@op,
Do yourself a favor and buy a corvette.
If you can’t get laid with that, then you’re ghey.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is freaking Houston, Tx. I barely get to open it up at all ever just to see what it can do…but when I have, trust me, you definitely don’t feel like it is a “v6”.
Just being real. This is the first car that made me smile while driving it just because of the feel.[/quote]
I’ve driven the 2011 V6. It’s a wonderful car. I’m happy that I fit in it.[/quote]
About a month ago, I went and tested the camero, challenger and mustang. @ 6’3 I was pleasently surprised to be able to fit in all of them. Expectations were low as I’d wanted a 99-04 mustang a few years back but couldn’t fit.
And right into the shop for a new clutch lol.
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again.
There is a replacement for displacement. It’s called brains and technology.
400bhp from a 5.0 V8 is inefficient as hell.
2012 Nissan GTR makes any american muscle car look like an 8 yr old boy in a tutu. [/quote]
There IS no replacement for displacement.
Your turbocharged V6 is just getting the displacement from increasing air pressure.
Differnt way to the same end.
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again.
There is a replacement for displacement. It’s called brains and technology.
400bhp from a 5.0 V8 is inefficient as hell.
2012 Nissan GTR makes any american muscle car look like an 8 yr old boy in a tutu. [/quote]
There IS no replacement for displacement.
Your turbocharged V6 is just getting the displacement from increasing air pressure.
Differnt way to the same end.[/quote]
It’s funny because you just described how displacement is replaced.
Mitsubish Evo. 2.0 4 cylinder. Yes turbo charged, but also has never seen the tail lights of any muscle car.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gmantheman wrote:
With all things being equal, a 2011 Mustang V6 will not beat a 2005-2009 Mustang GT. Yes the 2011 V6 has 305 crank hp or 265-275 rwhp compared to the 2005-2009 mustang gt’s 300 hp or 260-270 rwhp, but the other factor is torque. The 2011 V6 has 280 lLB feet of tq but the 2005-2009 has 315.[/quote]
So the company is lying?..and the videos?[/quote]
I should have been more specific. On the 1/8 mile and 1/4 mile strip the 05-09 would have an win out most of the time. Now around a track, I would give the edge to the 2011 V6. I know it beat the 2010 GT at VIR but did the 2010 have the track pack like the 2011 did?
[quote]gmantheman wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gmantheman wrote:
With all things being equal, a 2011 Mustang V6 will not beat a 2005-2009 Mustang GT. Yes the 2011 V6 has 305 crank hp or 265-275 rwhp compared to the 2005-2009 mustang gt’s 300 hp or 260-270 rwhp, but the other factor is torque. The 2011 V6 has 280 lLB feet of tq but the 2005-2009 has 315.[/quote]
So the company is lying?..and the videos?[/quote]
I should have been more specific. On the 1/8 mile and 1/4 mile strip the 05-09 would have an win out most of the time. Now around a track, I would give the edge to the 2011 V6. I know it beat the 2010 GT at VIR but did the 2010 have the track pack like the 2011 did?
[/quote]
Does it matter about the 1/4 mile times lol really, and track times?
Most poeople in the states use their cars for going to the drive thru right?
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
[quote]gmantheman wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gmantheman wrote:
With all things being equal, a 2011 Mustang V6 will not beat a 2005-2009 Mustang GT. Yes the 2011 V6 has 305 crank hp or 265-275 rwhp compared to the 2005-2009 mustang gt’s 300 hp or 260-270 rwhp, but the other factor is torque. The 2011 V6 has 280 lLB feet of tq but the 2005-2009 has 315.[/quote]
So the company is lying?..and the videos?[/quote]
I should have been more specific. On the 1/8 mile and 1/4 mile strip the 05-09 would have an win out most of the time. Now around a track, I would give the edge to the 2011 V6. I know it beat the 2010 GT at VIR but did the 2010 have the track pack like the 2011 did?
[/quote]
Does it matter about the 1/4 mile times lol really, and track times?
Most poeople in the states use their cars for going to the drive thru right?
[/quote]
True but people going to the drag strip for street legal drags or test and tune is popular. I use to take my 06 Mustang to the drag strip at least once per. month, but I wrecked it at the track. It was one of those freak occurrences.
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
[quote]gmantheman wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gmantheman wrote:
With all things being equal, a 2011 Mustang V6 will not beat a 2005-2009 Mustang GT. Yes the 2011 V6 has 305 crank hp or 265-275 rwhp compared to the 2005-2009 mustang gt’s 300 hp or 260-270 rwhp, but the other factor is torque. The 2011 V6 has 280 lLB feet of tq but the 2005-2009 has 315.[/quote]
So the company is lying?..and the videos?[/quote]
I should have been more specific. On the 1/8 mile and 1/4 mile strip the 05-09 would have an win out most of the time. Now around a track, I would give the edge to the 2011 V6. I know it beat the 2010 GT at VIR but did the 2010 have the track pack like the 2011 did?
