Buckshot Barry

If you look at the horsepower, torque, and 1/4 mile figures for our 05 - 07 4.0L V6's, which 65 - 73 Mustang would you equate it to?

Here is a list of 65 - 73 Mustang engines. Please note that horsepower was measured differently on pre '72 engines.

http://home.pon.net/hunnicutt/history_eng.htm

Buckshot Barry

I did find this

1967 Ford Mustang (390ci V8 w/4spd)0-60 7.4 sec1/4 mile 15.6 sev

http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/ford/performance1.htm

DelStang86

base 289.

rls82959

Agreed. 289 2V C4 Auto

Jays Mustang

I was racing cars back in the early 70's and if you want to talk cars in pure stock format our 4.0/V6 would do preaty good against small block cars of the 60's. Now this doesn't mean the High Performancemotors back then I.E. 289/289hp or 327/350hp. I'm talking the 210-250hp cars. They'd run 15.50 to 15.90's. Meaning most of the 2 barrel and base 4 barrels. Back then all it took was adecent cam, carb & headers to wake up a stock motor. Then you were 14.40's. To get into 13's and below your talking hot cam,porting & polishing heads/intake,gears & slicks. Although I haven't raced my V6 yet I heard they run 15.00 in the quarter.

phunnyguy

you know looking at that list you can generally see how muscle was popular and then went away and slowly came back.....if you look at whats happening with allthe new retro stuff including our stangs.....but the power build up...then build down and build back up is intresting....

cam2904

Have to agree with you Phunny

phunnyguy

kinda like a history book of muscle it would be intresting to see that chart against like corvettes dodge and chevy....using thier trademark rides past and present......just to compare the trend.....i would be willing to bet they followed fords lead over the years..it just kills me that they are tanking for some reason right now.....im eevn thinking of buying som stock on thehopes it will go up again its kinda reasonable now if you wanted 100 shares...

Jays Mustang

Nobody really had a lead per say back in the 60's. There were firsts like GTO was the first musclecar and Mustang was the first ponycar. But each brand held there own each year. Be it a 454 Chevy or a Boss 429, a 426 Hemi and so on. A couple great motors were the 302's in both the Chevy & Ford, man those motors could whine to 7000 all day. That was the fun back then, every year body style changed, upgraded motors & HP, it was really something. Then the emission crap in 71 started and in a few years the biggest HP in a car was 140 in a Vette in 75. That was a sad year.

Brewster

As a 16 year old kid I got my first mustang, a 200 cubic inch six, 3-speed manual. Pretty slow by todays standards.

Within a year I picked up a 1966 Fastback 289/271 horse, KCode, 4-speed, disc brakes. For $250, that was back in 1973.Today a K Code is very valuable, but back thenthese cars were a dime a dozen. The K Code was beat, but ran after I put a new clutch and batteryin it. I blew that motor, rebuilt it and blew it again. Then built a 302. Sold it in 1980. Wish I would have kept it.

I think with intake, tune and exhaust that the 4.0 V6 manual 5-speed would be about the same as a stock 1966 289 4 barrel, 225 horse 4-speed. Not as fast as the KCode or a built 289 or 302 though.

Once you add headers, intake manifold, big carburetor, gears and cam the old 289/302 small blocks will blowour V6's off the road.

I am very happy with the stock performance on my V6 manual transmission. Still stock with about 3500 miles. I plan on CAI, tune, exhaust and maybe 3.73 gears. I get around 30 mpg on my interstate commute. Not bad at all.