Ford Mustang Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,069 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Its always fun to race the 05 V6 stangs! the reason is there`s some 05ers that must think that ,I have a new Mustang ,and it will beat '"the old Mustang" !
I dont know, maybe the salesman told them it can beat an older GT!
Today will be the fourth `05 V6 Stang ,that I have raced! 4-0

The light turns green and he takes off , im behind this 05 , as sone as I had room to get in the right lane , I pulled along and past this screaming V6 !
And guess what ,no thumbs up ,or anything :shrug thats why I posted this!

Im not picking on the V6ers , if you lose dont stick your nose in the air! save that for the guys in the 350Z and G35!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,724 Posts
No there are alot of V6's cuz some people value gas mileage especially now with gas prices, have no patience to wait for a GT, or just like the V6s better.

I think there is big emphasis on NO patience. I read countless of threads on this forum where people actually "settled" for a V6 because they couldn't wait a couple months.

But they are nice cars with impressive performance for a V6. I heard they can beat some of the older GTs(like 80s older). some old 5.0s had 230 HP i tihnk and so do these v6s...impressive.

Or maybe they weren't mustang lovers before or even sports car lovers, and wanted to impress their friends or just jump on the bandwagon mustang craze....EITHER WAY welcome aboard. :bouncer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
From a V6 driver/fan

I bought my 05 V6 because i liked how they look a lt better then the V8's. I personally do not like the look of the Grille Running lights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
From a V6 driver/fan

I bought my 05 V6 because i liked how they look a lot better then the V8's. I personally do not like the look of the Grille Running lights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,432 Posts
ran260gt said:
Its always fun to race the 05 V6 stangs! the reason is there`s some 05ers that must think that ,I have a new Mustang ,and it will beat '"the old Mustang" !
I dont know, maybe the salesman told them it can beat an older GT!
Today will be the fourth `05 V6 Stang ,that I have raced! 4-0

The light turns green and he takes off , im behind this 05 , as sone as I had room to get in the right lane , I pulled along and past this screaming V6 !
And guess what ,no thumbs up ,or anything :shrug thats why I posted this!

Im not picking on the V6ers , if you lose dont stick your nose in the air! save that for the guys in the 350Z and G35!
The 6 can run with any pre-99 car, and I'm 3-0 running against them.

The 99+ cars will take a six without significant modification. 60-90 hp is a bigger margin than weight can offset. and the new six is 2-300lbs heavier than the old SN95 car, with only 12 more hp.

I'd have a better chance in my car than the 05, but the 05 has more favorable gearing . ..

If I could figure out some way of getting that 5-speed in my car . . . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
kscoyote said:
The 6 can run with any pre-99 car, and I'm 3-0 running against them.
Track verified times? I know 94-95 GT's were relatively slow but the 99+ V-6's aren't that great. I could only see a manual V-6 keeping up with a convertible auto with 2.73's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,432 Posts
95MGTS said:
Track verified times? I know 94-95 GT's were relatively slow but the 99+ V-6's aren't that great. I could only see a manual V-6 keeping up with a convertible auto with 2.73's.
Still don't understand power to weight, eh? The gearing favors the GT on the low end (not surprising) but the 3.8L's economy gearing comes into its own towards the end of the run.

Car-Stats.com Report for 1997 Ford Mustang GT
Obtained from C&D August, 1997
0-60:
6.6
Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile:
15.1

1/4 Speed:
92

Car-Stats.com Report for 1995 Ford Mustang GT
Obtained from C&D February, 1997
0-60:
6.5
Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile:
15.2

1/4 Speed:
93

Car-Stats.com Report for 2000 Ford Mustang
Obtained from Web April, 1999
0-60:
7
Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile:
15.5

1/4 Speed:
84
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
I dono, a guy in a 02-04? v6 tied to go with me today... pretty stupid... wasn't even a race. I like the 3.8, I really do, almost bought one, but I dont understand why some people with an auto v6 think they are super speed racers... I guess those like that will learn in time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
kscoyote said:
Still don't understand power to weight, eh? The gearing favors the GT on the low end (not surprising) but the 3.8L's economy gearing comes into its own towards the end of the run.

Car-Stats.com Report for 1997 Ford Mustang GT
Obtained from C&D August, 1997
0-60:
6.6
Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile:
15.1

1/4 Speed:
92

Car-Stats.com Report for 1995 Ford Mustang GT
Obtained from C&D February, 1997
0-60:
6.5
Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile:
15.2

1/4 Speed:
93

Car-Stats.com Report for 2000 Ford Mustang
Obtained from Web April, 1999
0-60:
7
Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile:
15.5

1/4 Speed:
84
I'm not talking magazine racing, I'm talking your times at the track vs a 94-98 GT at the track. I could pull up times as well, from MM&FF that are much quicker than the times you listed. Regardless, the mph listed above demonstrate the potential of the GT's vs the v-6. I understand power to weight, that's why an auto 2.73 geared convertible would be the only way for a v-6 to keep up. Track times are what counts, so where's yours for that 3-0 score??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,912 Posts
ran260gt said:
Its always fun to race the 05 V6 stangs! the reason is there`s some 05ers that must think that ,I have a new Mustang ,and it will beat '"the old Mustang" !
I dont know, maybe the salesman told them it can beat an older GT!
Today will be the fourth `05 V6 Stang ,that I have raced! 4-0

The light turns green and he takes off , im behind this 05 , as sone as I had room to get in the right lane , I pulled along and past this screaming V6 !
And guess what ,no thumbs up ,or anything :shrug thats why I posted this!

Im not picking on the V6ers , if you lose dont stick your nose in the air! save that for the guys in the 350Z and G35!
Mine will beat yours.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,069 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
JEB said:
Mine will beat yours.
Yes that`s very true ! but you would have to drive it great, to do so!
Im 0-1 vs. 05 GT, it was a very close race ! only a hood at 100mph!
there have been 05 GT`s at the track that have not got out of the 14`s!
What are your track times:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,432 Posts
95MGTS said:
I'm not talking magazine racing, I'm talking your times at the track vs a 94-98 GT at the track. I could pull up times as well, from MM&FF that are much quicker than the times you listed. Regardless, the mph listed above demonstrate the potential of the GT's vs the v-6. I understand power to weight, that's why an auto 2.73 geared convertible would be the only way for a v-6 to keep up. Track times are what counts, so where's yours for that 3-0 score??
{sigh} Car and Driver has the same folks testing the same cars at the same tracks.

Posting times from different tracks at different elevations, with different conditions (humidity, condition of track) is pointless.

At least at the same track, most of the really significant variables are negligible, and are usually corrected using scientific methods.

Using MMFF magazine times are stupid, as is using Import Tuner times or Musclecar Illustrated, etc., as they're not about vehicle evaluation, they're about pushing product.

Evermore the troll, eh?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,432 Posts
Nicks79 said:
I dono, a guy in a 02-04? v6 tied to go with me today... pretty stupid... wasn't even a race. I like the 3.8, I really do, almost bought one, but I dont understand why some people with an auto v6 think they are super speed racers... I guess those like that will learn in time.
so yours is a manual?

Is it stock?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,912 Posts
haven't been to the track yet...

I'm guessing low 13's by the way I smoke people on the street...I've more than a few kills under my belt already, and every one of them deserved it.:naughty
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,069 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
kscoyote said:
{sigh} Car and Driver has the same folks testing the same cars at the same tracks.

Posting times from different tracks at different elevations, with different conditions (humidity, condition of track) is pointless.

At least at the same track, most of the really significant variables are negligible, and are usually corrected using scientific methods.

Using MMFF magazine times are stupid, as is using Import Tuner times or Musclecar Illustrated, etc., as they're not about vehicle evaluation, they're about pushing product.



MM&FF ,races there cars at the same track for there times ! thay are less about pushing product ,then Car and Driver.
They test ford cars to see what they can do from a drag racers point of view, like dropping tire presser, removing the spare, 1/4 tank of gas, stuff like that!
Thay have run other cars ,other then fords, in a past issue they ran an 02 SS Camaro , and guess what , it smoked the Bullitt Mustang ! all this from a ford magazine, thats not a good way to sell a product!:nogrinner
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,069 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
JEB said:
haven't been to the track yet...

I'm guessing low 13's by the way I smoke people on the street...I've more than a few kills under my belt already, and every one of them deserved it.:naughty
All the best in your low 13`s
dont forget to tell us your time`s when you go to the track!:bouncer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,432 Posts
ran260gt said:
MM&FF ,races there cars at the same track for there times ! thay are less about pushing product ,then Car and Driver.
They test ford cars to see what they can do from a drag racers point of view, like dropping tire presser, removing the spare, 1/4 tank of gas, stuff like that!
Thay have run other cars ,other then fords, in a past issue they ran an 02 SS Camaro , and guess what , it smoked the Bullitt Mustang ! all this from a ford magazine, thats not a good way to sell a product!:nogrinner
They also ice the intake, generally run AT LEAST a K&N filter, etc.

The Bullitt mustang didn't have a chance against an 02 SS, but you can bet they made it as close as possible

MGTS lives in San Diego, sea level and cool when the ocean breezes come in and especially in Winter.

Nebraska averages 2600 feet higher than San Diego, and is generally much more humid, whith much higher dew points.

In general, non-turbo cars will run 1.5-2 secs slower than in San Diego.

In Colorado, it goes 2-2.5 secs slower.

Time slips prove nothing, unless they race at the same track, and if you use forced induction, at sea level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
kscoyote said:
{sigh} Car and Driver has the same folks testing the same cars at the same tracks.

Posting times from different tracks at different elevations, with different conditions (humidity, condition of track) is pointless.

At least at the same track, most of the really significant variables are negligible, and are usually corrected using scientific methods.

Using MMFF magazine times are stupid, as is using Import Tuner times or Musclecar Illustrated, etc., as they're not about vehicle evaluation, they're about pushing product.

Evermore the troll, eh?
I'm sorry, what were your times again? Like I said, magazine racing is gay. Magazine times are normally posted by those who don't race their cars, have slow cars or don't know much about cars period. Any chance one, two or all describes you kscoyote? At least I'm a troll who has had/has v-8 cars and who doesn't magazine race. Where are those track times again to prove your point? Just to help you out, I ran a 99+ v-6 at the track in my 03 Cobra. I have no clue whether it was an auto or stick. This one is for you kscoyote:

03 Cobra: [email protected] (2.24)
99+ v-6: [email protected] (2.58)

Granted, probably a bad driver and Carlsbad was notoriously a bad/slow track on street tires but damn......that was slow. Must have been caught reading those magazines that you love to quote so much. Maybe that was you kscoyote :hihi:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,069 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
kscoyote said:
They also ice the intake, generally run AT LEAST a K&N filter, etc.

The Bullitt mustang didn't have a chance against an 02 SS, but you can bet they made it as close as possible

MGTS lives in San Diego, sea level and cool when the ocean breezes come in and especially in Winter.

Nebraska averages 2600 feet higher than San Diego, and is generally much more humid, whith much higher dew points.

In general, non-turbo cars will run 1.5-2 secs slower than in San Diego.

In Colorado, it goes 2-2.5 secs slower.

Time slips prove nothing, unless they race at the same track, and if you use forced induction, at sea level.
As close as possible! the best Mustang time was around 13.8 and the SS 12.9 STOCK!
THAT`S AS CLOSE AS THEY GOT!
And as I sead ,from a drag racers point of view, ice down the intake is part of that!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
ran260gt said:
As close as possible! the best Mustang time was around 13.8 and the SS 12.9 STOCK!
THAT`S AS CLOSE AS THEY GOT!
And as I sead ,from a drag racers point of view, ice down the intake is part of that!
You are arguing with an internet racer. They are the quickest, fastest and most knowledgeable about the subject. Hopefully soon, we'll have those quick V-6 times kscoyote ran in his ever so fast mighty v-6 mustang.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top