2000 v6 auto vs. 1987 5.0 auto - Page 2

2000 silver auto v6 · 03-21-2001, 12:41 PM

mmike, with or without mods the 5.0 would beat the v6? ya right...when i get a few more bolt ons (pulleys, cai, 3.73s w/ t-lok, shiftkit) i will piss on this 87 gt...all day. let's cut through the bullshit for real.

82 GT · 03-21-2001, 08:31 PM

Hey 2000 silver auto, Do you want to try and piss on a 5.8 mustang?
Sorry, I have always said "A mustang isn't a mustang unless there is a V-8 in it!!
If I thought for one second I could go fast with a V-6 mustang then I would have one in my driveway by now. I am a happy owner of two mustangs. One with a 5.0 and the other with a worked 5.8
V-6 mustangs...how can I say it nicely......
THEY SUCK!!!
So yes, let's cut through the BS!!!

------------------
'82 GT 351W,BBK shorties,
Comp Cam,edelbrock intake
625 cfm carter carb. c-4 tranny w/ pro stick shifter. 4 core radiator
Mallory distributor. 3:27
.........................

82 GT · 03-21-2001, 08:33 PM

Hey 2000 silver auto, Do you want to try and piss on a 5.8 mustang?
Sorry, I have always said "A mustang isn't a mustang unless there is a V-8 in it!!
If I thought for one second I could go fast with a V-6 mustang then I would have one in my driveway by now. I am a happy owner of two mustangs. One with a 5.0 and the other with a worked 5.8
V-6 mustangs...how can I say it nicely......
THEY SUCK!!!
So yes, let's cut through the BS!!!

------------------
'82 GT 351W,BBK shorties,
Comp Cam,edelbrock intake
625 cfm carter carb. c-4 tranny w/ pro stick shifter. 4 core radiator
Mallory distributor. 3:27
.........................

03-21-2001, 10:12 PM

The new V6's are suprisingly powerful, i've driven a few and they're surprisingly torquey engines. I can easily believe that your car beat his, but if it were new car vs. new car he would've probably smoked you pretty good, IMHO. You never know how worn his cam is, how much carbon is built up in his heads, how coated with crap the oxygen sensor is, etc. Good kill! That's the first V6 to 5.0 kill that i've ever heard.

------------------
'84 Mustang 5.0 T5, FMS aluminum radiator & 180* thermostat, 1 5/8 shortys/2.5" duals, '88 GT tail lights and wheels, Holley 4160 4 BBL, smog pump idler, more coming soon

White5.0 · 03-21-2001, 10:29 PM

okay..., the civic si runs a 15.3 1/4, its comparable with the new v6 stangs, i have raced my friends si many time in my 91 gt aod and he cant even get close to keeping up with all the oil smoke coming out my exhaust, im not saying you didnt beat him, im sure it is very possible depening on drivers and condition of the older car, but i will race you title for title in my slow aod. v6 cars are to go to work and back in, not for fun, get real and buy a GT if you wanna have some fun, v6 and v8s are no comparison!

Fox Body · 03-21-2001, 10:54 PM

2000 Ford Mustang: 4-speed automatic
--Engine: 3.8 liter 12 valve
--Horsepower: 190 @ 5250
--Torque: 220 @ 2750
----Acceleration: 0-60 mph in 8.6 sec. 1/4-mile in 17.0 sec. (16.2 sec. w/ manual)

--------http://carpoint.msn.com/Vip/Heraud/Ford/Mustang/2000S.asp

That seems about right (even though I could accept an automatic running mid 16s).

Not saying you're lying 2000 silver, you may be sincere in what you THINK was a race against decent stock 5.0 Mustang.
I don't hate V6s and I don't look down (much) on V6s, but I am one of those skeptics. Yeah, it COULD'VE happened, but it didn't. At least not the way you're describing it. Like I said b4, either that 5.0 had some issues or you got yourself one heck of a monster V6 (Now don't get all huffy and puffy).

