New Mustang V6 name?

Swank Force One wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: OK, 1988 Hatchback 5.0 was 3193lbs, made 225hp/300tq and is rated at 16/24 with a redline around 5500rpms. 6.4sec 0-60, 15.0 1/4mile stock. .82g skidpad. 2013 V6 coupe 3503lbs, makes 305hp/280tq and is rated at 19/29 with a 7k redline. 0-60 5.3seconds, 13.9 sec 1/4 mile. .91g skidpad I'm sorry... how is it NOT better? It's just barely 300lbs heavier. It makes 80hp more. It gets better fuel economy. It's faster. It holds the road better.

It's way uglier, bigger, and weighs 300lbs more on top of an already fat pig of a car?

But you get real seats, a real stereo, real AC and a warranty.

I'm enjoying reading this since I just bought an '88 Mustang LX 5.0 notchback with A/C delete and wind up windows. I've never been a Mustang person but remember seeing their tail lights while driving my Trans Am in the 80-90's. Friend of mine had one (and still has it) back in '93 and I always remember how fast it felt. Now driving mine it doesn't feel as fast but that could be because I've driven much faster cars. Not to mention our '04 Forester XT could probably take it off the line. I love that we have a return to the muscle car battle that existed back in the 80's and agree that the cars today are so much better. Opening the garage, firing up that 302 and listen to the exhaust is worth the price though. I'm going to autocross mine and even though I can feel the chassis flex, winding it out and hearing the bellowing V8 is so intoxicating even if I was faster with my EG Civic.

Here's a video of the car backing out of the garage. (crank up the sound):

Mustang start up

I have only one thing to add to this discussion. I bought a brand new 145 horse 82 Z28 that ran 17's. The super hot one had 165 horses.

I voided the warranty with a box full of parts from Edelbrock and Comp before I'd owned it for 3 months. Still gutless, but at least it would see 6,000 rpm in a gear other than neutral.

yamaha wrote:

Vigo wrote:

A 1987 Mustang LX 5.0 could get into the thirteens in the quarter mile, stock. With a short belt and drag-oriented wheels/tires out back, twelves were possible.

Those are both close enough to bullE36 M3 that you could say the same thing about the current stock v6 mustang with the same degree of accuracy. Ive driven and raced stock 5.0s. They are NOT stock high thirteen cars 99.9% of the time. Add a few more digits behind the decimal for how often they ARENT 12 second cars even on slicks launched from the rev limiter with a dead hook.

This.......some late fox's could have been close(but still not there) thanks to a better than garbage rear end gear in them, but considering a stock SHO taurus would walk a stock 5-OH from a roll, they aren't anywhere close to what he's thinking.

I'm sorry to respond to an old thread, but this response and others like it really stuck in my craw, and a few months' time haven't changed my mind.

First, I think there's a philosophical difference at play here. In my mind, if someone ran a certain number, and has the time slip, then that person and his car have earned that number. You can bitch about mineshaft air, repeatability, etc., but you can't argue with the time slip... and better than 90% of people who try to do so are just hangers-on who bought a performance pedigree from Infiniti and Motor Trend. (And seriously... "on a roll"?)

Seen through this filter, the car's we're talking about put a lot of people in the 12s and the 13s, and did so very cheaply, and those are good accomplishments even by today's standards or those of 1987.

Not incidentally, there's an economic argument and a durability argument being made here. You'd think a place with a name like "Grassroots Motorsports" would appreciate that (instead of lusting after barely-running GCL Alfa Romeos).

The other thing I'd point out is that you need to put the 2014 Mustang and the 1987 Mustang into historical context to see where the newer model falls short. That 1.5s or so that you all say the GT has gained since 1987 hasn't kept up with the rest of the world. The LX 5.0 was among the fastest cars of the day. The 2014 GT is not. Nobody lusts after a berkeleying Mustang GT like they did in 1987, except for maybe middle-aged nurses and schoolteachers trying to relive their glory days. Car enthusiasts have moved on.

I've moved on. I'd buy an old LX 5.0 but they're all fubar. (That goes back to another great hoax perpetrated by sites like this one, "Mustangs are only good to modify".)

I spent time with the old ones. I've spent time with the new ones. You are wrong.

AHHH, don't feed teh zombie troll....

Mustang are cool.

Horsepower is cool.

Mod your car. Or don't.

The new one is safer, more comfortable, faster, and better on gas.

The old one is cheaper.

Rob R.

You're all wrong. The answer is Ford 302 in a Miata. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDDlkF5UJqI&list=UUpLPMyy1LmWlwiBGtCPSTXQ&feature=c4-overview

In reply to b13990:

You've "moved on" but resurrect a 7 month old thread?

Not sure if they are the same thing....

But a carbed Mustang with points would be appropriate for a zombie thread, i guess.

In reply to alfadriver:

Hey, I have one of those!

bravenrace wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Hey, I have one of those!

AAHGG ZOMBIES!!!!

