v6 vs v8

[bigbob]

hey i have a friend with a 2000 v6 {stick} mustang with dual flowmaster cat back exhaust and a new air filter. i have a stock 95 gt{convertible/auto} he thinks his is faster i think mine is faster. any thouhgts

[jdrumstik]

well, Its hard to say I beleive the stock V6 numbers are like 190, or low 200s, but then gt is like 230-250, Im not sure, its entirly possible, but either way your GT is going to make a hell of a lot more torque, and the fact that he has a sitck and probalby can't shift, I hand the towel to you.

[zx2srdotnet]

id say it can be a drivers race, the auto holds you back, if he can drive hes like a 15.7. you probably like a 15.5, being an atx and convert.
teh 94 gt is 215 hpi dont think the 95 got any hp boost

[RocketStang911]

I have seen stock 94-95 gt auto verts run as low as a 15.3 to as high as 15.8.It will be a good close race but I think you will edge him out.Race and let us know the results.

[GTStang]

You really should be able to get that V8 Vert into the mid-low 15's. So it should beat the V-6.

[duplox]

By the #s:
1995 Mustang GT Convertible curb weight: 3451lbs
Add in 180 for driver.. 3631lbs
2000 Mustang Coupe curb weight: 3064 w/ 180lb driver: 3244lbs
215 hp for the GT, 190 for the coupe
Granted the GT will lose some because of the auto, but I think the better launch and shifts will more than make up for it.
Running these #s thru a 1/4 mile calculator, I get:
GT: 14.944
V6: 14.999
Its gonna be close... Comes down to driver ability.

[RocketStang911]

Originally Posted by duplox

By the #s:
1995 Mustang GT Convertible curb weight: 3451lbs
Add in 180 for driver.. 3631lbs
2000 Mustang Coupe curb weight: 3064 w/ 180lb driver: 3244lbs
215 hp for the GT, 190 for the coupe
Granted the GT will lose some because of the auto, but I think the better launch and shifts will more than make up for it.
Running these #s thru a 1/4 mile calculator, I get:
GT: 14.944
V6: 14.999
Its gonna be close... Comes down to driver ability.

I don't think those times are accurate.I have never heard of a stock v-6 mustang running a 14.999 or even a 15.0 sec 1/4.It's more like high 15's and with a good driver mid 15's.

[duplox]

I'm sure the calculator I used was designed for a v8, (ie more torque), so it may be skewed a little. Is the 190hp reading at the wheels or fly?

[ShiftedReality]

Originally Posted by duplox

By the #s:
1995 Mustang GT Convertible curb weight: 3451lbs
Add in 180 for driver.. 3631lbs
2000 Mustang Coupe curb weight: 3064 w/ 180lb driver: 3244lbs
215 hp for the GT, 190 for the coupe
Granted the GT will lose some because of the auto, but I think the better launch and shifts will more than make up for it.
Running these #s thru a 1/4 mile calculator, I get:
GT: 14.944
V6: 14.999
Its gonna be close... Comes down to driver ability.

~i've got a 98GT with cai, catback, springs/tires. its AOD and 10 hp more stock and the best time i've run so far is a 14.932. i know i can at least get into the 14.8's but it'll take me some time as i'm still new to driving the quarter in it.

~not sure what the V6's run but i'd think you have him beat. even if its by tenths.

[RocketStang911]

Originally Posted by duplox

I'm sure the calculator I used was designed for a v8, (ie more torque), so it may be skewed a little. Is the 190hp reading at the wheels or fly?

190 hp is at the Fly not at the wheels for a 99+ v-6.

[duplox]

Well there you go!

[RocketStang911]

I guess Using calculators for a 1/4 estimate is not very accurate.

[duplox]

Given perfect data, driving, and traction, then yes they're 100% accurate. But since there is no way to get perfect data, theres no way the readings are going to be perfect. HP is a measure of how fast x weight can accellerate to y speed - therefore, if you give it weight and HP, it can calculate how fast you're going to get a certain distance. Unfortunately, your ET doesnt depend just on peak HP and curb weight, but an infinite number of variables that would take way too much time to both measure and input. But it should be close, and its definately useful for comparing different HP/weight cars. When its as close as this, I don't think you can tell. But it is a useful tool.
Also, I calculated that assuming 190 was RWHP. I said this in the original post because I was unsure - and I was wrong. Puttin in the new data, I assumed between 10%-15% drivetrain losses. 10% gives me a 15.54, 15% gives me a 15.85. Sound better? If I had to guess, I'd say 15.65 with good driving.

[04mustangGT]

NO CHANCE the v8 would blow the little v6 away. 190hp vs. 230 hp and im a big torque diff. The v6 MIGHT be runnin 200 hp at the flywheel. So theres not a chance in hell.

[Ricochet]

I've raced both in my type-r. Totally blew away the 2000 V6, and only put a few inches on the 95 GT. Your V8 will spank the V6.