Ralph289

Did anybody see the new Consumer Reports Oct. 2010
The tested the Camaro vs. Mustang v6's no surprise Mustang came out on top. BUT on page 58 they compaired the new v6 Mustang Automatic against when they tested the 1970 Boss 302 (4 speed) back in 1970. The new v6 beat it BIG TIME .......surprised me !!
Boss 302 vs V6
0-6 8.0 sec--- 6.2 sec
1/4 16.0sec--- 14.8 sec
1/4 93mph--- 98 mph

ODDYSEY

Because that would be like comparing a 41 year old TV to your brand new Flat Panel...

Red Beast

doesnt suprise me that much. theyr always looking how to squeeze more power into smaller displacment. and also, keep in mind that those old mustangs are steel and heavy as hell!

Ralph289

Wrong...
1970 Boss 302 weighs 3,335
2011 V6 weigh 3,540

j0nx

This was a 2010 v6 they tested against and not a 2011 right? The 2011 does 0-60 in about 5.4 last I checked so someone there sure as hell doesn't know how to drive.

jimkaray

Not knowing the track or any of the particulars I think its a fair guess to say that 14.8 is either an exceptionally good driver in a 2010, or an exceptionally bad driver in a 2011.
Either way the Boss 302 wasn't set up as a street brawler or a drag car, it was built as a road race car. The big ports on the Clevland style heads did nothing for low end torque and were all about upper rpm performance. As you can see by the 93 mph number with that horrible et there is a lot of horse power being made there, should be capable of more like a low 14 / high 13 sec pass with traction and driven right. Tire tech in those days was not exactly traction freindly either. That said 40 years is a long time and the modern technolgy has certainley eclipsed the good old days.

Ralph289

Says 2011 Mustang but don't see the year of the Camaro pritty sure 2010 not 2011.

LostBoyz

I'm not sure that an optional HUD and color scheme would make it go any faster, so it dosen't matter if its a 2010 or 2011 camaro

Red Beast

huh, interesting, i stand corrected. touche lol

but also as i stated, its just new inovations in technology. making better cars out of smaller engines... which is a pitty, cause if they could do this with such small blocks, think if they went back to old school and start cranking out 440's etc ... im aware custom shops do make those engines but not stock on the car is what i mean.

Whitehorse10

I always just laugh when I hear how slow the 4.0 V6 Mustang is and how the 4.0 engine is a boat anchor and all of that nonsense. Statistics show that in 2009 that average 0 to 60 speed of cars on the road in the U.S. was 8.95 seconds. The 4.0 is 6.5. That is not a slow car, I don't car what any magazine or anyone on some forum has to say about it. The new 3.7 is even better and of course the GT's better still. Whenever I see or hear someone talking about how slow the 4.0's were I just grin and shake my head. Some people don't know what slow is apparently.