-------------------------------
'79 Mustang Coup
4" Cowl
Weld wheels (15x6;15x8)
Stock 5.8L
C4 w/ shift kit
1.5" MAC full length headers
Holley 750 CFM
Edelbrock intake
2.5" Off road H-pipe, 2-chamber Flowmasters
8.8" Rear end w/ 3.55 gears (Now that's more like it!!)

Front: 225/60/15 Rear: 255/60/15 Eagle GT II
14 x 4” K&N air filter (getting the Xtreme setup soon)

"Red, thou art my companion. Hasten now your quickened metamorphosis to Green that I may conquer all who dare abide there beside me. May they be left thither behind burnt black." ---Fox Body

Lizard King · 03-22-2001, 12:23 AM

The light finally shines... not many people know what this V6 actually does (stock) on the quarter.

Other Story; This eeediot bought a car same colour as mine... but V6!!!! I'm sooooo pissed cuz he parks at my spot at the coffee shop and is such a disgrass to any mustang owner out there.

Unit 5302 · 03-22-2001, 12:47 AM

As I recall, MM&FF got a 99 V-6 to run a 14.97, stock, with the spare removed, and some whoop *** driving. They said it was easier to the the V-6 into the 14's than the last 4.6L SOHC GT.

The little V-6's can appearently be quite quick, but add an auto to the mix and the 14.97 quickly turns into mid 15's. The catback may give a few hp, benefit (10hp), but that's it.

I'd be very suprised if the V-6 auto runs better than a 15.4 with those mods.

My uncle just G-teched his bone stock 89 GT convert with the AOD. With bad wheelspin, 0-60 7.1sec, 1/4mile 15.80@93mph. We all know the G-techs trap high, and the wheelspin hurt him, he got a 6.7 later, no 1/4 time, but their ET's are really quite accurate.

My uncles car has a little over 50k on it. Probably could use a tune, and he cut 4/10 in his next 0-60 which probably would have put him in the low 15's, but still, a 15.80 was the first run.

I'm really disappointed in the times it ran, but can't dispute them. A solid running V-6 would have taken it.

As far as all this ricer CAI (I hate that abbreviation looks like a wacked ricer ignition company) bullfluff talk, shove it, cause most 5.0's will hand you your *** even with all those mods. I'm sure my 87 would be showing you taillights with those mods and a 75 shot. All my 87 has is exhaust and cold air. Judging by the competition I've beaten with it, it's a real high 13 real low 14 car.

Did you win, maybe. Do you have some kind of bragging rights over 5.0's. Hell no.

Unit 5302 · 03-22-2001, 12:52 AM

Oh, and by the way the 1987-1988 5.0's were the quickest production 5.0's until the 1993 Cobra. The older SD cars run better than the MAF cars stock for stock.

FivepointOH · 03-22-2001, 01:36 AM

Ok so now the older 4.6's are slower than the new v6's too? Come on guys get real here. The 5.0 has a 35hp advantage over the v6 and there is NO WAY the catback gave him 10-12hp, a catback is hardly even worth any horsepower on a stock 5.0 or 4.6, MAYBE 5hp and that would be if you did the rest of the exhaust(headers and hpipe too). I agree with fox body, it COULD have happened but not like you are describing it. Oh and the 87-88gt's ARE even faster than the 89-93 in stock form because of the speed density, and as for pissing on a 5.0GT with the mods you listed... I would say it would take at least those mods to have you running even with one(an AOD) and I think a 5spd would still take you.

03-22-2001, 08:46 AM

I posted earlier saying it could have happened. I think it is VERY possible this could happen. Did you see what I posted about someone's car that I know, 89 LX hatch, stock motor, built AOD 2200 stall, with 3.55 gears only ran a 15.3 or 15.4? That is pretty sorry. So take away a couple of tenths for the gear and better shifting trans and you are almost at high 15's.

MM&FF got a V-6 stang to run 14's and that is pretty impressive. So high 15's for an automatic is not that far off. BUT, I agree his tone is a little aggressive and defensive.

03-22-2001, 09:00 AM

Sorry posted in the wrong topic.
------------------
88GT stock shortblock, GT-40 iron heads, Edlebrock Performer intake, 24# inj, Pro-M 75mm Bullet MAM, 3.73, hurst short throw, F-303, electric fan, alum rad, FMS HD clutch, R134a ac conversion, 70mm TB , and some other stuff I probably forgot, 13.02@106 with a 1.87 60ft

[This message has been edited by 88GT5.013.02 (edited 03-22-2001).]

03-22-2001, 11:47 AM

V6 guys, I'm not saying your story isnt true. But bring on the v6's i'll race you anytime. But seriously, a 5sp 5.0 will run mid 14's at 96-98mph what are your times.
True the autos arnt as fast, i just think the statement about v6 taking 5.0 is way off.
Not trying to piss anyone off, BTW good kill.

inferno · 03-22-2001, 12:06 PM

This thread is funny

------------------
90 Honda CRX aka Project Mongoose
84 Toyota Supra aka Natural Born Killa

inferno · 03-22-2001, 12:13 PM

Ahh...I remember when me and a few members of this board where "discussing" the newer V6 Mustangs and they were telling me how they would beat a stock Civic Si which runs high 15's. I guess they were wrong. Thanks guys for pointing that out.

------------------
90 Honda CRX aka Project Mongoose
84 Toyota Supra aka Natural Born Killa

2000 silver auto v6 · 03-22-2001, 01:10 PM

all right, i was a little agressive, but because you guys jumped all over my story. whoever posted that BULLSHIT post about 0-60 in 8.6, why dont you look on msn for the gt stats, it says it does 0-60 in 6.7!! THIS INFORMATION SAYS IT IS FOR 99 + MUSTANGS, BUT IN REALITY IS FOR 94-98!!! MUCH SLOWER!!! All realiable sources (i.e. Motortrend, post a 0-60 7.1 on the v6, which definitely COULD beat some of the 5.0s, this cant be disputed. the numbers are there. sure, certain cars are faster/slower, like this guy with the 91 gt, ya, that would win. but there is another guy that says even with the gears,etc. he was still running something compareable to the v6.

and by the way, all of my claims, if you notice, were not against all 5.0s, because obviously many/most would beat me. it was against the ONE 87 gt aod that i raced.

finally, everyone else except 82gt disregard this message:

v6 mustangs suck?? all right, then why did i beat that 5.0?? go back to your garage and continue jerking off to your piece of **** car...bye

2000 silver auto v6 · 03-22-2001, 01:23 PM

here is what msn says...it is obviously wrong, so disregard the douche bag that posted the original information about the v6. Here is the 4.6 info (i suspect they carried the information from pre 99 mustang to this, not knowing that specs changed)

Mustang : 4-speed automatic
Engine: 4.6 liter 16 valve
Horsepower: 260 @ 5250
Torque: 302 @ 4000

Acceleration: 0-60 mph in 7.2 sec. 1/4-mile in 15.0 sec.

Top Speed: 132 mph

Braking: 60-0 mph in 132 ft.

Road Holding: 0.85 g.

Mustang : 5-speed manual
Engine: 4.6 liter 16 valve
Horsepower: 260 @ 5250
Torque: 302 @ 4000

Acceleration: 0-60 mph in 6.4 sec. 1/4-mile in 14.6 sec.

Top Speed: 136 mph

Braking: 60-0 mph in 131 ft.

Road Holding: 0.85 g.

Mustang : 5-speed manual
Engine: 4.6 liter 32 valve
Horsepower: 320 @ 6000
Torque: 317 @ 4750

Acceleration: 0-60 mph in 5.6 sec. 1/4-mile in 13.8 sec.

Top Speed: 150 mph

Braking: 60-0 mph in 127 ft.

Road Holding: 0.90 g.

THIS INFORMATION IS ALL WRONG!!!

Unit 5302 · 03-22-2001, 02:12 PM

HAHAHAHA!

You've crashed your V-6 twice because it was TOO FAST??

