I used to have a 1966 289 convertible and now am shopping for a 1965 - 1966 fastback. With the prices for these having gone up so much in recent years, I am considering doing something that I would not have done 10 years ago - looking into 6-Cylinder models. Never having driven a 6-cylinder, I was wondering if anyone could tell me their impressions of these motors, and in particular if the gas mileage is really any different from a 289 and if the power/pick-up is sufficient when operating AC and power steering. Thanks much for any insight!
jeep45238 -> 6-Cylinder vs. V8 (5/4/2003 10:22:08 PM)
crappy and slow.
To go fast (especially n/a), you want:
more displacement
more revs
more cylinders
fatback -> 6-Cylinder vs. V8 (5/27/2003 9:39:18 PM)
When I bought mine it was a 200 6. I bought it because it was a fastback, and in decent shape. I promptly switched the 200 for a 351W. But I must say while the 200 was no rocket it did have some pep. And the mileage was really good, like in the 20's. While I have no regrets for the swap, I thought the 200 was a respectable engine.
MustangGTRocks -> 6-Cylinder vs. V8 (5/28/2003 12:20:53 PM)
Go with the 8...
converted -> 6-Cylinder vs. V8 (5/28/2003 1:30:10 PM)
buy a 6 and use the extra cash to drop a fuel injected v-8 in there. Restomods have almost an equivelant value these days to the bottom barrel 289 cars. Better yet, buy a Falcon and stuff it with a good motor.
jeep45238 -> 6-Cylinder vs. V8 (5/28/2003 3:24:20 PM)
Buy a Pinto, relocate the gas tank, and shove a great motor in there.
TheChief_JWA -> 6-Cylinder vs. V8 (6/8/2003 1:51:50 AM)
I owned a 67 coupe I-6 without A/C and I can tell you that the 6 cyl is a good running motor. I've seen a number of people use 6 cyl. engines and really hook them up as for performance, etc... Parts are just as easy to find for them as it is a 289 or 302.
As for with A/C, I couldn't say ... I've never personally seen a 6 cyl with A/C though I've known of it to be a stock option. I imagine that the loss in power would be simaler to say that of a 3.8L V-6 engine found in Mustangs today. Gas milage is better with a I-6, naturally, and it does have some power behind it.
Hope this helps.
dave586 -> 6-Cylinder vs. V8 (6/19/2003 3:52:56 PM)
My mustang has a 15,000 mile rebuilt 200 6. It will not win any races, but it gets you to where you want to go with some acceleration power. I do have an aftermarket a/c on mine, and it was working until a moron backed into my baby at Walmart and pressed the hood latch support into the condensor. Anyway there was a noticable loss of power when the A/C was on. If I was in the postion to buy a classic Mustang I would go with a V8, if this 200 6 ever dies it will be replaced with something more powerful.
Sprint 200 -> 6-Cylinder vs. V8 (9/18/2003 11:07:32 PM)
I have a 200, and on the good weeks in Texas, without ac gas mileage is great, and power loss is a major factor with the AC. The 200 will get up and go without a question, but I drove a 289, and the acceleration is nice to have. Like dave said when my 200 goes I smell a V-8. Until that day I will sit happy with mine.
Solin -> 6-Cylinder vs. V8 (9/19/2003 9:22:56 PM)
dont listen to all these f*in clown shoes. I-6 engines are really kick ass. Great gas mileage, and it still has some balls.
67aquafastback -> 6-Cylinder vs. V8 (9/19/2003 10:11:46 PM)
[QUOTE=Solin]dont listen to all these f*in clown shoes. I-6 engines are really kick ass. Great gas mileage, and it still has some balls.[/QUOTE]
I take it you have never driven a 500+ hp V-8 I have owned a 63 ranchero and it had a 200 I-6 It ran great even had some good torque, but it is by no means a V-8 or any where near it. Why have a muscel car if you are going to worry about fuel consumption.
mandmI6 -> 6-Cylinder vs. V8 (10/29/2003 12:08:46 PM)
I own and drive daily a 65 Mustang with a 200 six that has A/c. It performs really well with a holley 2v 350 cfm carb. With the right type of rims/tires, and a good shift kit in tranny, you can make the mustang 25-50% better. Add a aftermarket exhaust with a 2" pipe and flowmaster muffler for a few extra ponies and a good exhaust note. Another great improvement is adding a 250ci head or 170ci to the 200 block for improved breathing and compression. Clifford performance sells these and some aftermarket higher duration camshafts for a really improved beast of an engine. I right now get about 30 mpg with the aftermarket carb, K&N air filter, and shift kit in the tranny. Just think of what you could get with the afore mentioned items.
kobyiso -> 6-Cylinder vs. V8 (10/29/2003 4:57:08 PM)
well i can say that must of the mustangs in israel are 6c.
its not a powerfull motor but its easygoing reliable and simple motor.
lets say that he castrated and not kicking ass, 4 me mustang with 6c its just another classic car , not the mucle car that every1 dream about.
so the answer is seek 4 the perfect body on budget...
u can always modify the motor to kicking ass V8
Sprint 200 -> 6-Cylinder vs. V8 (10/29/2003 10:14:57 PM)
A 2barrel carb on a 1 barrel intake, how did you pull that off? I have been looking around for quite sometime, and haven't found any 350cfm 1 barrel carbs. Did you customize your own intake or? The bigger heads is a good idea, good thinking there. You just can't add a bigger cam and expect great things, I hate to break it to you, its the same with a carb. The 200 lacks engine breathing capabilities .
bob emmerich -> 6-Cylinder vs. V8 (11/17/2003 12:15:19 PM)
I personally like the sixes. It is true that it doesn't have the go-go power of a V-8, but the gas milage is certainly better. With a/c it will slow a bit, but for good reliable service, you can't beat a six. Besides, it also keeps the car stock.
69fastback302 -> 6-Cylinder vs. V8 (11/18/2003 4:33:05 PM)
whoever said drop a Fuel Injected V8 in there needs to get a life. Anyone who wants to have a true American Muscle car that wasn't originally fuel injected shouldn't have a fuel injected engine. Out of respect for CLassic American Muscle, forget the restomod and forgot about what the people say.
.