2011 305hp v6 mustang

sucks2beme

Wow. I just drove one last night. What an improvement over the old v6.
It was like driving the 2010 gt. If I decide to buy a new Mustang, I think
the v6 will be fine. It's new brake, handling, limited slip, and higher HP rating
make it a very good package.

mantis

Pretty cool to have that much power out of a v6. Chevy's new Camaro got that going on as well.

concealer404

Don't forget the 370z.

TouchOfEvil

2010 GT owners will have a tough time if they line up with the 2011 v6.
As long as the v6 owner can drive a stick of course.

ohskigod

concealer404 wrote: »

Don't forget the 370z.

some of us want to fit in a car where we don't have to oil ourselves and have a friend help out with a crowbar :-)

Jstas

There are already kits being offered for a remote battery mount to move the battery to the rear to improve weight distribution. But at something like 53/47 F/R weight distribution, it's not that bad to begin with. Move the heavy battery to rear of the car and you can push the distribution closer to 51/49 F/R. You can compensate for that small of a difference with chassis tuning. Add to the fact that it's under 3500 pounds as well, albeit still kinda porky, it's a lightweight compared to the rest of it's class.

I've also seen supercharger kits for the V6 as well to bump power another 70 horses or so on a modest 6 pounds of boost. I've also seen track times on a bone stock V6 with nothing but drag radials putting down mid 12 second runs at the drag strip.

Jstas

ohskigod wrote: »

some of us want to fit in a car where we don't have to oil ourselves and have a friend help out with a crowbar :-)

Dude, you're fighting a losing battle and you know it. The Mustang V6 could be made of super-lightweight, high strength gold, powered by unicorn tears, rolling on wheels magnetically attached to the Earth and blessed by God himself to be absolved from obeying all laws of physics and he'd still tell you it was a pile of junk.

Jstas

TouchOfEvil wrote: »

2010 GT owners will have a tough time if they line up with the 2011 v6.
As long as the v6 owner can drive a stick of course.

Ummm...the 2011 is a full second faster through a 1/4 mile, has 95 more horses and only weighs 40 pounds more than the 2010 model. I think the 2011 has the 2010 firmly outclassed. It'd be more than a "tough time". It'd be an outright embarrassment.

concealer404

Jstas wrote: »

Dude, you're fighting a losing battle and you know it. The Mustang V6 could be made of super-lightweight, high strength gold, powered by unicorn tears, rolling on wheels magnetically attached to the Earth and blessed by God himself to be absolved from obeying all laws of physics and he'd still tell you it was a pile of junk.

What exactly are you talking about? I don't recall saying that it was a pile of junk. I'm impressed by it.

I was merely adding another potent V6 car to the list, since both the Camaro and the Mustang were mentioned.

But, i guess it's cool if you want to put words in someone's mouth and run with it. Again.

concealer404

Jstas wrote: »

Ummm...the 2011 is a full second faster through a 1/4 mile, has 95 more horses and only weighs 40 pounds more than the 2010 model. I think the 2011 has the 2010 firmly outclassed. It'd be more than a "tough time". It'd be an outright embarrassment.

You didn't read that right.

2011 V6 vs. 2010 GT.

The 2011 V6 doesn't have 400hp.

concealer404

ohskigod wrote: »

some of us want to fit in a car where we don't have to oil ourselves and have a friend help out with a crowbar :-)

Touche.

coolsax

I've only seen the commercials for it... gotta love the 31 hwy mpgs for it too... too bad we're planning on a family in a few years.. the mustang will probably have to wait til I retire heh.

Ricardo

ping......


pong should be on its way.

Reference to three posts above. You guys are too fast.

AsSiMiLaTeD

Jstas wrote: »

Ummm...the 2011 is a full second faster through a 1/4 mile, has 95 more horses and only weighs 40 pounds more than the 2010 model. I think the 2011 has the 2010 firmly outclassed. It'd be more than a "tough time". It'd be an outright embarrassment.

So you're saying that the 2011 V6 has 95 more horses than the 2010 GT? Isn't the GT a V8, and if so that means that Ford made a V8 Mustang with a little over 200 HP?

Jstas

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

So you're saying that the 2011 V6 has 95 more horses than the 2010 GT? Isn't the GT a V8, and if so that means that Ford made a V8 Mustang with a little over 200 HP?

No, I missed that he was talking about the GT. I thought he was referring to the V6. I read it too fast.


But actually, Ford did make a Mustang GT with a little over 200 horsepower. In the 80's the Mustang GT started out with 165 horsepower, got bumped to 180, then again to 225 until about 1992 or so. In 1993, the Cobra had 235 horsepower and the GT was re-rated at 205 horsepower. 94-95 GT's were rated at 215 horsepower. So yeah, Ford did build a V8 GT with just over 200 horsepower and even less.

sucks2beme

The bottom line for me is for 2010 any of the sports cars
I drove needed a v8. The 2011 v6 Mustang is good with the v6.
The better breaking and limited slip Diff are icing on the cake.
I can save some real money and get a more baseline Mustang, and
still have a pretty good car. The big three have tied v8's to a whole
list of expensive packages with stripes and IPOD docks, etc.
I guess they forgot what made the 1960's go was when they offered
performance engines in cheaper cars without all the frills.
The last Mustang I owned was a 1971 Mach One. The only Mustang here
since was son #2's 1998 Mustang.

nguyendot

I read the reviews on it. The MPG rating is over optimistic. They said it got about 14mpg around town, which is worse than my car (09 CTS DI). I like that they finally stepped up the game to be on par with the GM 3.6 Direct inject in the camaro (also in my car), but like my car, it doesn't have any gusto until you hit 4000rpm.

There definitely is no replacement for the lack of torque that the V8 has. Don't get me wrong, it's 95hp more (42% or so) which is a definite upgrade. 13.9s through the 1/4 standing is pretty good. The only problem is that it's too easy to be caught outside the powerband and more torquey cars are going to easily get the jump on you.

I'd rather have the GT though, 400+hp on tap....and easily wipes the floor with the Challenger and SS.

virtualdean

coolsax wrote: »

I've only seen the commercials for it... gotta love the 31 hwy mpgs for it too... too bad we're planning on a family in a few years.. the mustang will probably have to wait til I retire heh.

What!? Don't do it! You sound like a sensible, frugal young man. You know what they call sensible frugal young men when they retire? Bitter. Wish they hadda, woulda couldas...With grown kids to support. Bank of Dad. You wont get a mustang when you're old.
get one now. Put it in your wifes name...Drive the snot out of it for a few years, then trade it in on a minivan spirit killer.
Years from now you can regale your kids with stories about how you had the baddest Mustang on the planet and could shut down any one else (insert oral sound effects here)...
They will say, "Daddy, WHY did you sell OUR Mustang?"

coolsax

yeah Mustangs always been my car, but I promised the wife the next car would be a sporty sedan or crossover. neither one of us are minivanners so at least we won't have one of those. I might follow her with a Mazda CX7 or 9.. we just got her a 7 last year and its got nice turbocharged 4 cyl.. 240hp, but it sure isn't a mustang... I've wanted one since i was 16, still want one sixteen years later and i'm sure i'll still want it 16 yrs down the road.. I'm a patient man.. I've only recently gotten into audio that's better than a HTIB, and it already gets enough eyerolls.. I'll hold off on the mustang for now and be happy with my monte carlo heh.

Mike Kozak

I still loved my 95 Corvette, 300 HP, 0-60 in 5.3 Seconds. 6 Speed, went 48mph in 1st gear!!!!! I had it up to 150 mph on I-40 one time.....what a ride!!

nguyendot

Mike Kozak wrote: »

I still loved my 95 Corvette, 300 HP, 0-60 in 5.3 Seconds. 6 Speed, went 48mph in 1st gear!!!!! I had it up to 150 mph on I-40 one time.....what a ride!!

Insurance on a stang is significantly lower!

I never did like the interior of the Corvette either. Even the $100k+ ZR1 has the cockpit of a $15k cobalt.

For shame.

Mike Kozak

My Insurance cost was approx 600 a year.

nguyendot

Mike Kozak wrote: »

My Insurance cost was approx 600 a year.

What was it, new?

Mike Kozak

Brand new in 1995, I am an excellent driver.

bsoko2

My mid life crazy was a '92 Typhoon. It was fun to suprise alot of Mustangs and Corvettes at the light.

Bill

nguyendot

No meant what was your rate when the car was brand new?

i'd be lucky to hit 600/year ever, also excellent driver. I pay $650/6mo full + gap + comp for 2 new cars right now.

edbert

Mike Kozak wrote: »

Brand new in 1995, I am an excellent driver.

Well thank you Rain Man! That explains your excellent rates! I would also venture to guess that rates were probably a little lower then and at the time(15 years ago) that might have been considered a higher rate.

nguyendot

bsoko2 wrote: »

My mid life crazy was a '92 Typhoon. It was fun to suprise alot of Mustangs and Corvettes at the light.

Bill

Those suckers are basically SUV Grand Nationals!
and AWD too?

fasssst.