[/quote]
Does it matter about the 1/4 mile times lol really, and track times?
Most poeople in the states use their cars for going to the drive thru right?
[/quote]
Okay, Gotcha! Yes there are a lot of fat people here and the use their cars to retrieve food.
Thanks for the responses everyone.
I’m going to test drive a couple Mustangs next week - hoping I fit into them at 6’4"
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again.
There is a replacement for displacement. It’s called brains and technology.
400bhp from a 5.0 V8 is inefficient as hell.
2012 Nissan GTR makes any american muscle car look like an 8 yr old boy in a tutu. [/quote]
There IS no replacement for displacement.
Your turbocharged V6 is just getting the displacement from increasing air pressure.
Differnt way to the same end.[/quote]
It’s funny because you just described how displacement is replaced.
Mitsubish Evo. 2.0 4 cylinder. Yes turbo charged, but also has never seen the tail lights of any muscle car. [/quote]
I know station wagons that would toast you.
Old school station wagons with just those dinosaur V-8’s in them.
Running pump gas.
On street tires.
With documented track results.
None of this “I bolted on a turbo muffler and that added 50 hp, so I must be turning 12’s”
Go get some track results and come back with your 1/8 or 1/4 mile times and trap speeds.
Internal Combustion engines all have to apply the same physics.
There is no magic to your Evo engine.
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again.
There is a replacement for displacement. It’s called brains and technology.
400bhp from a 5.0 V8 is inefficient as hell.
2012 Nissan GTR makes any american muscle car look like an 8 yr old boy in a tutu. [/quote]
There IS no replacement for displacement.
Your turbocharged V6 is just getting the displacement from increasing air pressure.
Differnt way to the same end.[/quote]
It’s funny because you just described how displacement is replaced.
Mitsubish Evo. 2.0 4 cylinder. Yes turbo charged, but also has never seen the tail lights of any muscle car. [/quote]
There isn’t a replacement for displacement, because you can bolt a turbo on a V8 too. You can add forced induction and tuning and technology to ANY engine. You cannot just add displacement to any engine.
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again.
There is a replacement for displacement. It’s called brains and technology.
400bhp from a 5.0 V8 is inefficient as hell.
2012 Nissan GTR makes any american muscle car look like an 8 yr old boy in a tutu. [/quote]
There IS no replacement for displacement.
Your turbocharged V6 is just getting the displacement from increasing air pressure.
Differnt way to the same end.[/quote]
It’s funny because you just described how displacement is replaced.
Mitsubish Evo. 2.0 4 cylinder. Yes turbo charged, but also has never seen the tail lights of any muscle car. [/quote]
I know station wagons that would toast you.
Old school station wagons with just those dinosaur V-8’s in them.
Running pump gas.
On street tires.
With documented track results.
None of this “I bolted on a turbo muffler and that added 50 hp, so I must be turning 12’s”
Go get some track results and come back with your 1/8 or 1/4 mile times and trap speeds.
Internal Combustion engines all have to apply the same physics.
There is no magic to your Evo engine.
[/quote]
The Lancer Evolution FQ-360â??s performance underlines its reputation as the most affordable supercar on the road. This is a practical, five-seater saloon car that can sprint from 0-60mph in just 3.9 seconds
I know there’s no magic, there’s EVO.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again.
There is a replacement for displacement. It’s called brains and technology.
400bhp from a 5.0 V8 is inefficient as hell.
2012 Nissan GTR makes any american muscle car look like an 8 yr old boy in a tutu. [/quote]
There IS no replacement for displacement.
Your turbocharged V6 is just getting the displacement from increasing air pressure.
Differnt way to the same end.[/quote]
It’s funny because you just described how displacement is replaced.
Mitsubish Evo. 2.0 4 cylinder. Yes turbo charged, but also has never seen the tail lights of any muscle car. [/quote]
There isn’t a replacement for displacement, because you can bolt a turbo on a V8 too. You can add forced induction and tuning and technology to ANY engine. You cannot just add displacement to any engine.
[/quote]
I know how an engine works, but my point is that you don’t NEED a V8 5.0 litre to have performance and speed. A 2.0 can work and beat bigger cars. Its irrelevant weather forced induction is present or not.
Just look at pretty much any Japanese performance car.
Toyota Supra
Celica gt4 (2.0) which hits 60 in less than 5.5 seconds. Aftermarket turbo and it’l do it in 4.
Honda NSX
Integra Type
The list goes on and on.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again.
There is a replacement for displacement. It’s called brains and technology.
400bhp from a 5.0 V8 is inefficient as hell.
2012 Nissan GTR makes any american muscle car look like an 8 yr old boy in a tutu. [/quote]
There IS no replacement for displacement.
Your turbocharged V6 is just getting the displacement from increasing air pressure.
Differnt way to the same end.[/quote]
It’s funny because you just described how displacement is replaced.
