Mustang V6 Review

[ANTAUS]

My link

[NickF1011]

OMG!! The V6 only does 0-60 in 5.6 seconds!! That's not sporty at all!! :rolleyes: That was freaking Corvette territory not very long ago. Of course it's not going to perform like the GT. That's why there's a GT.

[Deanh]

obviously in this reveiwers eyes ALL V6's suck....

[FoMoCobra]

Wow, really? I guess this article proves that you can complain about anything.

 

I think deadviper's comment sums up my opinion of the article quite nicely.

[Tboneguy]

Although the writer tried to explain his comments, and he did a pretty good job of praising what was good, but he didn't do much fact checking with regard to his specs/comparisons the likes of a G37 Coupe....

 

Edmunds own Test Drive of a 2009 G37 Coupe My link

Let's see, complaint that torque is only 280 and it's way up at 4250 RPM: G37 Torque = 270 @ 5200 .... so that's -10 at +950 RPM...

Stoplight drags will lose to the "significantly quicker" G37: G37 numbers 0-60 best 5.7, 1/4 Mile best 13.9, looks like a wash to me..

 

Other numbers for the G37 that LOSE to the V6 Mustang - Braking, skidpad, fuel economy (PREM required), etc...

 

Is he right that it doesn't pin you to the seat like the 5.0? Heck yeah! Does it hang with a car costing $14K more? Heck yeah!

[probeGT]

That article is quite possibly the worst thing I've ever read on the Internet.

[timmm55]

What an absolutely idiotic review! The only car it didn't beat was a 370Z, a 2 passenger sports car? And not by much.

 

I remember the day when reviews complained about American cars not reving high enough, they ran out of steam over 4000 RPMs.

Edited April 7, 2010 by timmm55

[Edstock]

The readers' comments were great to read. While the current model may be selling slowly, the V-6 2K11 should be a real winner.

[StevenCaylor]

The author bitches and moans about the torque coming in at a lofty 4250 rpms.

 

From one of my favorite comments

 

"Since when did 280 lb-ft of torque become a small amount? Since when did 4,250 rpm become really high? This made me curios as to how it compares to other current V6 cars so I looked some of them up..."

 

Mustang: 280 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm

Camaro: 273 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm

Genesis Coupe: 266 lb-ft @ 4700 rpm

Nissan 370Z: 270 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm

Infinity G37: 270 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm

Cadillac CTS: 273 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm

Edited April 7, 2010 by StevenCaylor

[probeGT]

Could this article actually be an April Fool's prank that they were too stupid to post on the right day?

[Big_Mack]

Honestly one of the worst car reviews I've ever read. He wasn't reviewing this car for the base model V6 Mustang that it is, which for 70% of the buyers will be a car to look good in and say "Hey I have a new Mustang". He reviewed it like it was part of some super car/muscle car shootout, for which we have a 412hp car to win those shootouts. Did he even mention the interior, styling, features, or anything pertinent to a real car review?

 

I think this is just another worthless car tester, that sees how good a car is for its purpose, yet he wants to write an edgy review to be different from everyone else. It's this kinda shit that makes me hate reading new car reviews from anyone but experienced car magazine writers, even if most of them are Euro car biased anyways.

[Sixt9coug]

Since when did the 80s 5.0s run 13s?

 

I bought a 94 GT recently and I can look forward to getting smoked by V6 Mustangs.

[7Mary3]

Forget the article, the bottom line is the Mustang finally has a competitive V-6 base engine.

[jpd80]

The author seems unable to get over the fact that the 305 hp V6

is not the same as the 305 hp V8s he remembers.

 

I hope no one payed for that article, it's just drivel....

[BlackHorse]

We all know that there are plenty of jerkweeds in the automotive media that just can't bring themselves to say anything nice about a domestic car. I would bet if this was a new Toyota Celica that hit 60 mph in 5.6 seconds that guy would be drooling all over his keyboard as he heaped copious amounts of praise upon it and talked about how it was so much better than a Mustang even if it does cost 6 grand more. lol

[jpd80]

Here's a better article:

 

Ford's V-6 Mustang ramps up power

 

Slicing up canyon roads around Malibu, I was impressed with how well the Mustang charged into corners and stuck to the road. I jammed on the accelerator coming out of a turn, trying to get that solid rear axle to skip.

 

The direct competitors -- the Chevrolet Camaro and Dodge Challenger -- have independent suspensions that feel smoother than Ford's chunk of iron connecting the two rear wheels. In the past, the axle wanted to hop if you goose the throttle in a turn and run over a seam, a rock or hit a slight wind gust. I have the coffee stains on multiple shirts to prove it.

 

But this time, I waited and as I hit the apex, I held my grip on the steering wheel and gunned it. Nothing. Just smooth, quick exits every time.

 

Third gear on this car totally rocks, as long as you keep your revs up.

 

 

European sophistication

Between the car's grip and precise steering, the Mustang felt more European thoroughbred than American pony. The steering, which is now electric power-assisted, has a firm feel that's taut all the way through a turn but remains easy to parallel park.

 

OK, I thought, this must be the new track pack on the V-6 Mustang. Basically, Ford stole the idea from the more powerful Mustang GT: The V-6 track pack bolsters the suspension with pieces from the GT and GT500, giving it a better axle for faster launches, strapping on 19-inch wheels with Pirelli performance tires, adding an engine strut tower brace to tighten up body rigidity and including performance brake pads.

 

The idea is perfect for a car with Ford's new 3.7-liter V-6 that pushes out an impressive 305 horsepower and 280 pound-feet of torque. It's the best thing to come out of Cleveland since Lorenzo Carter set up shop in 1797. This Mustang has got power, it's got a growl that makes the hair on your arms stand up, so why not give it a suspension that will get the ones on your neck to come to attention too?

 

But when I stepped out of it, I noticed my magnificently performing V-6 Mustang lacked the track-pack badging, and I had been riding around on 18-inch all-season radials. This was the regular Mustang.

 

Later, I discovered, the track-pack Mustang is even more surefooted at faster speeds without rattling your fillings loose.

 

Edited April 8, 2010 by jpd80

[atvman]

Quite possibly the worst review ever written. What was he expecting, it to feel like a V8?

Edited April 8, 2010 by atvman

[atvman]

Also, am I the only one who actually thinks the V6 model looks better than the GT? I like the V6's front clip better and the wheels on the performance package are really sharp.

[BlackHorse]

Quite possibly the worst review ever written. What was he expecting, it to feel like a V8?

 

I'm not sure what the guy was expecting atv and frankly I think his point of view was very narrow minded. Ultimately what it comes down to is "does the car satisfy the customer"? I understand it on one hand. As a civilization we are always striving to do a little better than before, go a little faster, make a better widget. Always we are competing to improve quality and ability regardless of the genre, be it cars or sports or video games. That's great and it serves the purpose of making our quality of life better for everyone. This new V6 Mustang is a clear improvement over the current model and I say that as an owner of the 2010 4.0 V6 Mustang and I really like my car. I enjoy it, it's enough for me and I'm satisfied with it. I suspect the 2011 will be the same way for those that buy it. Heck I may buy one in a few years who knows. But bitching about it's shortcomings or perceived shortcomings is achieving what? If I could actually interact with the writer I would just ask him two things.

 

1. Who else is selling a 300 hp 5.6 second sports car for under 25 grand brand new?

 

2. If it's that deep for you than why haven't you already shut up and just opted for the GT?

Edited April 8, 2010 by BlackHorse

[chiefstang]

I love how he says "you'll get smoked more often than not when at stoplights, and then lists 6-7 cars, and had to jump to a $40,000 2-seater to find a victor.

 

The Infinite is not faster @ $40,000 either...

 

...And the 80's Mustangs did NOT run 13's...

 

... The Mustang has more torque at a lower RPM than EVERY car he mentioned...

 

Is this article from Good Housekeeping? 'Cause this guy apparently has NO idea what he's talking about, and apparently hasn't heard of fact checking.

 

Hell man, Google some shit already!

 

Idiot.

[atvman]

The author must hate Ford, he probably sold stock when it was a buck.

[Hugh]

If you read the second opinion it makes sense for a change. In the end, most reviews agree the Mustang is the best daily driver in it's class and that's a good thing for Ford.

[buddysystem]

Also, am I the only one who actually thinks the V6 model looks better than the GT? I like the V6's front clip better and the wheels on the performance package are really sharp.

 

I agree with you here. I'm tired of the over sized driving lights on the GT. I prefer the pony package lights on the V6. The front end is cleaner. Sounds like an opportunity to debadge a GT. Swap out the 5.0 badges for the red white and blue emblems and change out the grills.

[Ralph Greene]

I agree with you here. I'm tired of the over sized driving lights on the GT. I prefer the pony package lights on the V6. The front end is cleaner. Sounds like an opportunity to debadge a GT. Swap out the 5.0 badges for the red white and blue emblems and change out the grills.

 

 

I thought the article was mostly accurate. He pointed out the V6 with 3.31's won't get the mileage of one with 2.73's, and that the 3.7 doesn't make low end TQ like the 5.0. He also pointed out the solid axle handles fine on smooth pavement, but "steps out" on rough pavement. All this is true. What's wrong with saying it?

 

Otherwise....he seemed to like the car.

 

If you look at the current HP ratings of the 3.7 in the lastest 370Z, and how it handles on both smmoth and rough pavement, it's not too hard to figure out where the V6 Mustang is headed. This is only the first year. This is going to evolve into an amazing street car. When it eventually Gets EB and a better rear suspension, there will be no need for a V8 for most folks, and no need for anyone to even consider vehicles like the 370Z. I personally don't have a problem with the current rear suspension in our 08 Mustang (It's reliable, simple, and you don't have to align it). It does "step out" on even minor bumps, but if I run with slightly lower than recommended air pressure in rear, that soaks most of that up. So it's no problem for me. But if you were coming from a car with a better rear suspension, it would annoy you. I imagine Ford will fix this in coming models.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Ralph Greene

[03 LS]

I thought the article was mostly accurate. He pointed out the V6 with 3.31's won't get the mileage of one with 2.73's, and that the 3.7 doesn't make low end TQ like the 5.0. He also pointed out the solid axle handles fine on smooth pavement, but "steps out" on rough pavement. All this is true. What's wrong with saying it?

 

If he had titled the article as "what is lacking with 2011 Mustang V6" I would have agreed with him (and you). But that article was "2011 Mustang V6 Full Test", which should be objective testing plus comparisons to intended competition, not to its own big brother at $8k+ more. The reason he CHOSE NOT TO do that was he couldn't have said anything negative against proper competition. Now you see what's wrong?