ideal_mustangs

Yeah.....keep in mind too though that I've got a 2:78 rear and the new one has a 3:50 I think. I'm not sure how much of a difference thats going to make though.

crunchyskippy

Ideal - I rented an 06 six cylinder a few weeks ago. I was very impressed with the "git up n' go". Pretty sure it would have no difficulty with my unmodified 302.

In fact, I even like the growl it had at around 5k revs...

atomsk680

i got an answer for you.



take out the small 289, dropa cleveland in there[8D]

rmodel65

the 6 might have more hp but i doubt the torque is anywhere close

Brandontyler65

well the better race would actuall be to make the test on a point system such as having the 05 setup in both car then having the classic setup both and racing them that will help with it becase it will be a test of how the body and suspension react with the different setups then when you have all the data then you can compare it just by engine

Lumbergh

Good point, I forgot about the enormous weight of the new mustangs. I'm sure you're right, that the old Mustang has a much better horsepower to weight ratio. As far as torque and at what RPMs the max HP output is, I couldn't find this info for the old Mustang, and this is more important than HP for determining the acceleration, especially from a standing start. But again, you have the aspect of the new Mustangs gearing allowing you to reach max HP or torque faster with less drop off upon shifting than with the old Mustang; so, the length of the race would be a big determining factor.

Bulldog66

With 2.80 gears, I'm a little sluggish off the line. However, from a roling start - say, 15 mph on, I smoke the v6 stuff. I'm not anywhere near stock motor wise tho.

farkedup

I've owned both... unless the classic has seen significant work the 05 would beat it in everything by quite a bit. If the classic has a C4 it really wouldn't even be a contest.

THUMPIN455

Cant compare horsepower ratings from pre 1972 with post 1972. The standard was changed that year, and even engines that were the same as the year before were rated considerably less. So 200 hp in 66 isnt the same as 200 hp in 96 or 06.

If rated the old way, the new engines would be far and above what the old ones were. Imagine if you will, the 390hp 04 Cobra 4.6 rated the old way, it would be 450+ or possibly to 500. And the latest ZO6 LS7 engine would really be impressive since its rated at 500 right now. As it is, the new ratings are more real world and dyno technology has improved greatly.

Most stone stock 289 Mustangs and Cougars with the 2v would run a mid 16 in the quarter. A 4v would run in the mid to high 15s. The new V6 will run mid 15s as well but the new car is a bit faster than the old ones were stone stock.

Make some mods to both, and the potential of the older car, less expensive parts, and easy or modification/repair and the classic wins for a modded ride.. vs a V6 anyway. A Cobra is another story, but for the price of an 03-04, even these days used, is still more than enough to sink into a 67 coupe or fastback and absolutely waste the blown cobra.

Take a 289 car with a perfomer intake, 600-650 holley, a mild cam, 3.50 gears, headers and 2.5" dual exhaust vs a stock or even a V6 with CAI on it, and the 289 will win. Add a set of TFS or AFR heads to it, a 2500 stall and you can go stomp on some LS1s.. as long as they are stock.. mess with a stalled, full bolt on LS1 and you better be in the 11s..

Lumbergh

Ah, so the HP numbers reportd on the web for these older cars are just what the manufacturer reported at the time, which I believe does not include any parisitic drains or losses in the driveline and differential, not RWHP like I looked up for the modern V6 Mustang.