Mitsubish Evo. 2.0 4 cylinder. Yes turbo charged, but also has never seen the tail lights of any muscle car. [/quote]
There isn’t a replacement for displacement, because you can bolt a turbo on a V8 too. You can add forced induction and tuning and technology to ANY engine. You cannot just add displacement to any engine.
[/quote]
I know how an engine works, but my point is that you don’t NEED a V8 5.0 litre to have performance and speed. A 2.0 can work and beat bigger cars. Its irrelevant weather forced induction is present or not.
Just look at pretty much any Japanese performance car.
Toyota Supra
Celica gt4 (2.0) which hits 60 in less than 5.5 seconds. Aftermarket turbo and it’l do it in 4.
Honda NSX
Integra Type
The list goes on and on.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again.
There is a replacement for displacement. It’s called brains and technology.
400bhp from a 5.0 V8 is inefficient as hell.
2012 Nissan GTR makes any american muscle car look like an 8 yr old boy in a tutu. [/quote]
There IS no replacement for displacement.
Your turbocharged V6 is just getting the displacement from increasing air pressure.
Differnt way to the same end.[/quote]
It’s funny because you just described how displacement is replaced.
Mitsubish Evo. 2.0 4 cylinder. Yes turbo charged, but also has never seen the tail lights of any muscle car. [/quote]
There isn’t a replacement for displacement, because you can bolt a turbo on a V8 too. You can add forced induction and tuning and technology to ANY engine. You cannot just add displacement to any engine.
[/quote]
I know how an engine works, but my point is that you don’t NEED a V8 5.0 litre to have performance and speed. A 2.0 can work and beat bigger cars. Its irrelevant weather forced induction is present or not.
Just look at pretty much any Japanese performance car.
Toyota Supra
Celica gt4 (2.0) which hits 60 in less than 5.5 seconds. Aftermarket turbo and it’l do it in 4.
Honda NSX
Integra Type
The list goes on and on.
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again.
There is a replacement for displacement. It’s called brains and technology.
400bhp from a 5.0 V8 is inefficient as hell.
2012 Nissan GTR makes any american muscle car look like an 8 yr old boy in a tutu. [/quote]
There IS no replacement for displacement.
Your turbocharged V6 is just getting the displacement from increasing air pressure.
Differnt way to the same end.[/quote]
It’s funny because you just described how displacement is replaced.
Mitsubish Evo. 2.0 4 cylinder. Yes turbo charged, but also has never seen the tail lights of any muscle car. [/quote]
There isn’t a replacement for displacement, because you can bolt a turbo on a V8 too. You can add forced induction and tuning and technology to ANY engine. You cannot just add displacement to any engine.
[/quote]
I know how an engine works, but my point is that you don’t NEED a V8 5.0 litre to have performance and speed. A 2.0 can work and beat bigger cars. Its irrelevant weather forced induction is present or not.
Just look at pretty much any Japanese performance car.
Toyota Supra
Celica gt4 (2.0) which hits 60 in less than 5.5 seconds. Aftermarket turbo and it’l do it in 4.
Honda NSX
Integra Type
The list goes on and on.
[/quote]
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
I’m in the market for a new car, and have been giving serious thought to a 2011 Mustang (leaning towards GT, but even the V6 looks pretty good at 305hp).
I drive a lot for work, and need a car that I can put some serious miles on. Previously I’ve owned Accords, Volvo S60’s, etc. These cars are about as exciting as steamed rice however, and I’m looking for something I can actually enjoy driving.
As a guy who knows dick-all about cars, how have Mustangs historically held up in regards to longevity? (assuming regular maintenance and care)
[/quote]
The V-6 is nice if your an 18 year old girl going off to her first year of college. If you can swing for the V-8 then get it. The 2011 GTs have a really sweet manual transmission, and the gearing in it is really forgiving. On level pavement you can start off in 2nd gear. 3rd gear runs great from 30-60mph. Great acceleration. Great handling. They fixed most of my complaints about the '05-'09 models. I was very impressed with the 2011 GTs I drove.
I have '06 Mustang GT that I drive daily when I’m home; she’s only got 37k miles on her. No major repairs or mechanical issues. I have some complaints about the materials used on the interior door panels, but that’s it. My bumper-to-bumper warranty is good til 2013, so I’m gonna drive her for another year then buy Boss 302 Mustang.
06’ ain’t nothin’ like '11.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
It shocked me too…but it had more room than the camarro. That was another reason I got it.
With the seat laid and pushed back, I lay out completely with legs stretched out in it. I couldn’t do that in a jeep. If I were taller than 5’11" I am sure I wouldn’t be able to though.
QWhat I do hate are the leather seat backs…because they curve in like race seats. This does NOT feel good for someone with a wide back.
I had to buy a cover for the seat that flattened the back out just so I can relax on it.
Without it, my lats won’t let me lay back.[/quote]
That’s why I was surprised you bought a Mustang. I figured you wouldn’t fit in the seats. Hell, I thought they were a bit too tight for comfort, and used a more normal seat in mine.