Should I go from a roll or dig or should I have him either way? I am not going to ask him again until I get the exhaust though which claims 8-15 hp gain which could just give me an edge lol.

 

You're right, the 3.8 motor sucks in the Mustang, but the new 4.0 is pretty stout for what it is.

First off, dont expect or say you gain any power from an exhaust. You might gain 5hp, or like 3whp if that, but without a tune it's useless, and even with a tune it doesnt help out that much. Go from a roll, he has more torque than you and would probably take you off the line. Either way it will be close.

 

From a roll I will go then!

 

They're both really cheap V6's that make ~200hp. Performance-wise, they're quite similar. I don't see how one "sucks" and the other is "pretty stout".

The 5-speed 4.0s are a few tenths faster than the 3.8's, on average, and while the autos are notably faster, a lot of the advantage can be attributed to the far superior 5-speed auto in the 4.0 compared to the 4-speed in the 3.8s.

Also, a stock-longblock 3.8 has gone 10's. I don't know of any stock longblock 4.0s that have gone faster.

I'm not saying the 3.8 is necessarily "better", I'm just saying they're pretty comparable.

 

has alot to do with what gears you run, 4.0 should have come in the mustang not the 3.8. the 3.8 is a worthless motor to mod

 

Yes, gears make a difference... what's your point?

I discussed stock vs. stock (the 3.8 and 4.0 have effectively the same gear ratio, stock), where the 4.0 is only a few tenths faster comparing 5-speed manuals.


Based on what?

 

lol based on the fact that the 3.8 Shouldve come with ARP headstuds from the factory
The 3.8 is decent motor when left alone. But there is more potential in the 4.0L. Also the 4.0L V6 cars are heavier and still faster than the 3.8s. My favorite is the fact that the fastest 3.8 is still slower than the fastest 2.3 4 cylinder mustang.

 

Came online with more replies hoping to say I would have him but all I see is 2 retards thread jacked me and are fighting over mustang engines.

Well let me sum this up. Ford sucks. **** mustangs. People buy mustangs to think they are going fast but arent buying more than a stupid ******* name of a car that gets beat easily by cars half the price.

 

lol thats amusing... and youve been given plenty of opinions only thing to do is go out and find out. Personally I think he is going to get you. So quit coming back and figuring how how many mods you need to beat a stupid ******* car that someone else thinks is fast and show us that you can easily beat it with your car that cost half the price.

By the way I've owned 6 mustangs. I will own a 7th (hoping to pick up a retired SCCA SVO mustang) and have had 2 camaros and 2 cobalts.... as well as a lot of other various cars (eclipses sho thunderbirds etc)

 

Clever... but the 3.8 hasn't had notable headgasket problems since '94-'95.


I don't think that claim is substantiated by facts.

The FASTEST 4.0 Mustang that I know of is Rygen's built-internals Turbo+Nitrous car that ran 10.9@122.

A stock LONGBLOCK 3.8 went 10.9@128... and there are a few 3.8-based engines faster than that, too.

Sure, the 3.8 has had more time in the Mustang, but the 4.0 has seen a relatively large interest from the aftermarket compared to the 3.8, too.


When comparing the 5-speed cars, the difference is pretty small. Evan Smith took a '99 3.8 to a 14.9, stock, which is as fast as any 4.0 I've heard of. On average, the 4.0s are a little faster, but not by a lot when it comes to comparable manual cars.


That's kind of a moot point since the same can be said for the 4.0 Mustang... and the 3.8 has run faster times than the 4.0.

Again, I'm not saying the 3.8 is better than the 4.0... I'm saying that neither is significantly superior to the other.



Just race him (at the track), already.

There's no point in belaboring the discussion with stupid speculation. A '99-'04 V6 auto Mustang is a low-16's car or so.

I'm sure you can figure out what kind of times an virtually stock auto 2.2 runs, too, considering we're on a Cobalt site.

Once you have that info, all that's left to do is listen to people talk about how "One time, I raced a V6 Mustang that wasn't even the same year you're talking about, and it probably was modded... or maybe not... and I think I won by a car length from a stoplight to 1/4-mile... or maybe 1/8th. Oh, and it was DEFINITELY an auto... I think... maybe." That kind of stuff is completely worthless.

If it makes you feel any better, I'll say "You'll get him by 72 car lengths"... but until you actually race him, any claims like that are ridiculous.


Please provide a list of cars that "easily beat Mustangs for half the price."

Good luck.

 

back when i had my base model balt i raced my friends 03 mustang v6, we were both autos and she absolutly killed me 15+ plus cars from a dig and 7-8 from a roll, idk maybe being a 5speed would change things but i know i got raped lol

 

IMO, Both cars are better used getting groceries or picking up the kids from school.

This race would be like watching two people in Electric Wheelchairs from a Dig... or Two Tree Sloths in a UFC Ring.

 

ohh please, just go race him.

 

But the 3.8 was first used in a mustang back in the early fox days then went away and came back in the mid 90s. So its had a lot more time for someone to make one run fast. Also the 3.8s came in lighter cars. The 3.8 itself has had many problems. Just take into account a lot of things. 4.0 only makes 12hp more but is in a car that weighs a good chunk more. Evan Smith is a pro driver and that 14.9 pass was stock but had weight stripped out of it. He also piloted a 4.0 convertible auto to a 15 flat. Yes I read Muscle Mustang as well. Thats 15 flat in a full weight convertible auto. Compared to 14.9 in a 5 spd manual that had weight taken out of it. 4.0s will run 14's stock obviously. That and honestly they sound better. But this is all off topic. I think he is going to get beat but only way to find out is for him to run him.

 

the 05-10 V6 Mustangs have 210 bhp & 240 lb-ft tq.

 

a 2000 mustang automatice transmission?!?!? lol. why even race?

I dunno how a cobalt ls auto does. but a 2000 mustang v6 auto is NOT a 15 second car. thats a joke. Theyre more like 16.4 seconds.

lol qft

my guess is the cobalt would win... it have a 155hp and probably as fast as my old tibby. defnately should win by a full second on the quarter mile

 

I already mentioned that, and considering that the latest version of the 3.8 (Split Port in 1999) came out around the same time as the latest version of the 4.0 (SOHC in the '98 Explorer), the 4.0 isn't as far behind as one might think. Plus, the aftermarket has jumped on the 4.0 a lot quicker than it did with the 3.8's in '94.


Yeah, they took out the spare tire. Let's not pretend like it had any kind of serious weight reduction.


I realize most people can't match Evan's times... my point is simply that the manual 4.0s haven't really posted better times than a well-driven 3.8 has. The autos have, for sure, because of the far superior trans. I agree that the 4.0 posts slightly better times, even with a little extra weight. Again, though, my point is that the 4.0 isn't lightyears ahead of the 3.8 like has been suggested.


I disagree... but yeah, that's beside the point... and yeah, this is all off-topic.

That being said, the original topic is dead because there's nothing else to say.

The ACTUAL information has already been posted. All that's left is statistically-insignificant heresay and speculation.


Exactly... they're both probably running somewhere in the 16's, so while I think the Mustang is the theoretically faster car, it would be silly for anyone to claim either will DEFINITELY win.

99-04 V6 Autos HAVE gone high 15's, but low-mid 16's is more realistic.

 

I have yet to see an auto v6 mustang that gave me the wow factor. they are example of a failure v6. its the auto transmission that fails the most on them the eat every bit of small power the car makes.

 

I agree in general that the auto is far inferior to the manual in almost every instance, but the stock longblock 3.8 that went 10.9@128 was using the factory auto (stalled, I'm sure), so if any auto V6 was impressive, I'd say it is that one.