Mustang Performance Comparison
10-05-2008, 12:08 PM
#12
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location:
Posts: 939
The answer to that is pretty simple, really.
First, I already have a street/track monster. It will outrun by a large margin even heavily modded Mustangs and Mustang Cobra's. Havn't run up against a Shelby yet. Sure would like to.
Second, There's not nearly as much differance in performance between the 6 and the 8 as you might think. I'v driven both back to back. The differance is evident. But not as much as I thought it would be. The new 4.0 is far superior to the old 3.8.
And, third, I was looking for a new daily driver. Inexpensive to buy, maintain, and feed. The differance in purchase price alone is $6,000. It gets 30-32mpg, so it's cheaper to feed. Insurance saves me a couple hundred a year. If I wanted the GT performance, I could take that $6K and install a turbo kit, then I would be making a lot more power than a bolt on GT around here, still get good mileage, same insurance, and still have the light weight.
I didn't buy the Mustang for it's performance, because I thought it was lacking.
First, I already have a street/track monster. It will outrun by a large margin even heavily modded Mustangs and Mustang Cobra's. Havn't run up against a Shelby yet. Sure would like to.
Second, There's not nearly as much differance in performance between the 6 and the 8 as you might think. I'v driven both back to back. The differance is evident. But not as much as I thought it would be. The new 4.0 is far superior to the old 3.8.
And, third, I was looking for a new daily driver. Inexpensive to buy, maintain, and feed. The differance in purchase price alone is $6,000. It gets 30-32mpg, so it's cheaper to feed. Insurance saves me a couple hundred a year. If I wanted the GT performance, I could take that $6K and install a turbo kit, then I would be making a lot more power than a bolt on GT around here, still get good mileage, same insurance, and still have the light weight.
I didn't buy the Mustang for it's performance, because I thought it was lacking.
10-05-2008, 12:38 PM
#13
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Escondido, California
Posts: 2,018
Couple hundred per. year, that's a big difference. I went on line to see how much cheaper insurance would be if I had an 06 V6 Mustang instead of a Mustang GT. It was about $55 or about $9 less per month for the V6. Not much difference.
10-05-2008, 06:28 PM
#14
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location:
Posts: 200
Second, There's not nearly as much differance in performance between the 6 and the 8 as you might think. I'v driven both back to back. The differance is evident. But not as much as I thought it would be. The new 4.0 is far superior to the old 3.8.
And, third, I was looking for a new daily driver. Inexpensive to buy, maintain, and feed. The differance in purchase price alone is $6,000.
And, third, I was looking for a new daily driver. Inexpensive to buy, maintain, and feed. The differance in purchase price alone is $6,000.
10-05-2008, 07:26 PM
#15
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 4,491
You don't consider 2 seconds in the 1/4 a big difference? I find it hard to believe you're driving a "track monster" with that sort of mentality.
BTW, show me a v6 mustang averaging 32 mpg that isn't traveling downhill, and I'll bend over and bite off my *******, lol.
BTW, show me a v6 mustang averaging 32 mpg that isn't traveling downhill, and I'll bend over and bite off my *******, lol.
10-05-2008, 10:23 PM
#16
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Merritt Island, FL
Posts: 996
2005+ GT - 281 cubic-inch with 300 hp
You do the math.
Hopefully, Ford will step up to the power challange. The initial promise of the Modular Engine was that Ford could build multiple configurations with very little tooling change. Add or subtract cylinders. Why not a 5.4 in the Mustang? How about a 418 cubic inch V10? Just a 5.4 with 2 cylinders on the front. Now we're talking power! Look out kids in the chevy's.
GT - 4.6
GT500 - 5.4 <---
Yep.
Also, the glory days of the big block are done. Fuel prices, new government regulations, and forced induction are some of the factors. Don't believe me? Look at the rumors circulating about turbo V6 mustang coming out in a few years. Rumors, I know, but I don't hear any talk of 400 cubic-inch plus V10s...
I thought this was a 4.6 forum. Oh well.
/man he makes it hard not to bash on sixxers.
I have no problem with V6's for the record.//I know I'm sounding like a a$$hat, but come on.
Last edited by JasperGT; 10-05-2008 at 10:54 PM.
10-05-2008, 10:49 PM
#18
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Merritt Island, FL
Posts: 996
And, third, I was looking for a new daily driver. Inexpensive to buy, maintain, and feed. The differance in purchase price alone is $6,000. It gets 30-32mpg, so it's cheaper to feed. Insurance saves me a couple hundred a year. If I wanted the GT performance, I could take that $6K and install a turbo kit, then I would be making a lot more power than a bolt on GT around here, still get good mileage, same insurance, and still have the light weight.
10-05-2008, 11:02 PM
#19
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location:
Posts: 939
>> BTW, show me a v6 mustang averaging 32 mpg that isn't traveling downhill, and I'll bend over and bite off my *******, lol. <<
Yesterday we drove to Aspen for lunch. All back roads, some at 75mph, some at 45mph. Up over Independance Pass, which is mostly 20-30mph in 2nd gear. On steadty highway driving across WY, we get 32-34mpg.
>> Put the turbo on and see what happens to the 30-32 mpg (really 30-32?) and daily driving capabilities. Can't have cake and eat it too. <<
You're exactly right. The problem with living and driving at altitude is you lose so much cylinder pressure, and therefore power. A turbo will restore that power, and then some. But, if you make power, you burn fuel. Although it would be pretty cool, I'm reluctant to do that.
>> not bashing, but I would like to learn a little more about the street/track monster--just a little detail/ time slips/ etc.. <<
We run Pueblo Motorsports Park in 1:45, Miller Perimeter Track at 2:20, and Hastings Motorsports Park in 1:46. I have taken it to Bandimere to run the quarter. Best I could do was 12.04 on street tires. I just couldn't get traction with that much torque. I spent a lot of time getting the suspension set up just right for the road course, and I didn't want to change it for a few minutes of drag racing. Setiing corner weights takes a few hours.
Yesterday we drove to Aspen for lunch. All back roads, some at 75mph, some at 45mph. Up over Independance Pass, which is mostly 20-30mph in 2nd gear. On steadty highway driving across WY, we get 32-34mpg.
>> Put the turbo on and see what happens to the 30-32 mpg (really 30-32?) and daily driving capabilities. Can't have cake and eat it too. <<
You're exactly right. The problem with living and driving at altitude is you lose so much cylinder pressure, and therefore power. A turbo will restore that power, and then some. But, if you make power, you burn fuel. Although it would be pretty cool, I'm reluctant to do that.
>> not bashing, but I would like to learn a little more about the street/track monster--just a little detail/ time slips/ etc.. <<
We run Pueblo Motorsports Park in 1:45, Miller Perimeter Track at 2:20, and Hastings Motorsports Park in 1:46. I have taken it to Bandimere to run the quarter. Best I could do was 12.04 on street tires. I just couldn't get traction with that much torque. I spent a lot of time getting the suspension set up just right for the road course, and I didn't want to change it for a few minutes of drag racing. Setiing corner weights takes a few hours.
Last edited by .boB; 10-05-2008 at 11:06 PM.
