Re: This V8 has less power than a standard V6!!!!

Discussion in '1994 Ford Mustang GT' started by HSVgtsII, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. This V8 has less power than a standard V6!!!!

    Why have such a large engine with such a low power output.
    most family cars with smaller V6 engines have more power.
    even Some Small 2.0Lt 4cyl engines have more power (WRX,200SX,Lancer EVO)
    215hp IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR A CAR THIS SIZE
    Typcial American CRAP.
     
  2. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from HSVgtsII</i>
    <b>Why have such a large engine with such a low power output.
    most family cars with smaller V6 engines have more power.
    even Some Small 2.0Lt 4cyl engines have more power (WRX,200SX,Lancer EVO)
    215hp IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR A CAR THIS SIZE
    Typcial American CRAP.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    None of those cars have the torque of the V8, 285TQ which is as important as horsepower in acceleration. This makes as much power as those cars Naturally, i.e. no turbos.

    Keep in mind this is a '94. A new GT coupe does a 0-60 in 5.4 and has 260HP/302TQ, much better than all of those cars and it costs less at 22k.
     
  3. exactly... plus you are comparing NEW v-6's to a v8 that is 8 years old. someone is very ignorant. mustangs are all about torque. thats real balls.
     
  4. remember this car was built back in 1994....family cars did not have 200hp in 1994<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. and all those cars you named are not family cars they're sports cars
     
  6. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from HSVgtsII</i>
    <b>Why have such a large engine with such a low power output.
    most family cars with smaller V6 engines have more power.
    even Some Small 2.0Lt 4cyl engines have more power (WRX,200SX,Lancer EVO)
    215hp IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR A CAR THIS SIZE
    Typcial American CRAP.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->


    I LOVE STUPID PEOPLE!
     
  7. dumbass! the tourque on this was 300 lb/ft. and another thing, 5.0s are proabably the most mod-able engines EVER!!!, with a few grand you can get 400+ horses without breaking a sweat, and withour your turbo shit.
     
  8. hp and torque on these cars is under rated....ive seen 94 GT's put down 195hp and 260 ft/lbs of torque to the wheels...that calculates to 230hp and 302ftlbs of torque roughly<!-- Signature -->
     
  9. "hp and torque on these cars is under rated....ive seen 94 GT's put down 195hp and 260 ft/lbs of torque to the wheels...that calculates to 230hp and 302ftlbs of torque roughly" bull shit u lying sack of shit. it's 164 hp at the wheels. there is also video becuse horsepower tv. put one on a dyno as well. as soon as I find it I will post it.
     
  10. "remember this car was built back in 1994....family cars did not have 200hp in 1994"
    sure they did, 1993 acura legend type 2 had 230hp v6 and a 6spd tranny. shows how much u know. and don't try to argue this because this is a fact, something most of you idiots don't know the consept of.
     
  11. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Mig29</i>
    <b>"hp and torque on these cars is under rated....ive seen 94 GT's put down 195hp and 260 ft/lbs of torque to the wheels...that calculates to 230hp and 302ftlbs of torque roughly" bull shit u lying sack of shit. it's 164 hp at the wheels. there is also video becuse horsepower tv. put one on a dyno as well. as soon as I find it I will post it.
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    When your looking for your tape why don't you also try to find a brain?
     
  12. "When your looking for your tape why don't you also try to find a brain?"
    good one queer
    u are so ashamed that it's true u don't even know what to say enymore.
     
  13. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Mig29</i>
    <b>"hp and torque on these cars is under rated....ive seen 94 GT's put down 195hp and 260 ft/lbs of torque to the wheels...that calculates to 230hp and 302ftlbs of torque roughly" bull shit u lying sack of shit. it's 164 hp at the wheels. there is also video becuse horsepower tv. put one on a dyno as well. as soon as I find it I will post it.
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->yeah and im not sure if u know that the car HP TV dynoed was an auto and was higher mileage which saps a lot more power then a manual, also you obviously dont know much about cars because if you did then you would know that not ALL cars that come off the line are identical and there are cars that come with more and some with less power, and i did say "ive seen 94 GT's...." meaning not ALL 94 GT's but some.....also 164hp is a VERY big loss of power a lot like the loss an automatic would show NOT a stick, the average drivetrain loss for a stick is 15% which calculates to 187hp to the wheels dont even bother about the hp tv video i watched the show and there was a huge thread about ir on stangnet.com...and one should talk with a Honda avitar....remember, speed kills, drive a honda live forever<!-- Signature -->
     
