Ok, this boy that i work with has a 96 mustang with a V-6. For some reason he thinks that this car is the quickest thing there ever was. He started talking trask to me a while back about my car. So one day we raced and i absolutly ate his doors, It wasnt even funny. Anyway he says he has a 4.11 rear that he's putting in it now. Anyhow he say that his car stock has a 3.73 gear and i Dont know if i believe that or not. It could be true but the boy is know to lie alot. Does anyone know? He thinks he can beat me with his 4.11 gear, but im gonna show him otherwise.

 

For the stang info try this:
http://www.3.8mustang.com/forum/index.php?

My girlfriend has a 98 3.8 and I think even with 4.11s I would kill it. So I would not sweat it.

Laters,
Conrad

 

The race will not even be close. Hope he enjoys staring at your tailights the entire race.

 

At least for the V6 model anyway.

 

Yes a 1994-1998 V6 was a DOG. A newer one could be a mid to low 15 second car. You should still kill him.

 

i have driven a 95 v6 stang and i swear my auto neon could beat it(from a roll easily). Of course my neon could walk my Z in a roll......look at sig.

 

I highly doubt that his 6 banger stang came with 3.73s. 2 of my cousins have 95 GTs and they came stock with the 3.73s.

 

It is probable for a V6 to have 3.73s, NO 1995 GT came with 3.73s from the factory. Any GT with 3.73s from any year basically, is aftermarket.

 

Well see he tried to tell me that the GT's have a 3.73 also and that the V6 has the same. But i cant wait till he gets it done so i can beat him again.

 

Wasn't it a 3.8??? Hey 25th, what kind of numbers did those cars have (hp/tq)? Someone told me that the 4th gen v6's from that era were faster????

 

i think you should ask him how big of a lead he'll need to at least hang with ur rear bumper.lol....my money is all over you man
good luck

 

Thanks man, and speaking of money i might put a little wager on it and take his money, i could use a new head liner.

 

Those years had poor power, like 140 or so. From 1999-2003 they made much more power and were like a whole new car (similar to the difference b/w TBI and TPI in a 305). Those cars were junk, in my eyes.

 

If they only have 140 horses, a 3.4 would probably murder those cars.

 

Might be 160, I really have no idea... they sucked!

 

My sister has a '96 V6 Mustang 5spd with true dual exhaust (flowmaster) and a K&N filter and it moves pretty good for a 6cyl. It even sounds like a wimpy v8. But i still think u should rip him a new one.

 

that year V6 mustang ran the same times a 2.8 and 3.1 V6 Camaro/Firebird run even the new 3.8 mustangs only run 16.5s

tisk tisk you should know better than to race 6 bangers tell him to invest in two more cylinders rather than a rear end

 

Yeah i know what you mean, but this boy is ignorant, he thinks that his V6 mustang can run with a 4.6 GT if he hits the gears just right. I tried to tell him that it would never happen, but he seems to think that it will.

 

Let him think what he wants and just woop his a$$ and prove him wrong

 

Where do some people get their info...

Maybe a V6 auto vert will be mid 16s, but a 99+ GT stick is a mid to low 15 second car! I know a few people with them and we had one run with us the year before last. Car went 15.4 all the time, and even with a bad driver (I mean bad) clicked off low 16s and a few 15.9s!

 

That's why he said "that year", as in a '96 Mustang, not a '99+.
And he's right, the older 3.8L is as much of a waste of space as the 2.8/3.1.......

 

He also says this...

"even the new 3.8 mustangs only run 16.5s"

So, I did read EXACTLY what he wrote, he meant the 99+s, unless he didnt know what he meant!

 

ok at best my car should be around high 15's, or close to you


I have raced a 97v6 who though he was the shiz and talked so much trash about how his car does 0-60 in 5 seconds and such

saleen body kit, true dual exhuast, K&N just the basic simple bolt ons


we went from about a 5mph roll and I WASTED him from there to the point I hit 30mph




also drove a 96 mustang V6 around quite a bit
they are slow
fun to drive maybe but SLOW

 

i dont know why so many people are surprised when they beat a mustang. Mustangs are crap. Even the top model GT was SLOW compared to top model camaros. For example a 93 Mustang SVT Cobra R only has 235 hp and 280 ft lbs of torque. While a 93 Z28 Camaro has 275 hp and 325 ft lbs of torque. Generally Camaros have had more power than mustangs most of the time. As well a 96 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra has 300 hp and 300 ft lbs of torque. And a top model 96 SS has 305 hp and 325 ft lbs or torque. Generally the mustangs mostly considered faster were the 3rd gen stangs only b/c they were lighter.

 

93 stang curb weight ---> 3,010

93 maro curb weight ---> 3,373

mustangs have always been light cars, and while it sounds r!cer, hp to weight is what matters the most, assuming both cars have good drivers.

 

And for me thats all that matters... third gen years!!!