Welcome to the FirebirdV6.com/CamaroV6.com forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
is it true? consumers guide about 3.6 VS. Mustang GT
is it true? consumers guide about 3.6 VS. Mustang GT
Consumer Guide® Road-Test Evaluation
Adding the 3.8-liter V6 narrowed the performance gap between the two modes. The 200-horsepower engine matches the 4.6-liter V8 in Ford Mustangs when the gas pedal hits the floor. Poor wet-weather traction remains a problem. Traction control wasn't optional until 1995.
Juiced Rally Red 98 A4<br /><br />Way too much to list....<br /><br /> <a href=\"http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2263415\" target=\"_blank\">http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2263415</a>
Its not going to match it totally, but the automatic GT's aren't that fast. Ford transmissions suck. The GT would be easier to mod and get power from, but sometimes a solid 3.8L V6 can run with them and beat them from '94-98. Don't always put your cash on the Camaro tho.
haha whatever that is worth saving as a favorite to cause all kinds of hell on mustang boards.
good find!
-Eric<br /><a href=\"http://www.cardomain.com/id/mustangeater82\" target=\"_blank\">2000 NBM V6 Camaro 5-speed</a> T-top <i>converted</i><br /><b>14.467@95.45mph</b> <i>$0 in mods</i><br /><i>The member formerly known as MustangEater8251</i>
Thats comparing the OLD 4.6 from 1996-1998 [img]smile.gif[/img] Try and use it against any other 4.6 powered car (or any DOHC 4.6s) you'll get your *** handed to you [img]smile.gif[/img]
Mustangs.. Come to the darkside...<br /><br />The dark side is the path to the shadow of greed. =D
Originally posted by greatsave9: Its not going to match it totally, but the automatic GT's aren't that fast. Ford transmissions suck. The GT would be easier to mod and get power from, but sometimes a solid 3.8L V6 can run with them and beat them from '94-98. Don't always put your cash on the Camaro tho.
naah, ford automatics dont suck. Its just they are built for economy not performance. The stall on a stock Ford AOD is tiny and kills its performance from a holeshot. But Ford fixed all that in their 5spd automatic for the 2005s. Ford autos are pretty strong though, my C4 tranny is holding up real well :D
Mustangs.. Come to the darkside...<br /><br />The dark side is the path to the shadow of greed. =D
Originally posted by KBeezy: Thats comparing the OLD 4.6 from 1996-1998 [img]smile.gif[/img] Try and use it against any other 4.6 powered car (or any DOHC 4.6s) you'll get your *** handed to you [img]smile.gif[/img]
I'd agree if you said "OLD" mustang...
but the 3.8L was offered those years as well... so they were out at the same time, we aren't comparing a '02 to an '85 here.
aso for 99+ Gts... I got a vid I need to dig up...
-Eric<br /><a href=\"http://www.cardomain.com/id/mustangeater82\" target=\"_blank\">2000 NBM V6 Camaro 5-speed</a> T-top <i>converted</i><br /><b>14.467@95.45mph</b> <i>$0 in mods</i><br /><i>The member formerly known as MustangEater8251</i>
Nah, I'm talking up too 1998 (fbody vs mustang) but 1999 and later became harder for any of us to beat because of the upgraded heads and intake manifold from the factory. Mate those to a manual tranny or someone who is good at launching a stock AOD and we got trouble ;)
Mustangs.. Come to the darkside...<br /><br />The dark side is the path to the shadow of greed. =D
Originally posted by KBeezy: naah, ford automatics dont suck. Its just they are built for economy not performance. The stall on a stock Ford AOD is tiny and kills its performance from a holeshot.
I wouldn't say that either.
I'd say they were built for convenience and softness, not for economy. economy = gas mileage, and the AOD's suck that up too.
it was the heads the heads on the 96-98 Mustang GT's were simply horrible. They are the worst mustangs to buy. You are better off with a I like the 94-95 SN better.
Originally posted by KBeezy: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 3.4 slow to go: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KBeezy: Go fox ;)
why invest in a parts car? </font>[/QUOTE]Ever raced a good parts car? :D </font>[/QUOTE]Every day, when I'm going to work ;)
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment