[jaja6009]

Boardingbilly tell us how you really feel about the V6. Just kidding. I dont think a V6 is a bad choice. Just think it out. Most people buy a V6 and then make a thread "How to geat a GT". It is easier just to get the GT in the first place. I am in a similar boat. I should of gotten the GT500. You should buy the right car the first time. But if you really are not after low 1/4 mile times and just like the Stangs awesome looks then the V6 is for you. But if you are gonna be like most of us and want to make more and more power think about a GT. Also like the other poster said the 2011 is rumored to be a big boost in power from a 3.5 V6. Something to think about.
My first Stang was a 89 LX 4 cylinder. It let me fall in love with Stangs and my next car was a 94 GT.
And 2005 GTs can be found starting at $13K if you look hard enough. I can get 26mpg on the highway and I have a supercharger on her.

[joshw2890]

Originally Posted by BoardingBilly

How about you get a 5.0 with low miles for less then 5k and that will put the v6 to shame? I would way rather have a fast mustang 5.0 and 20k in my pocket then any POS 6 clynder.

As I stated before... The new v6 has the same power as the old 5.0

210 hp.

[Mustang Airman]

Yeah but just because they say the v6 has 210HP and the old "five-point-oh" has 210 does'nt mean that they run identical 1/4 mile speeds, 0-60 or anything.

I would put my money down on the V8 any day.

With that said, I am almost 27 and I have low insurance premiums and a good job. I can afford my 2010 GT no problem. BUT, when I was younger, 16-21 and had never drivin anything fast I loved V6 stangs. NO, it's not THAT cool of a car after having a GT. But when you don't even have a stang, it sure looks better than nothing at all. Plus my buddy's mom had a 99 V6 auto, and it would light'em up all day long!!! a V6 just BURNIN the tires off!!!!

If thats what you can afford and thats what you want, buy one. The 4.0L pulls pretty good IMO! I have had two 4.0L engines and the one I still have in our Explorer has 150K Miles on her and she burns almost NO oil and runs strong. Also for a SUV we get 19MPG. Not to bad.....

Just know, as this other guy in my work center found out that drove 2000 V6and tried to race my 99 GT vert..... it's gonna take a LOT to make that V6 run with a GT. ANY GT for that matter.

Good luck and Just my .02

Originally Posted by joshw2890

As I stated before... The new v6 has the same power as the old 5.0

210 hp.

[TxStang04]

My 2010 V6 premium / pony package mustang is my second V6 mustang , first is a 2004 V6 Premium package . There will always be V6 haters out there to bash your V6 but one thing for sure , most of us V6 guys spent the extra money on all available factory options and still got off alot cheaper than an entry level GT . you dont have to be the fastest , the most powerful , or even the loudest , take proud in your mustang .
Why bash other mustang owners for buying a car they love ??? sounds like an inferiority complex to me .

most people forget that in the 60's the first mustangs were over 75% straight 6's , it was originally built to be a stylish cruising car

1964 1/2 Ford Mustang – A Profile of the 1964 1/2 Mustang

looks like the V6 of today has the same power of the first V8's in the mustang

Buy that V6 !!! spend the extra money you save on the pony package !!

and in this article the 1982 Law enforsement special mustang only had 157 HP in a 5.0 !!!
Profile: Special Service Mustangs 1982-1993 - A Profile of Special Service Mustangs 1982-1993

[jaja6009]

Originally Posted by joshw2890

As I stated before... The new v6 has the same power as the old 5.0

210 hp.

Yeah but the 5.0 is legendary and started a Mustang aftermarket bonanza. It is a 1988 design (For the MAF Version that made 225hp) so saying a 2005 design has the same power is unfair. In 20 years the 4.0 will be long forgotten while the 5.0 will still be a favorite of 1/4 people wanting a great foundation for a race car.

And no Im not dissing the 4.0 I just dont like people talkin down the 5.0. It was a bad ass engine in the late 80s. Get a 4.0 into the 13s with basic bolt ons.

[BoardingBilly]

Originally Posted by joshw2890

As I stated before... The new v6 has the same power as the old 5.0

210 hp.

Actually the 5.0 put out 225hp. ALSO it had 300 ft-lbs. of torque!!!!!!!!! The current V6 only has 240 ft-lbs. Not to mention the 5.0 was 300lbs lighter.

SO... yes the new Mustang V6 puts out 210hp, just 15hp of the 5.0s. But when you factor in the tremendous torque difference as well as the added 300 lbs. you will see why the 5.0 was no slouch.

By the way, you don't have to keep telling me they have the same power...

[BRENSTANG03]

It needs way more power

[TxStang04]

Originally Posted by BoardingBilly

Actually the 5.0 put out 225hp. ALSO it had 300 ft-lbs. of torque!!!!!!!!! The current V6 only has 240 ft-lbs. Not to mention the 5.0 was 300lbs lighter.

SO... yes the new Mustang V6 puts out 210hp, just 15hp of the 5.0s. But when you factor in the tremendous torque difference as well as the added 300 lbs. you will see why the 5.0 was no slouch.

By the way, you don't have to keep telling me they have the same power...

300 pounds ??????? i've got 17 yrs experience as a mechanic and ford enthuisist and i assure you the 4.0 V6 is in no way 300pounds heavier than the 5.0 .

granted the smaller Fox body mustangs were alot lighter than the mustangs of today and those lighter cars needed alot less horsepower to launch and propel them down the 1/4 . the 5.0 was a great engine for its time , but put it into a car that weighs the exact same as the 2005 to 2010 mustang and it will just not perform the same as it did in a Fox body ....... Thats the reason the fox body cars kicked ass ...power to weight ratio was awesome !

[BoardingBilly]

Originally Posted by TxStang04

300 pounds ??????? i've got 17 yrs experience as a mechanic and ford enthuisist and i assure you the 4.0 V6 is in no way 300pounds heavier than the 5.0 .

granted the smaller Fox body mustangs were alot lighter than the mustangs of today and those lighter cars needed alot less horsepower to launch and propel them down the 1/4 . the 5.0 was a great engine for its time , but put it into a car that weighs the exact same as the 2005 to 2010 mustang and it will just not perform the same as it did in a Fox body ....... Thats the reason the fox body cars kicked ass ...power to weight ratio was awesome !

You're right, I apologize. The 2010 V6 Mustang is NOT 300lbs more then a Fox body 5.0 Mustang. It weighs 379lbs more then a HATCHBACK 5.0, not even the lighter weight notch back.

89 Mustang LX 5.0 vs Competition
2010 Ford Mustang V6 2dr Coupe Trim Comparisons

[TxStang04]

Originally Posted by BoardingBilly

Actually the 5.0 put out 225hp. ALSO it had 300 ft-lbs. of torque!!!!!!!!! The current V6 only has 240 ft-lbs. Not to mention the 5.0 was 300lbs lighter.

SO... yes the new Mustang V6 puts out 210hp, just 15hp of the 5.0s. But when you factor in the tremendous torque difference as well as the added 300 lbs. you will see why the 5.0 was no slouch.

By the way, you don't have to keep telling me they have the same power...

you didnt specify the car itself in your post ...you stated the engine size as a weight difference , not a model type of car

try to be more specific as to what you mean . and if you toss in a 375 pound red bull drinking big mac muncher in the Fox ...its prolly the same weight as the 2005-2010 .. that is if you can shoe horn him behind the wheel LOL

i just love how the people on here bash everyones cars ..and choice of cars ........ can you sense my sarcasm ?

[ti8589]

BoardingBilly, you speak of v6 not being in line with mustang heritage. I have owned several classics that were the heritage and they had a 200ci straight six. granted my 66 coupe now has a 302 but do not disrespect what you do not understand....surferboy.

[TxStang04]

and i hope you get a many of speeding tickets ..... may you insurance rise to a price you can no longer afford to drive anymore ...... ( statement to offend the simple and close minded removed )

have a great day on your way to school young man

[ti8589]

Originally Posted by BoardingBilly

O I understand. But do you really think the Mustang would be as popular as it is had it only been given V6's all these years? The car would be a joke! Yeah, the original 64 and a halfs through the early 70's would still have a look people might want but it would definitely not get gear heads which would want a performance vehicle. By the way, whens the last time you saw a 6 cyl. Mustang on Barrett Jackson?

Sorry, I didn't specify that I was talking about a CAR and not an engine. A lot of people including myself sometimes refer to a 5.0 as being an 80s- early 90s Mustang.

Also, last time I checked the topic read "What are your thoughts on the 2010 V6?", and my thoughts are: its a pile of crap and most magazines seem to agree. For instance I mentioned Car and Driver gave it a horrible review yet they praised the GT and said it was better then both the Camaro SS and Challenger RT.

Another thing, I don't think ANYONE should be buying a 2010 Mustang because once the 2011 comes out its going to get smoked. So thats my "thoughts", sorry if I offended anyone but I just wanted to give my honest opinion.

Lastly, if you do choose to get a V6 Mustang you'll get used to seeing my taillights.

You clarified your point and I appreciate that.

You pull your purchased gt up next to my 44 year old mustang that I have blood and sweat into at the track and I promise you will learn where those 3 bar tail lights you mention came from.

[GIPHT1]

billy you will get used to seeing porches and ferraris tail lights as well. one car is 8k more then the other give or take a few hundred so It would a god damn shame if It WASNT more powerfull! by your logic your GT pees on itself when a shelby rolls next to you!

[GIPHT1]

If you cant afford it get the v6! Im gradually trading up to the shelby in due time after graduation!!!