MCR

Well from what others have told me who do have it a supercharged V6 (procharger stage II) that their car (automatic) is pushing 260-290 HP with only 3-5 of boost and you can run as much as 9-11 on this car

PNYXPRESS

The stock block and crank from what I have heard will handle 600+ hp. The weak point is the pistons and rods. Replace these with boost capable parts and you can easily push 15psi.

The trans and rear will hold IF you don't hammer down on the throttle.

MCR

I was planning on getting a 8.8 rear end anyway.
I heard the trans were weak on these V6's but I'll take your word for it

So then I can put nitrous + SC then?

PNYXPRESS

If you are wanting to push a lot of hp then I would look at getting the ford 9" instead. The 8.8 has been know to be broken with stock v6 power.

The trans in these car are weak is you drive the car hard, which you probably will. Otherwise why up the power, right? Do it right and get a T56.

MCR

Thanks
Also a bit off topic but what do you think about the staggered look on the V6? Would it slow down the car? Is it a bad idea?
275/40/17 front (17x9)
315/35/17 rear (17x10.5)

or should I just go 275/40/17 all around?

99GTvert

Are you possibly thinking of the 7.5? I have never heard of an 8.8 being broken with stock v6 power.

Staggered wheel set ups do slow down the car because technically there is more rotational mass with a wider wheel and tire but I doubt most people would feel the difference between those two setups listed.

MCR

So would it be bad to run them on a V6? I really like how wide the tires are when you look at the car from the rear.

BabyGT

Then go for it, you wont be able to feel the difference. On paper yes there is a difference but its so small you wont ever notice.

MCR

What transmission do you recommend for an auto? Also because some time next year I'm going with 8.8 RE and 4,10 gears. I heard those gears suck with a t56

Tele-Caster

It's amazing to me how many people don't want to believe that on Mustang forums!

Back in the day, Car and Driver typically claimed 14.9 second quarter mile times for Fox-body 5.0's. That's just exactly as slow as my formerly-owned ''92 5.0 LX was when it was bone-stock and brand new when I bought it in '93. But a LOT of today's Mustang enthusiasts don't want to believe this is true. I've come across more than one person who really believes that a bone-stock Fox 5.0 is a 14.0 car. Mine sure as heck wasn't and neither was anyone else's that I had personal experience with.

The same people who don't believe 14.9's for a Fox 5.0 as being representative also seem to not believe that a stock New Edge with a split-port 3.8 and a five speed is capable of mid 15's. When Car and Driver tested one in 1999, it ran 15.5. My old 1999 V6 was just exactly that slow when I got it -a whopping 3/5's of a second slower than what my last Mustang did when it was stock.

Yeah, 5.0 Fox's were that slow. And my V6 New Edge is just exactly that slow now. But we didn't care back when the Fox 5.0 was new because, as slow as it was, it had accelerative parity with a long, long list of "pony cars" and "muscle cars" from the mid-60's to early 70's -cars like my '66 Mustang GT, that did the quarter in about 15 flat, or cars like the '68 SST 390 Javelin that did it in 15.1, or my father's '71 383 Charger that did it in 14.9....

By today's standards, a LOT of those old "muscle cars" weren't really all that fast. That doesn't make them less desirable or less fun to own, to some of us, at least.

As slow as they are, there've been plenty of cars made that are even slower and no matter how fast you think your car is, someone, somewhere, has a faster one.