2005 mustang convertible, v6 or v8 ?

Page 1 of 2  
Well, OK, I want a new Mustang convertible. Should I get the V6 or V8 ?
The V6 Premium convertible has a MSRP of $25,320 (before options) with a 5 speed manual. EPA milage is 19 / 28 mpg. ABS brakes are $775.
The GT premium convertible has a MSRP of $30,550 (before options) with a 5 speed manual. EPA milage is 17 / 25 mpg. ABS brakes are standard.
Which one ? Is the V8 worth $4,000 ? Can you even get a V8 without paying a serious premium ?
Thanks, Lynn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Get the V8! They don't call it a muscle car for no reason. If you really want an "authentic" muscle car, the car should have no less than 8 cylinders under the hood.
Plus a V8 sounds a whole lot different than a V6. The sound of the V8's low grunty exhaust can never be duplicated by a smaller engine.
I don't know why anyone would buy a Stang as a V6 automatic! Also, there used to be an L4 option in the past, what an abomination!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

Didn't the first 64.5 Mustang only come with an inline 6? (I honestly don't remember, but I think so). The V-8s were the ultimate, but Ford sold a ton of 6cyl 'Stangs over the years. I believe the 6'es were in the majority for a few model years according to the sales figures. I know the "aberration" 4 bangers out sold the V-8s and V-6s for quite a while. So "while yer bullshittin"..... The Mustang was\is esentially a 6 cyl economy car with V-8 variants, even in the dark years of the Mustang II. Begone, Poser.
To the OP. Test drive both and decide what you like. The combo's are available to suit a range of buyers. Only you can decide what'd right for you. There really is no be all, end all. My Alpha Male part says "grunt..give me....grunt... V-8, 5 speed" while the 40ish maried guy with kids part of me says " I can afford to drive the V-6, and it IS kinda peppy", while the wife part (appendage?) says " Hey, #&%%$##, I want a V-8 with an Automatic, I hate shifting". Above all, if you can afford it, buy what YOU like.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes, the 64 1/2 Mustang came standard with the in-line 6cylinder, and a bunch were sold like that.
Tom Adkins wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wrong. Look at the specifications of the mustangs from 2000 to 2005. How much do they weigh on average considering all the different configurations? Now look at the older Mustangs comparing what's sold now to what the first generation mustang was set up. Notice the huge weight gain over the years?
What it all comes down to is that the V6 or inline 6 is not powerful enough to get the stang going especially if the buyer opts to get it with an automatic transmission. Automatic transmissions are inferior to manual 5 speeds and they will always be inferior to manual 5 speeds. If you really want to true driving experience, only a manual transmission will suffice.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I guess you have not driven one of the new Mustangs with the 5 sp automatic. The number for both the automatic and the manual are virtually equal and you don't need to worry about missing a gear or shifting too late. Beside there is no convertible out there in the Mustangs GTs price range that can run with the new Mustang automatic even with a manual. ;)
mike hunt
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The original Mustang came with a 200 CID straight 6 and two V8s. I own a 1964 Mustang Convertible, that I bought new, with the 225 HP 289 V8. There was also a 271 HP 289 V8. My car cost me around $2,800 new, today it is worth around $48,000. ;)
Ford just upped the production number for the 2005, by 80,000, because of the unexpended high demand for the V8 and the newly introduced convertible
mike hunt
Tom Adkins wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@mailcity.com wrote:

Early 1965 Mustangs (the somewhat mislabled 64 1/2) got the 170 cid six cylinder instead of the 200. And early V-8s were 260's (164 horsepower?). Later they added the 200 six and 289 V-8s in two different flavors from Ford, and Shelby had one with even more power.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mislabeled by whom? At introduction in April 1964, Ford called its new car the 1964 1/2 Mustang but they did wear 1965 VINs. My PA title lists my first year Mustang as a 1964, not a 1965, as does NADA. The Mustang was a derivative of the Falcon. The 200 CID six was first used in the 1962 Falcon and the 260 V8 was first used in the 1963 1/2 Falcon Sprint and convertible that were introduced in April of that year. The Shelby Mustang came several years later.
I was working at Ford in those days, the first high performance Mustang we built was the 1966 T5 fastback. R Code with the 427, ONLY 2 WERE MANUFACTURED and exported to West Germany I know one was destroyed but the other may still exist. ;)
mike hunt
"C. E. White" wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@mailcity.com wrote:

All true, but everything I read says the early Mustangs (64 1/2 or early 65 whcih ever you prefer) used the 170 cid six and not the 200 cid six. See http://www.fordclassics.com/mustangspecs.html . I did say "somewhat" mislabeled in reference to 64 and 1/2. Mustang "experts" argue this point all the time. As I recall (I was only 11), Ford did refer to the Mustang as a 1965 Model. Since the VIN indicated that it was a 1965 model, I say it was a 1965 Model.

The Shelby version did not appear "several" years later. The GT350 was introduced in Janruary of 1965....I think that qualifies as 8 Months later, not several years.