Dude, you crashed your car cause you can't drive and you are stupid. Better go get something more your speed like a fox 4banger. Maybe you'll be able to contain the monumental 88hp in the early versions? (Better get some grippy tires for it though LOL)

A 7.1sec 0-60 won't beat any 5.0's that I know of. Even my uncles sad spinning 89 GT Convert with the AOD managed a 7.1 to 60 on his first try and a 6.7 after that. A 7.1? If the That's Lincoln Mark VIII territory, I've raced those and I leave them like yesterday's news.

An 89 GT Convert AOD is one of the least performance minded 5.0's you can get stock from the factory.

82 GT · 03-22-2001, 04:46 PM

2000 silver auto V-6, come now don't be crying on this board just because the rest of us see through your little fantasy you made up. Yes, the Ford V-6 IS JUNK!!
If you are going to buy a mustang, then buy a REAL mustang otherwise you may as well have bought a ricer!!
B0000 Hooo!! now go run to mommy and daddy and tell them that the big boys are picking on you!!

------------------
'82 GT 351W,BBK shorties,
Comp Cam,edelbrock intake
625 cfm carter carb. c-4 tranny w/ pro stick shifter. 4 core radiator
Mallory distributor. 3:27
.........................

V6 bandit · 03-22-2001, 06:06 PM

I think that this post has gotten way out of hand. I myself own a V6 mustang, a 01. They are faster than all you 5.0 owners would expect. If you dont believe it then we will have to all arrange a little get together and run them to find out...

If you dont except the challenge then stop posting your biased remarks, since youve obviously never driven a 99+ V6.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Which is your favorite general auto parts store?	Fox Body	Blue Oval Lounge	28	12-07-2017 11:18 AM
Auto Tranny in 2000 V6	Bake	Small Ponies	2	07-30-2002 01:53 PM
0 - 60 Times on auto 2000 GT	Toppchef	Modular Madness	2	07-19-2002 04:10 PM
I Lost my first race in my 2000 GT	Mercury	Stang Stories	10	05-27-2001 10:39 PM
Safety Recall for 1999 Cobra and 2000 Cobra R	JoeJ	Special Production	0	04-13-2001 08:18 PM

03-21-2001, 12:41 PM	#21
2000 silver auto v6 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: caldwell, nj Posts: 9	mmike, with or without mods the 5.0 would beat the v6? ya right...when i get a few more bolt ons (pulleys, cai, 3.73s w/ t-lok, shiftkit) i will piss on this 87 gt...all day. let's cut through the bullshit for real.

03-21-2001, 08:31 PM	#22
82 GT Import Slayer Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 2,241	Hey 2000 silver auto, Do you want to try and piss on a 5.8 mustang? Sorry, I have always said "A mustang isn't a mustang unless there is a V-8 in it!! If I thought for one second I could go fast with a V-6 mustang then I would have one in my driveway by now. I am a happy owner of two mustangs. One with a 5.0 and the other with a worked 5.8 V-6 mustangs...how can I say it nicely...... THEY SUCK!!! So yes, let's cut through the BS!!! ------------------ '82 GT 351W,BBK shorties, Comp Cam,edelbrock intake 625 cfm carter carb. c-4 tranny w/ pro stick shifter. 4 core radiator Mallory distributor. 3:27 .........................

03-21-2001, 08:33 PM	#23
82 GT Import Slayer Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 2,241	Hey 2000 silver auto, Do you want to try and piss on a 5.8 mustang? Sorry, I have always said "A mustang isn't a mustang unless there is a V-8 in it!! If I thought for one second I could go fast with a V-6 mustang then I would have one in my driveway by now. I am a happy owner of two mustangs. One with a 5.0 and the other with a worked 5.8 V-6 mustangs...how can I say it nicely...... THEY SUCK!!! So yes, let's cut through the BS!!! ------------------ '82 GT 351W,BBK shorties, Comp Cam,edelbrock intake 625 cfm carter carb. c-4 tranny w/ pro stick shifter. 4 core radiator Mallory distributor. 3:27 .........................

03-21-2001, 10:12 PM	#24
84stang83zephyr Guest Posts: n/a	The new V6's are suprisingly powerful, i've driven a few and they're surprisingly torquey engines. I can easily believe that your car beat his, but if it were new car vs. new car he would've probably smoked you pretty good, IMHO. You never know how worn his cam is, how much carbon is built up in his heads, how coated with crap the oxygen sensor is, etc. Good kill! That's the first V6 to 5.0 kill that i've ever heard. ------------------ '84 Mustang 5.0 T5, FMS aluminum radiator & 180* thermostat, 1 5/8 shortys/2.5" duals, '88 GT tail lights and wheels, Holley 4160 4 BBL, smog pump idler, more coming soon

03-21-2001, 10:29 PM	#25
White5.0 Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: VA Posts: 80	okay..., the civic si runs a 15.3 1/4, its comparable with the new v6 stangs, i have raced my friends si many time in my 91 gt aod and he cant even get close to keeping up with all the oil smoke coming out my exhaust, im not saying you didnt beat him, im sure it is very possible depening on drivers and condition of the older car, but i will race you title for title in my slow aod. v6 cars are to go to work and back in, not for fun, get real and buy a GT if you wanna have some fun, v6 and v8s are no comparison!

03-21-2001, 10:54 PM	#26
Fox Body Mustang Maniac Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: GA, U.S.A Posts: 2,266	2000 Ford Mustang: 4-speed automatic --Engine: 3.8 liter 12 valve --Horsepower: 190 @ 5250 --Torque: 220 @ 2750 ----Acceleration: 0-60 mph in 8.6 sec. 1/4-mile in 17.0 sec. (16.2 sec. w/ manual) --------http://carpoint.msn.com/Vip/Heraud/Ford/Mustang/2000S.asp That seems about right (even though I could accept an automatic running mid 16s). Not saying you're lying 2000 silver, you may be sincere in what you THINK was a race against decent stock 5.0 Mustang. I don't hate V6s and I don't look down (much) on V6s, but I am one of those skeptics. Yeah, it COULD'VE happened, but it didn't. At least not the way you're describing it. Like I said b4, either that 5.0 had some issues or you got yourself one heck of a monster V6 (Now don't get all huffy and puffy). ------------------------------- '79 Mustang Coup 4" Cowl Weld wheels (15x6;15x8) Stock 5.8L C4 w/ shift kit 1.5" MAC full length headers Holley 750 CFM Edelbrock intake 2.5" Off road H-pipe, 2-chamber Flowmasters 8.8" Rear end w/ 3.55 gears (Now that's more like it!!) Front: 225/60/15 Rear: 255/60/15 Eagle GT II 14 x 4” K&N air filter (getting the Xtreme setup soon) "Red, thou art my companion. Hasten now your quickened metamorphosis to Green that I may conquer all who dare abide there beside me. May they be left thither behind burnt black." ---Fox Body

03-22-2001, 12:23 AM	#27
Lizard King midnightruns.com Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Posts: 584	The light finally shines... not many people know what this V6 actually does (stock) on the quarter. Other Story; This eeediot bought a car same colour as mine... but V6!!!! I'm sooooo pissed cuz he parks at my spot at the coffee shop and is such a disgrass to any mustang owner out there.

03-22-2001, 12:47 AM	#28
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	As I recall, MM&FF got a 99 V-6 to run a 14.97, stock, with the spare removed, and some whoop * driving. They said it was easier to the the V-6 into the 14's than the last 4.6L SOHC GT. The little V-6's can appearently be quite quick, but add an auto to the mix and the 14.97 quickly turns into mid 15's. The catback may give a few hp, benefit (10hp), but that's it. I'd be very suprised if the V-6 auto runs better than a 15.4 with those mods. My uncle just G-teched his bone stock 89 GT convert with the AOD. With bad wheelspin, 0-60 7.1sec, 1/4mile 15.80@93mph. We all know the G-techs trap high, and the wheelspin hurt him, he got a 6.7 later, no 1/4 time, but their ET's are really quite accurate. My uncles car has a little over 50k on it. Probably could use a tune, and he cut 4/10 in his next 0-60 which probably would have put him in the low 15's, but still, a 15.80 was the first run. I'm really disappointed in the times it ran, but can't dispute them. A solid running V-6 would have taken it. As far as all this ricer CAI (I hate that abbreviation looks like a wacked ricer ignition company) bullfluff talk, shove it, cause most 5.0's will hand you your * even with all those mods. I'm sure my 87 would be showing you taillights with those mods and a 75 shot. All my 87 has is exhaust and cold air. Judging by the competition I've beaten with it, it's a real high 13 real low 14 car. Did you win, maybe. Do you have some kind of bragging rights over 5.0's. Hell no.

