6L 300 hp (msrp $24K-28K)
Top 5.4L 500 hp (msrp $45-70K)

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 [8D]

besides erich the number you shoulb be lookin up is TQ.
compare those!!!!

ORIGINAL: 85GTsleeper

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 [8D]


With these gas prices? Shyt, everybody might as well start buying vettes.

ORIGINAL: 85GTsleeper

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 [8D]


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 domesticcar.. 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.

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

there also DOHC 24V motors vs our OHV 12V motors

ford did make high performance v6's just look at the thunderbird SC a 3.8 with a M90 that was high performance v6 at its time

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.

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.

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 daywere 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.

ORIGINAL: laserred02

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 ElecticFuel 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 andAM-FM Cassette/8 Trackfrom 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

ORIGINAL: xX98StallionXx

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?

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 oldGM cars). Meaning that most people bought the8 rather than the 6 and for obvious reasons. I dont have a car any more remember:Dbecause 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.

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.

ORIGINAL: johnt2k7

ford did make high performance v6's just look at the thunderbird SC a 3.8 with a M90 that was high performance v6 at its time


No a grand national was a high performance V6...a s/c'd singleport is still slow

ORIGINAL: xX98StallionXx

ORIGINAL: laserred02

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 ElecticFuel 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 andAM-FM Cassette/8 Trackfrom years past.


the engine is plenty strong.

exactly, just because I said it was cheap to produce, does not mean it is not a strong and reliable motor.

We are slow cause we weigh a LOT more than the imports do

ORIGINAL: raz54
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.

?? How much were new edge mustangs new?? That sounds real cheap because I bought mine with 45k miles for $9k and mines an 2000, did I get riped off?

imo... ford can make a decent v6, you just have to do some work/mods to it to get thereand that's fun in itself. besides, i would like to see ANY stock/mildly modifiedmitsubishi eclipse gt take on LilRoush's mustang - fried rice anyone?

The 3.8 is a good motor and if you think its slow, race some Firebirds with the 305 TBI and you will feel better.
As for output, its not a fair comparison for a OHV and a DOHC. Lots of other factor come into play when talking performance than the HP on paper.The GNX Turbo 3.8 was a good motor, the T-Bird SC 3.8 was good motor, Mustang 3.8, GM 3.8, were all great motors. My dad took a 87 Cutlass 3.8 Series I 325K miles before selling it, and our LeSabe 3.8 Series II has 198K and made 205 HP from the factory. I know it no the same as your mustangs, but similair output. I do not see the problem. An easy 200 flywheels HP with a mod or two in a base car, sounds good to me.Not to mention potential, RWD, and a relatively torquey motor, with some damn good looks. Still want to compare with a feminine esplisce? Me niether.

ORIGINAL: ByPopularDemand

We are slow cause we weigh a LOT more than the imports do


speak for urself [8D]

And another thing: Aftermarket, Mach 460 stereo, Compatible with other Mustangs(laserred's Mach 1 suspenions goodies) the list goes on. Manuel or auto? Vert or Coupe? Take your pick.

Try swapping gears with aPosi unit into a FWD. Dual Exhaust? Factory kick-ass stereo? Burn-outs? A Daily driver, high 15 sec car getting 30 MPG, and making roughly 200HP in cartha debuted8 years ago with a few mods thrown into the mix?
I can not think of any other car besides the 3.8 F-Body than really comes close.
And think the 4.0 is even better, and the DOHC 3.5 might finds its way into a Mustang as well.

price is a big issue, but also, most of those import cars are (and are even advertized as) "TUNED". the factories that produce those import 4bangers and 6ers are tuning those cars to put out as much power as they can with the stock parts that are on it. and for that, they are able to jack the price.

do i think the v6 mustang is a slow car? yes. but id rather have a slow mustang with the ability to upgrade it the way i want, rather than have a mildly faster 4banger/6shooter import that is tuned out to its maximum capabilities until FI or porting is done.

When did we start talking about imports? lol who cares about imports. (but if u max out an import that weighs next to nothing, ull rip the doors of ALOT of cars.) Point of the matter is that the 3.8L IS slow, but its got potential (as GM has pointed out with the late model firebirds and camaros). Hell, if Ford made the V6/V8 like Camaro did the Mustang might have died out too with the increase in power and price. The only reason ford kept their engines smaller is because they are more affordable if theirs not alot to em. The Block may be durable, but that doesnt stop the rest of the car from crapping out on you.

ORIGINAL: ByPopularDemand

We are slow cause we weigh a LOT more than the imports do


have you seen the curb weight of an 06/07 eclipse GT? ~3560lbs is quite a bit (from car & driver).

True the eclipse IS heavy but it actually has a 3.8L V6 with more torque thana usual ricer. It also lacks control for its weight. Its a styling blunder.. they sacraficed everything basically to give it a bigger engine and make it look better.