I don't know about the 427 Mustangs. http://www.mustangmonthly.com/thehistoryof/5866/ says the following on the subject:
"Urban legend: 427 Mystery Solved?!
"If Kevin Marti has all the facts from Ford, then no W-Code 427 Mustangs were built. According to his new book, Mustang by the Numbers 1967-1973 [copyright 1999 Kevin Marti, El Mirage, AZ (623) 935-2558], which takes information from Fords computer archives, the W-Code did not existat least where the Mustang is concerned. There is, however, a caveatthe 72 options list does not show the rear deck spoiler as an option, even though it was shown in 1971 and 1973. Marti even backs up the what-if theory: Ford might have built them in such small numbers that they never showed up as a Code, kind of like the 67 Shelbys that had an S engine code (390) and were, in fact, packing the 428. So, either they are or they arent, but so far we still have no graphic proof one way or the other."
Other 427 References:
http://www.mustangmonthly.com/techarticles/173_ford_big_block_guide/index6.html http://www.fordclassics.com/mustangspecs.html does show the 427 as an option in 1968. http://www.autoinsurancetips.com/mustang_vin.htm http://www.geocities.com/~mustangs68/engcode.html
I do think a big block would have been a tght fit in a 1965 engine compartment. I've never seen any listing for "R" Code Mustangs prior to 1968. And then the "R" code was for the 428, not the 427. I suppose with a lot of hammering and special parts a 427 could have been shoehorned into a 1965 Mustang, but I am not sure I'd call that "manufactured."
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That is apples and pears. Ford could not call the '63 1/2 Falcon and the '64 1/4 Mustang '64s or '65s. Back then new model year vehicles were introduced in September of the prior year. It is only recently that franchise laws were changed to allow manufactures to introduce new models prior to four month before the beginning of the calendar year. The larger 6 and V8 engines were a free standing options on both the regular Falcons and the Mustang. Although the Sprint had the 260 CID V8 one could order a 289 V8 in the Sprint, or a 200 CID 6 or a 260 in the Falcon Futura.
Ford built those two, 'R' Code, race ready cars with the 427, that is why they were 'manufactured by Ford.' The first Shelbys were regular Mustangs that were modified by Carol Shelby. The purpose of the conversion was an effort to see if they could build a car that could run with the Corvette, but ford only allowed him to spend $1,500. He modified the body, interior, suspension and engines. By the way they were built on the same chassis and sold by select Ford dealers, not Shelby. It was later that Ford manufactured generic Shelbys, but not the 350 or 500 GTs.
mike hunt
"C. E. White" wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hey Lynn... get the V8. It's only a few grand more and you won't be sorry that you did.
Unless of course horsepower isn't a big deal to you, but resale value may be something to consider too.
Kate 98 Cobra Drop Top with a personal touch... or two.
| Well, OK, I want a new Mustang convertible. Should I get the V6 or V8 ? | | The V6 Premium convertible has a MSRP of $25,320 (before options) with | a 5 speed manual. EPA milage is 19 / 28 mpg. ABS brakes are $775. | | The GT premium convertible has a MSRP of $30,550 (before options) | with a 5 speed manual. EPA milage is 17 / 25 mpg. ABS brakes are | standard. | | Which one ? Is the V8 worth $4,000 ? Can you even get a V8 without | paying a serious premium ? | | Thanks, | Lynn | |
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It depends on how you like to drive it, costs, and resale issues. If you enjoy a convertible for tooling around in the breeze, a 6 will do that just fine. If you want lots of torque and speed, it won't.
How well the two models will hold their value will largely depend on the price of gasoline at resale. If it's $2/gallon, the 8 will probably do fine, maybe better than the 6. If it's $4/gallon, I'd guess the 6 will be worth more. If it's $8/gallon, most V8s will be parked in back yards rusting away.
Get the ABS in any case. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Chinnis wrote:

If one gallon of regular unleaded gasoline reaches over the $8 USD mark than the whole globe will be devastated in the greatest "depression" era that the world will ever know. If that happens, it wouldn't matter anyway if all V8's end up rusting in back yards, driveways and neighborhood streets. The internal combusion engine as we know it would become a toy only for the wealthy who can still get their money of of banks that didn't shut down. Even at $8 a gallon you wouldn't be able to get the majority of em to buy pocket cars that run off of 2 cylinders with only standard shifts. The whole worlds would be devastated and there wouldn't be any jobs...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote in part:

Not according to most economists. And it depends on how the price rises. If it's partly from shifting taxes to fossil fuels to reduce consumption, as has already been done in most of the world, the effect on the economy is minimal. The ones most hurt are the ones with big investmests in things that waste fuel. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

of extrapalated theoretical bullshit compiled by a Pothead listening to Rap Music which is now the official sign of American Intellect. Then there's the Alan Alzheimer's Greenspan type, who do the biding of whatever politician they need to keep their job. If we have $8 a gallon gasoline prices anytime in the near future our economy will be devastated beyond anything ever seen in this country. Of course we seem to be doing a good job of exporting our culture of Drugs and Rap Music to every part of the world we get involved in. I saw a recent TV program which interviewed young Iranians who were asked what they liked about America and they thought this American Rap was great. Iraqi's also agree. We can save billions in military spending by just exporting our own destructive culture to all our enemies. We can then give this money to the Oil and Automotive companies who will solve our transportation problems.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1 Apr 2005 10:06:42 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

lmfao recession only in the USA lmfao CANADA RULES
in alberta we are RICH BWhahahahahaha I HOPE GAS AND OIL PRICES GO UP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:43:28 GMT, Jim Chinnis

not much diffrence in gas milage in real life
why get the abs ??
hurc ast
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The V8 Mustangs EPA is 17/25 MPG, the six is 18/27.
mike hunt
Jim Chinnis wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@mailcity.com wrote in part:

Ouch. It's a no-brainer, then. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.