Ford Mustang 4L V6 Rental

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I am for one who certainly like the look of the Mustang.

Really really nice and certainy wouldn't mind having a convertible used for sunny weekends only. V8 of course! :cool:

Don't think my wife would mind either!
 
As I posted previously, I loved the manual V8 2006 model Mustang I hired a few months back.

If I had enough dosh to buy one (I think the V8s start at about £10-£12k secondhand) I would buy one. When we rented the Mustang, people gave the thumbs up when we passed, small children waved, people stopped to stare, and the noise - just addictive.

I would then fit an LPG kit to bing fuel costs down a bit, then I would have some fun. Servicing costs are very cheap, it's all very reliable, and it has SOUL which is not something I would say any current model Merc has.

Since my budget is nearer £4k, I decided to find another car which has always appealed - the W124 coupe E320 - which I think is one of the most elegant cars ever made.

Still - I'll get a Mustang one day.:)
 
At the end of the day, its different cars for different people and I'm glad we still have a choice. Personally, I admire a car more if it has character and some flaws rather than a car that does everything right but is dull. I can put up with flaws, but not with dullness.

As a side note, your write up is very good! Its rare to see people defending something on a car forum without flaming and insulting others when their beloved car is being criticised.
I think your being more than slightly unfair. American cars have a deserved reputation for their interiors, But show me a knowledgeable petrol head that doesn't know the acronym for the older type Lotus? Lots Of Trouble Usually Serious. Some British cars were certainly far from perfect regarding poor quality control, poor standards of reliability cheap plastics etc etc. I purchased a Mercedes because of all the things wrong with British cars, I'm sure that if there was an American vehicle that compared with the E-class then I would look at it and PLEASE do not even think 300C... STOP, do not even go there:devil: :)

I totally agree with the comments regarding the write up, it was very good.
 
I get this all the time: "My Impreza will kick it's ass around a track"... yawn.... I know it will. My stock reply is usually "I'll race you at Santa Pod over a quarter".. where I'd embarrass said track weapon convincingly. Is one better than the other?

Sorry Pook, you've written very eloquently and it has been a most interesting read so I feel a bit bad about just talking about this one little thing.. but would a stock V8 Mustang really beat a stock WRX (or whatever the best Impreza is) over a 1/4 mile?

I am not saying you are wrong just seems to be that Impreza's are just plain fast whether going round a bend or in a straight line..
 
Stock Subaru Impreza WRX STi 330S: 1505 kg kerbweight, 325 bhp, 470 Nm, 0-62 in 4.8s, £30,995 OTR (rrp)
 
Stock Ford Mustang GT (V8): 300 bhp, 433 Nm, no weight or performance figures on the Ford website :confused:

So less power and less torque than a Scooby, no 4WD, and presumably a lot heavier.

I would personally want a V8 Mustang more than an Impreza, but I don't think you could justify it on performance (track or straight line).
 
Last edited:
If you are comparing AMG's then it should be a Shelby Mustang you are comparing them to! A Super Snake for example IIRC 750 bhp :) great fun cars, we had a V8 soft top last year as a hire car from Phoenix back to Vegas, huge compared to a UK car, a bit like a barge (but then I also described an E-class the same way!)

We had a V6 Fusion this time around, I thought the interior was much improved and as a smaller car I prefered it too, not up to Euro standards but not far off!

Kate
 
If you are comparing AMG's then it should be a Shelby Mustang you are comparing them to! A Super Snake for example IIRC 750 bhp :) great fun cars, we had a V8 soft top last year as a hire car from Phoenix back to Vegas, huge compared to a UK car, a bit like a barge (but then I also described an E-class the same way!)

We had a V6 Fusion this time around, I thought the interior was much improved and as a smaller car I prefered it too, not up to Euro standards but not far off!

Kate
Have you or anyone else tried these conversions?

Tney are imported into the UK and I don't think discrete is the first word that springs to mind although this might not be to everyone's taste:

grabber+orange.jpg

2007 inport with less than 2000 miles and just £24995

Or if we want subtle :) :)

1a.jpg

400+hp 2005 at £19995

I accept they are an acquired taste but if they were RHD then I would very seriously consider one as a play thing.

Regards
John the Roush fan
 
Ford sell the Shelby GT500KR ... supercharged & intercooled to give 540 bhp. It's 3 times the price of a standard V8 Mustang though ;)

shelby-gt500kr.jpg
 
Ford sell the Shelby GT500KR ... supercharged & intercooled to give 540 bhp. It's 3 times the price of a standard V8 Mustang though ;)

shelby-gt500kr.jpg
Shelby definitely has the heritage.

