2002 Mustang 3.8l disappointment :(

193 horsepower... Doesn't sound too bad, eh? The 289 in my '67 full-size is rated at 200. That V6 makes as much horsepower as my V8. I can take V6 Mustangs with ease though. Why is that? HP is nearly identical and my car is heavier, but a V8 has torque. Torque is what moves cars. If you want a car that's fast off the line you need torque. You've only got 220 ft-lbs, whereas that 5.0 you drove has 310+ fl-lbs and is probably lighter too. I'm sure that V6 has a nice top speed with that much horsepower, and can probably rev higher than the 5.0.

The best and easiest way to make a small displacement engine move the car faster off the line is to get lower rear end gears. If you've got an overdrive transmission it shouldn't kill your highway driveability. So if you want a V6 Mustang look for one with a lower ratio rear end gear, or have one put on. Eitehr that or get the Grand Am GT and enjoy the performance, as it's probably either lighter, or makes better torque... Maybe both.

Cory

Hi Cory, I should have been a little more clear with my message. I understand that torque is the reason behind the pushed back in the seat feel as my other car is a Caprice and being the old fart that I am (43yo), I remember the stump pullers of the early 70's real well!!

From what I can tell, the Mustang has 190 hp at 5250 RPM and 220lb-ft torque at 2750 RPM.

The Grand Am GT has 175 hp at 4800 rpm and 205 lb-ft torque at 4000 rpm.

I suspect that the way I drove these cars along with the gearing differences is the reason I reached the conclusions that the Mustang feels a lot slower than it really is. Also the Mustang's automatic has this "wind up an go" kind of downshift when you try to accelerate quickly from say 40mph where as the Grand Am just drops into gear and goes.

Still I was disappointed in the Mustang, but the Grand Am is no winner either with it's 3.4l intake manifold gasket troubles.

W

Probably weight and gearing then. If it doesn't hit decent torque until that high in the RPM range it must have steep gears to make up for it.

Well, the Mustang probably is a good bit slower than the Grand Am if the difference is so noticeable. You can have a really strong engine but if the car as a whole isn't setup to go fast it'll feel slow.

I ahte the wind-up downshifts. If I stomp the gas it means I want to move _now_ not a second later. Heaven forbit you were about to be sideswiped by someone running a signal and needed to get out of the way a couple seconds ago.

Yeah, reliability is definitely important when selecting a car. I suggest steering clear of the newer Mustangs and Fords in general due to the whole plastic intake cracking issue. If you don't mind buying used you could get a good 5.0 Mustang for relatively cheap these days. It's a tried and true engine... It's very similar to the original 302, which is almost identical to the good old 289 (the forever engine), which is a bigger version of the old 260. It has a good history, you might say, and performance modifications are tried and true, as well as cheaper than for the new 4.6, especially if you get a carbureted version. Just a thought. :)

Cory

That 193 horse power is rated at the drive wheels. Your 289's rating was the old way of only rating the engine with out the losses at the drive wheels. Meaning you do not have 200 HP at your drive wheels.

Interesting. I had a Focus ZX3 5speed and I test drove a 03 Mustang GT 5 spd. feels no faster. Now I own the GT and after getting used to it, I can tell you it feels so much stronger.

My dad has a Lexus ES 300 and (3L V6 210 HP, auto) It feels so much stronger than my GT, but my ZX3 can almost run with it However, my ZX3 has been roasted by the V6 stang. It's a matter of perception. The stang has the long hood that makes the car feel longer and bigger (and it is) than my Focus making it seem slower.

0-60 times Focus ZX3: 9.5 sec SVT Focus: 7.2 sec 2003 Mustang 3.8L V6, 5spd: 7.5 sec 2003 Mustang 4.6L V8, 5spd: 5.9 sec

I don't have the figures for the auto trans, but the V6 stang auto should be able to do 0-60 in just under 8 sec. Not bad.

Cool. Then my car could take even steeper odds than I thought. I've probably only got 170 HP or so at the rear wheels as I've got an automatic. Torque is still probably greater on the V8 though.

????? That's the absolute worst engine they ever made. The last guy at Recon I talked to joked that that motor put his son through college. Also low on the totem pole is the 3.1 and 3.4 v6, which have problems with intake manifolds leaking water into the oil.

Yeah, the throttle valve on the tranny is a serious issue.

Really? I bought an 86 Beretta off of a fella with 180K miles. It was using oil, but not blowing blue smoke. Perhaps a quart every 1000 miles, but hey, it had a lot of mileage. The ignition went on it and I decided to sell it. The engine was still fine though.

My dad was a Buick man and he always had problems. He bought a Mercury Grand Marquee (sp?) run it up to 150K no problem, bought another and did the same. The 5L V8 in my Firebird Formula was blowing blue smoke at 35K miles due to the infamous worn valve guide problem. My Saturn had a good powertrain, but was often in the shop getting something fixed. It was these and a host of other problems with GM cars that steer me clear of them now.

My Isuzu I-mark was rated better than average in reliability by Consumer Reports, yet this Japanese car was the most costly to keep on the road. I just have better luck with Fords (outside of my '77 Granada).

John

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 02:25:35 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@net.net wrote: I wouldn't imagine any of the new mustangs with an auto trans would have much of a fun factor. You should really try one out with a 5 speed. My wife has one and it will pick up pretty good.