In reply to alfadriver:

- I feel very ashamed, but I lied. I changed to an electronic ignition. Sorry.

wvumtnbkr wrote: AHHH, don't feed teh zombie troll....

ahhh, c'mon....I was hoping to live rent free in his head for nine months like we apparently did last time.....

I'd take a performance package V6 mustang. It out runs the frisbee car and is comfortable to ride in, win win.

'92 Mustang LX HB 5.0 5spd with 4.10 rear gears and some very minor mods. 13.4 on street tires. I loved that car. No, it wasn't as fast as some cars are out of the box today, but it was plenty fast in '92. I had an SN95 for a short time, but it wasn't as visceral as the '92. I wrote a story some years ago about the new GT500 - a comparo between the GT500KR of old vs. the new guard with a healthy serving of content from Carrol Shelby about the difference between the two cars. He told me, "You'll feel the difference on the track." He was right. The KR made me feel like a hero. It was slower. It made lots of odd noises and wasn't as sure-footed, but damn it was fun. The new GT500 was fast - but a bit numb compared to the KR. I love the Coyote powered cars, but would love it even more if Ford sold a less-equipped version. Are Mustang GT's only for the well-healed now? Big money these days.

In reply to b13990:

Been there, I've also been a steady goer to dragstrips since before I could drive......at no time have I ever seen a completely stock fox body GT run any faster than high 13's......WITH SLICKS!

Your dragstrip might have had some funny business going on with the timing/scoring.....but if you happen to drag out your alleged time slips, I could tell you by trap speed, R/T, 60ft, and 1/8th mile ET if your timeslip was bullE36 M3.

I currently own an '09 Mustang V6 with the handling package, an '08 Mercury Grand Marquis V8 (essentially a Crown Vic) also with a handling package, and up until last Summer, an '86 V8 Mustang GT.

No comparison what-so-ever. The '09 Mustang wins hands down in every category. Day-to-day, around town, highway and interstate driving, comfort, fuel economy, handling, responsiveness, everything. The V8 Merc is a barge, the '85 GT is a joke.

Of course. I keep all my time slips right h...

990 kilos..... for you 'mericans thats 2178#s

I love what you do for me (1980s) Toyota....

I'm not buying it... I had a almost stock 87 GN that ran 12.6 and it weigh 3800. Non stock items where a aquarium valve,race gas and chip. I had a few fox based stangs..the automatic where slow...

In reply to bravenrace:

Well, now I know who I'm not going to ask for a ride when the zombies come back like this....

scottdownsouth wrote: I'm not buying it... I had a almost stock 87 GN that ran 12.6 and it weigh 3800. Non stock items where a aquarium valve,race gas and chip. I had a few fox based stangs..the automatic where slow...

those changes to a turbocharged vehicle of that vintage do not earn the title "almost stock"

It was good enough to put a $100 bill on the hood and play find the NOS bottle...

Id love to pick up a v6 mustang used in a few years. Hopefully there will be lots that Aren't beat on and are way cheaper than the gts. 300hp is way more than enough for me for a dd.

In reply to Joe Severns:

I'm pretty sure you can get into a new gt for sub-30k still......which if you go back and adjust for inflation isn't going to be very far off.

I moved to the US in 94 and thought that Mustangs (Fox and the just launched SN95) where to coolest thing since hot buttered E36 M3. There is no doubt they were and are awesome for what they WERE, note, past tense. But to try and compare them to an S197, let alone the new S550 is just stupid. Fox and SN95 were great performance bargains, but they had crap brakes (SN95 was better), the structural integrity of a Fox hatch was slightly worse than an overcooked spaghetti noodle and the stock handling was absolutely perfect right up until the point you got in the car and started the engine. Now these mythical stock 13 second time slips. They existed, but stock wasn’t really stock. I read all the comics in those days ‘Muscle Mustang & Fast ford’ 5.0 etc. Stock to them was normally at New Jersey which had the grippiest launch pad known to man. It involved bypassing the PS and AC and in some case not running the water pump. Iced plenum, disconnected stock front sta bar, a gazillion psi in the front tires etc. etc. The average real world figure for a 5.0 was mid 14’s to low 15’s.

One of the magazines built a stock car for some NHRA ‘stock’ class. The engine build made the average top line spec Miata build look like a hack job, and the number of things you could do to the chassis in a stock class was literally hilarious.

I’m on my second V6 Cyclone automatic Convertible S197 and love it. Really, I even like the engine note. No, it’s not a car I would take to the autocross or track day, but that’s not why we have it. It’s the family hauler daily driver and it does that incredibly well while getting good gas mileage (I’ve posted evidence of 30mpg here before). It’s a great car. The only reason we’re not replacing it with an S550 is with a 12 going on 13 year old daughter who is already 5’6” plus a car pool with two other 13/14 year olds we finally have to admit we need more interior room so it’s going to be replaced by the new Lincoln MkC cute ute. But it will be missed.