03-22-2001, 12:52 AM	#29
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	Oh, and by the way the 1987-1988 5.0's were the quickest production 5.0's until the 1993 Cobra. The older SD cars run better than the MAF cars stock for stock.

03-22-2001, 01:36 AM	#30
FivepointOH Registered Member Join Date: Jan 1999 Location: Sugar Land, Tx USA Posts: 478	Ok so now the older 4.6's are slower than the new v6's too? Come on guys get real here. The 5.0 has a 35hp advantage over the v6 and there is NO WAY the catback gave him 10-12hp, a catback is hardly even worth any horsepower on a stock 5.0 or 4.6, MAYBE 5hp and that would be if you did the rest of the exhaust(headers and hpipe too). I agree with fox body, it COULD have happened but not like you are describing it. Oh and the 87-88gt's ARE even faster than the 89-93 in stock form because of the speed density, and as for pissing on a 5.0GT with the mods you listed... I would say it would take at least those mods to have you running even with one(an AOD) and I think a 5spd would still take you.

03-22-2001, 08:46 AM	#31
88GT5.013.02 Guest Posts: n/a	I posted earlier saying it could have happened. I think it is VERY possible this could happen. Did you see what I posted about someone's car that I know, 89 LX hatch, stock motor, built AOD 2200 stall, with 3.55 gears only ran a 15.3 or 15.4? That is pretty sorry. So take away a couple of tenths for the gear and better shifting trans and you are almost at high 15's. MM&FF got a V-6 stang to run 14's and that is pretty impressive. So high 15's for an automatic is not that far off. BUT, I agree his tone is a little aggressive and defensive.

03-22-2001, 09:00 AM	#32
88GT5.013.02 Guest Posts: n/a	Sorry posted in the wrong topic. ------------------ 88GT stock shortblock, GT-40 iron heads, Edlebrock Performer intake, 24# inj, Pro-M 75mm Bullet MAM, 3.73, hurst short throw, F-303, electric fan, alum rad, FMS HD clutch, R134a ac conversion, 70mm TB , and some other stuff I probably forgot, 13.02@106 with a 1.87 60ft [This message has been edited by 88GT5.013.02 (edited 03-22-2001).]

03-22-2001, 11:47 AM	#33
mmike Guest Posts: n/a	V6 guys, I'm not saying your story isnt true. But bring on the v6's i'll race you anytime. But seriously, a 5sp 5.0 will run mid 14's at 96-98mph what are your times. True the autos arnt as fast, i just think the statement about v6 taking 5.0 is way off. Not trying to piss anyone off, BTW good kill.

03-22-2001, 12:06 PM	#34
inferno The Instigator Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: So Cal and Houston Posts: 764	This thread is funny ------------------ 90 Honda CRX aka Project Mongoose 84 Toyota Supra aka Natural Born Killa

03-22-2001, 12:13 PM	#35
inferno The Instigator Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: So Cal and Houston Posts: 764	Ahh...I remember when me and a few members of this board where "discussing" the newer V6 Mustangs and they were telling me how they would beat a stock Civic Si which runs high 15's. I guess they were wrong. Thanks guys for pointing that out. ------------------ 90 Honda CRX aka Project Mongoose 84 Toyota Supra aka Natural Born Killa