  14. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Mig29</i>
    <b>"When your looking for your tape why don't you also try to find a brain?"
    good one queer
    u are so ashamed that it's true u don't even know what to say enymore.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I bet it took you a whole dedicated hour to come up with that one...<!-- Signature -->
     
  15. ok i think we can all agree this mig jackoff is a complete retard.. that aside yeah those cars you named werent family cars they are sports cars.. and even if they have more HP their torque ratings still much less so either way the stang would smoke them...
     
  16. You guys make me laugh this car was built to be an sports car and made to go fast, but guess what it doesn't. I have an 94 legend yes it is a family car and its the same year. It would smoke this so called sports car .
     
  17. I feel surrounded by complete idiots who study car 0-60 times all day. My god, have you ever had a full out race with a 5.0 mustang? Like I said in another thread, I've raced a couple imports and easily smoked them. I guess it goes both ways however, but I just can't believe anyone who says they've beaten a mustang with a legend. Let me race you, please! I'll rape your ass. To those couple of people who are in love with hondas and what not, go buy one! Just prepare to lose to me (as I save thousands of dollars). Remember, if you reply try to compare my stang to something made, say, within three years of '94 and within $3,000 (I paid $4,000).

    God I love driving my car!
     
  18. Yeah, but it'll be useless for rally style driving, not to mention it won't handle as well, nor be as reliable.
     
  19. HAHA 0-60 in 6.6 sec, 1/4 in 15.0 flat! AHAHAHA what a piece of shit no wonder the GM boys talk so much shit.
     
  20. yea those times are pretty sad.- COMPARE 94' MUSTANG GT vs. 94 Trans Am you tell me whos better.
     
  21. damn some people are ignorant. The car is a V8, so it has alot of torque. Sure, 215 horse fora 5.0 Liter engine V8 is rather pathetic, and 43 horse per liter is rather pathetic, and the car is pretty slow. BUt normal V6s dont have that much torque, and torque is what gets the car going by accelerating. and its made already 8 years ago, so since then, the V8 has improved drastically. But yes, the power output and the engine size doesnt add up. America needs to look at some german cars. the New M3, 333hp out of a naturally aspired 3.3 liter 6 cylinder engine. has 4 seats, very luxurious, and yet its about as fast as a new corvette (not z06) that has a 5.7 liter V8 and 2 seats. That just goes to show, Americans need to check out their cars, because theyre falling behind in technology. Sorry guys...later
     
  22. please explain how 5.4 seconds is faster than 4.4 (EVO) or 4.5 (STI), both of which have 280 hp from a 2.0 liter engine. No stock Mustang GT can ever compare with either of these two, in handling, acceleration, braking, etc.
     
  23. Guess what they don't sell those here. The mustang gt is one the best values around, period. Show me a car that can hang with it for the same or less amount of money...yeah thats what I thought you can't.
     
  24. don't go using the cost excuse, I was just commenting on the part where you said "much better than all of those cars" yet it's not better than any one of them. Observe, you said "Keep in mind this is a '94. A new GT coupe does a 0-60 in 5.4 and has 260HP/302TQ, much better than all of those cars and it costs less at 22k." in your own words it's considerably slower, and has less power. If I want something that costs less than 22k (I assume you mean usd), I'll just go and buy a used Impreza WRX STI it'll still perform better, and it'll be more reliable, or I'll purchase a new WRX for $35,000 cdn which offers more in the way of everything else, is just as fast and costs less (about $20,000 usd).

     
  25. People buy mustangs like this for one reason. They are broke and it's the fastest thing they can afford. I would imagine a lot of trailer trash own these types of cars.
     

Share This Page