I watched a very interesting documentary regarding the Roush conversions and they were certainly interesting. The cars are everything you would expect a Mustang and I just love that V8 rumble.

John
 
quarter mile times are not all about power and weight, 4x4 turbo cars are very difficult to launch quickly without bogging down and IRS is bad for traction off the line, a live axled mustang with its rear geometry set up for launching (knowing the yanks im betting its dialed in for grip off the line and not cornering) could easily be faster than a scoobi, a wider torque spread (even if the numbers are smaller) means less gear changes and probably higher gearing which also cuts down on the changes, it all adds up.
 
quarter mile times are not all about power and weight, 4x4 turbo cars are very difficult to launch quickly without bogging down and IRS is bad for traction off the line, a live axled mustang with its rear geometry set up for launching (knowing the yanks im betting its dialed in for grip off the line and not cornering) could easily be faster than a scoobi, a wider torque spread (even if the numbers are smaller) means less gear changes and probably higher gearing which also cuts down on the changes, it all adds up.


Just typed Impreza vs Mustang into google and this youtube is pretty conclusive..

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HlqjChw9H3A

Having said that i know which one i would rather pull up in outside my local wine bar :D (do they still call them wine bars? :eek: )
 
quarter mile times are not all about power and weight, 4x4 turbo cars are very difficult to launch quickly without bogging down and IRS is bad for traction off the line, a live axled mustang with its rear geometry set up for launching (knowing the yanks im betting its dialed in for grip off the line and not cornering) could easily be faster than a scoobi, a wider torque spread (even if the numbers are smaller) means less gear changes and probably higher gearing which also cuts down on the changes, it all adds up.


I've seen enough 1/4 mile runs from Mustang GTs to know that if you know how to launch them they'll do high 12s as standard. They'll easily do a 13.4ish run if you're a novice apparently. Most STANDARD Imprezas i've seen around around low 13s.

If I was equally experienced with both cars, I'd rather take the Mustang down the strip if I had money riding on it anyway.

Sorry Pook, you've written very eloquently and it has been a most interesting read so I feel a bit bad about just talking about this one little thing.. but would a stock V8 Mustang really beat a stock WRX (or whatever the best Impreza is) over a 1/4 mile?

I am not saying you are wrong just seems to be that Impreza's are just plain fast whether going round a bend or in a straight line..

As above... seen it too many times to be wrong. There's always a chance one or the other person is lying about the spec of their vehicles, but I doubt it.

EVO magazine couldn't get better than 13.6 from the standard WRX STi Impreza, and that seems consistent with what I've seen as well. I've seen a few go into high 12s , but are they really standard??

Another thing is this... The new Mustang (S197) was made with a 3.55:1 final ratio from 2005 to 2006. From 2006 onwards, that became 3.31:1 as standard, and the 3.55 diff was an option. Unless you specified the shorter gears, the 2006> Mustang is slower than the 2005.

I've tried to find video from the Mustang Owners club forums but still not managed to locate them.. will post up when I've located them. We're talking very low 13s and a few high 12s from standard 2005 GTs. I know the cars in question were standard because I've judged them at the Mustang shows and know the owners personally.

Like I said. If I knew each car would be driven by someone who knew what they were doing... and both were standard, my £50 would be on the Mustang every time. While the power is similar for both cars, and the Subaru is lighter (although only just), 4wd is useless for drag racing.. they just don't launch well. The Mustang's softer set up, and heavy rear axle just makes it ideal. 4k revs, let the clutch go and bury the throttle and on a dry, hot track it just digs in hard.

No idea what's going on in that video above, as that's the Shelby GT with 20BHP more.... 13.7 is a hopeless time. Ford's unofficial "official" figures for the GT at launch date was 13.4, and I've seen that bettered with some regularity. Of course, if I was interested in anything other than going quickly in a straight line I'd take the Subaru over the Mustang every time without fail. I like the impreza: Sounds great, very fast etc. Just a pity about the chav image :(


Oh.. in answer to BTB500's query, the GT weighs 3450 lbs... or 1565 Kg (official figure listed in my Owner's Manual for unladen weight with 1/2 tank of fuel)... which surprised even me. Looks like the Mustang isn't the lard **** everyone thinks it is after all :) Annoyingly, Ford never published "official" performance figures for some reason, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_Ford_Mustang gives everything you need to know. It's listed there at 13.5 sec for the GT.

Interesting thread here on a WRX forum.

http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/motorsports-talk/134296850-stage-2-wrx-average-1-4-mile-times-2.html

13.7 seems to be the average.
 