03-22-2001, 01:10 PM	#36
2000 silver auto v6 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: caldwell, nj Posts: 9	all right, i was a little agressive, but because you guys jumped all over my story. whoever posted that BULLSHIT post about 0-60 in 8.6, why dont you look on msn for the gt stats, it says it does 0-60 in 6.7!! THIS INFORMATION SAYS IT IS FOR 99 + MUSTANGS, BUT IN REALITY IS FOR 94-98!!! MUCH SLOWER!!! All realiable sources (i.e. Motortrend, post a 0-60 7.1 on the v6, which definitely COULD beat some of the 5.0s, this cant be disputed. the numbers are there. sure, certain cars are faster/slower, like this guy with the 91 gt, ya, that would win. but there is another guy that says even with the gears,etc. he was still running something compareable to the v6. and by the way, all of my claims, if you notice, were not against all 5.0s, because obviously many/most would beat me. it was against the ONE 87 gt aod that i raced. finally, everyone else except 82gt disregard this message: v6 mustangs suck?? all right, then why did i beat that 5.0?? go back to your garage and continue jerking off to your piece of **** car...bye

03-22-2001, 01:23 PM	#37
2000 silver auto v6 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: caldwell, nj Posts: 9	here is what msn says...it is obviously wrong, so disregard the douche bag that posted the original information about the v6. Here is the 4.6 info (i suspect they carried the information from pre 99 mustang to this, not knowing that specs changed) Mustang : 4-speed automatic Engine: 4.6 liter 16 valve Horsepower: 260 @ 5250 Torque: 302 @ 4000 Acceleration: 0-60 mph in 7.2 sec. 1/4-mile in 15.0 sec. Top Speed: 132 mph Braking: 60-0 mph in 132 ft. Road Holding: 0.85 g. Mustang : 5-speed manual Engine: 4.6 liter 16 valve Horsepower: 260 @ 5250 Torque: 302 @ 4000 Acceleration: 0-60 mph in 6.4 sec. 1/4-mile in 14.6 sec. Top Speed: 136 mph Braking: 60-0 mph in 131 ft. Road Holding: 0.85 g. Mustang : 5-speed manual Engine: 4.6 liter 32 valve Horsepower: 320 @ 6000 Torque: 317 @ 4750 Acceleration: 0-60 mph in 5.6 sec. 1/4-mile in 13.8 sec. Top Speed: 150 mph Braking: 60-0 mph in 127 ft. Road Holding: 0.90 g. THIS INFORMATION IS ALL WRONG!!!

03-22-2001, 02:12 PM	#38
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	HAHAHAHA! You've crashed your V-6 twice because it was TOO FAST?? Dude, you crashed your car cause you can't drive and you are stupid. Better go get something more your speed like a fox 4banger. Maybe you'll be able to contain the monumental 88hp in the early versions? (Better get some grippy tires for it though LOL) A 7.1sec 0-60 won't beat any 5.0's that I know of. Even my uncles sad spinning 89 GT Convert with the AOD managed a 7.1 to 60 on his first try and a 6.7 after that. A 7.1? If the That's Lincoln Mark VIII territory, I've raced those and I leave them like yesterday's news. An 89 GT Convert AOD is one of the least performance minded 5.0's you can get stock from the factory.

03-22-2001, 04:46 PM	#39
82 GT Import Slayer Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 2,241	2000 silver auto V-6, come now don't be crying on this board just because the rest of us see through your little fantasy you made up. Yes, the Ford V-6 IS JUNK!! If you are going to buy a mustang, then buy a REAL mustang otherwise you may as well have bought a ricer!! B0000 Hooo!! now go run to mommy and daddy and tell them that the big boys are picking on you!! ------------------ '82 GT 351W,BBK shorties, Comp Cam,edelbrock intake 625 cfm carter carb. c-4 tranny w/ pro stick shifter. 4 core radiator Mallory distributor. 3:27 .........................

03-22-2001, 06:06 PM	#40
V6 bandit Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Caldwell, NJ Posts: 3	I think that this post has gotten way out of hand. I myself own a V6 mustang, a 01. They are faster than all you 5.0 owners would expect. If you dont believe it then we will have to all arrange a little get together and run them to find out... If you dont except the challenge then stop posting your biased remarks, since youve obviously never driven a 99+ V6.