Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Coupes & Convertibles Ford Mustang Ford Mustang (2005 and Newer)
2847 messages, Last post on Nov 19, 2009 at 4:43 PM
You are in the Ford Mustang Forum. Your Host is claires
|
Replying to: pony_pirate (Sep 05, 2006 2:12 pm) The OP is well aware of the horsepower difference. No reason to trash talk a v6 unless you feel the need. To 99.9% of the population they cant tell the difference by looking at it so monetarily you paid too much for the same look and only 80hp more. Try reading the post and offering the info he requested. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lmm (Sep 05, 2006 6:54 pm) Oh, I see, you drive a Mustang because of how other people see it. Excuse me, but I don't. Funny, the GT, not the V6, is used in all the Mustang TV ads. I would bet the Vette Z06 looks just like the C06 to "99.9% of the population," which, according to your criteria, eliminates any real difference between the two. Accordingly, anyone spending the extra $30k+ for a Z ("only" 100 HP more) is wasting their money. Interesting. Somehow missing from this conversation is performance. Just to restore some perspective, the big hoopla about the redesigned Mustang is its resurrection of the American muscle car. Er, the V6 is not a muscle car. 
|
|
|
Replying to: pony_pirate (Sep 05, 2006 10:42 pm) "Back in the day", I'll bet more I6 Mustangs were sold than V8's. It's also interesting to note the first new car I ever bought was an '85 Mustang GT. It was rated at 220 HP. The current V6 is rated at 210 HP, and this is a more conservative rating than the '85, so it's not a stretch to say that they are the same horsepower. Does the '85 GT qualify as a "muscle car"? |
|
|
Replying to: lmm (Sep 05, 2006 1:47 pm) The GT is a totally different pony from the V6 as the GT500 is a totally different pony from the GT. Although I've heard nothing but good things about the V6 and it's performance, it's no GT.
|
|
|
Replying to: tayl0rd (Sep 06, 2006 5:57 am) There's no need to debate which one is better - they're both great in their own ways and both have their pros and cons.
|
|
|
Replying to: akirby (Sep 06, 2006 6:12 am) I had the tubular Cherry Bombs on my 1967 289 GT 2+2, and I liked how they sounded. I wanted to know if anyone had put these on their new Mustangs and how they liked the sound.
|
|
|
Replying to: texastang (Sep 06, 2006 6:51 am) |
|
|
Replying to: texastang (Sep 06, 2006 6:51 am) OTOH a V6 vert w/pony package would handle great and be significantly cheaper if you can give up the acceleration and sound of the V8. |
|
|
Replying to: pony_pirate (Sep 05, 2006 10:42 pm) "Just to restore some perspective, the big hoopla about the redesigned Mustang is its resurrection of the American muscle car. Er, the V6 is not a muscle car"
|
|
|
Replying to: lmm (Sep 06, 2006 8:08 am) Does this mean that the Vette is a Muscle Car (more HP than the GT) and not a sports car?? |
|
You are here:
Forums
Coupes & Convertibles Ford Mustang Ford Mustang (2005 and Newer)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Ford Mustang
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