Last edited:
You just had to join to set the record straight Dave:D

Me thinks this might run and run.
 
An American test that is comparing an American Icon to a foreign import!!! I reckon they would have used at least equally experienced drivers and perhaps favoured the Ford. I did notice they mentioned the Ford won two out of the forty six tests?? Can anyone recall what they were?

I would never buy a top of the range high performance Subaru , I don't like the new looks and think they are far to complex for every day use. I dread to think of the servicing costs.,

What REALLY surprised me was the fact that the Ford bonnet air scoop was decorative????? The car has a huge great bonnet which slightly obscures forward vision and then they stick on a pretty piece of plastic that is just decorative??

The Roush documentary tried to show that they improved the road holding of this vehicle but my gut tells me that if the Shelby is still a lump then what chance the Roush?

Why do American car manufacturers still build cars that are from a different century?

If I had to have that Subaru or that Mustang then the Ford would win every time but would I like that Ford as an every day car?

My cousin who lives in Florida replaces her Mustang every twelve months and yup.............. it's the V6 :) I would also never dream of criticising her choice of car:devil:

John
 
I use all sorts of odd cars as everyday vehicles, i dont ever have a weekend "toy" and once you decide to opt out of having to have a modern car it dont take long before you discover its really not a problem, i'd have a stone age mustnag over a scoobi anyday after driving both, but i'll still be wishing ford had squeezed more power out of that big old engine.
 
You just had to join to set the record straight Dave:D

Me thinks this might run and run.


I did say at the start that these conversations are pointless :)

When all said and done, we're talking maybe half a second anyway. I don't think anyone in their right minds doubts the Subaru is a more capable car, more of the time. That wasn't my point.. Just that a slightly heavier car, with slightly less power can actually accelerate faster. Just a look at the torque curves explains why.

Subaru (courtesy of some random bloke off the web)

VF28vMD321H.jpg


Mine
dyno1small.jpg


Torque is the top curve on mine (stupidly Dyno Dynamics equipment prints the curves the same colour)

The Subaru will obviously have a very close ratio box to allow the driver to stay in a more useful power band because most of the torque comes higher up when on boost. Mine's pretty much delivering over 300 lb/ft all the time. Factor in the fact that it's very hard to launch a 4wd car as fast as a rwd one, and it's not surprising really.

What REALLY surprised me was the fact that the Ford bonnet air scoop was decorative????? The car has a huge great bonnet which slightly obscures forward vision and then they stick on a pretty piece of plastic that is just decorative??

The Roush documentary tried to show that they improved the road holding of this vehicle but my gut tells me that if the Shelby is still a lump then what chance the Roush?

Why do American car manufacturers still build cars that are from a different century?

If I had to have that Subaru or that Mustang then the Ford would win every time but would I like that Ford as an every day car?

My cousin who lives in Florida replaces her Mustang every twelve months and yup.............. it's the V6 :) I would also never dream of criticising her choice of car:devil:

John

The bonnet doesn't obscure forward vision.. but only because you sit so low in it :)

Yeah.. fake scoops are silly. But then again how many other cars stick on cosmetic spoilers and wings, and all manner of things that aren't needed.... Mercedes included. The Shelby GT is a marketing ploy really... just cashing in on the 60s Rent-A-Racers, and other than being collectable in the future by people who pay a fortune for anything with "Shelby" written on it, no one cares about it.

What chance the Roush? What makes you say that? The Shelby in the above video test is the GT version... not a real Shelby at all. It's a stock GT with a cold air intake.. that's it. The GT500 Shelby may well have 500BHP but it has issues. First, the boat anchor under the bonnet. It uses a completely different engine: a cast iron 5.4L unit usually found in the Lightning pick-up. It's HEAVY! It has very limited brake and suspension upgrades also. The Stage 3 Roush, while having 80bhp less uses the original 4.6L all alloy unit from the GT as a base, and so is a LOT lighter. It has completely revised suspension: Lower, stiffer, uprated panhard rod, bigger anti-roll bars, and lower control arms with a watts linkage.

The Shelby, with all that weight up front is a poor car. The Roush is almost as quick in a straight line, but more importantly for people on here, much faster around a track. In fact, it was almost the same time around the top gear track as a BMW M3 CSL. The Roush is MUCH faster than the Shelby around a track. The Shelby is still more useful on the drag strip though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/powerlaps.shtml

Non of these cars are from a different Century... their from a different country, and their designed to do a different job, for different people, who want different things from their cars.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom