Mustang vs. Mustang
 

From Consumer Reports road tests...

1970 Boss 302
Drivetrain: 302 cid V8, 4 speed manual transmission
Horsepower: 290 (SAE gross)
Weight: 3335 lbs.
0-60 mph: 8.0 seconds
Quarter Mile Time: 16.0 seconds
Quarter Mile Speed: 93 mph
Overall Fuel Economy: 11 mpg
Braking 60-0: 130 ft.

2011 Mustang V6
Drivetrain: 227 cid V6, 6 speed manual transmission
Horsepower: 305 (SAE net)
Weight: 3540 lbs.
0-60 mph: 6.2 seconds
Quarter Mile Time: 14.8 seconds
Quarter Mile Speed: 98 mph
Overall Fuel Economy: 24 mpg
Braking 60-0: 134 ft.

Think I'm most surprised by the braking.

dcb

Re: Mustang vs. Mustang
 

Interesting, I must admit I have been thinking about that 2011 Mustang V6 as possible daily driver replacement. I know the V8 gets all the press but that 6 cylinder looks like it would be a pretty good driver.

Re: Mustang vs. Mustang
 

I could drive a new Mustang V6. The magazine's comparison (in this month's issue) to the Camaro is very favorable. Plus I think Ford got the retro cosmetic cues just right. The new Camaro just looks silly to me.

dcb

Re: Mustang vs. Mustang
 

Heavier car. Plus, 1970 did not have ABS which increases stopping distance well over what an experenced test driver can do in a non-ABS equipped car.

40 years ago we thought by now we would be in the Jetson's world - with flying cars.

Re: Mustang vs. Mustang
 

Most impressed by the braking in the 1970? Me too! 4ft. is pretty minuscule compared to the other improvements made.
24 mpg on a 2011 V6 is pathetic.
11 MPG on a 302? I used to get 12mpg on a 429 cu in. in a '69 Thunderbird.

Re: Mustang vs. Mustang
 

[QUOTE=Blacky;658038]Most impressed by the braking in the 1970? Me too! 4ft. is pretty minuscule compared to the other improvements made.
24 mpg on a 2011 V6 is pathetic.
11 MPG on a 302? I used to get 12mpg on a 429 cu in. in a '69 Thunderbird.[/QUOTE]

And my rear tires would last, like a week!:eek:
:D:cool:

Re: Mustang vs. Mustang
 

[QUOTE=svxfiles;658045] I got 11 on a 460 Tow Truck pulling light. It did go down to 7 pulling heavy. (The truck weighs 8,400 empty)

My 65 Dodge A-100 got 25 mpg and would run 155 on the flat out. 318 3 speed, 2:73 rear w TALL tires, My 66 A-100 got 11 mpg and did 0-60 RFN!!
top speed, about 95. BUT the front tires left the ground at 20 MPH and set back down about 55. It got more mileage out of tires than it did driveshafts and wheel studs, or transmission mounts or cases.

Re: Mustang vs. Mustang
 

Not impressed, just a bit surprised that a slightly lighter 40-year old car (with, what... front discs/rear drums, or drums all around?) would stop shorter, even with ABS.

24 mpg average in mixed driving from a 300 hp engine seems pretty good to me. Better than any SVX.

I drove a '66 Galaxie 500 coupe with a 390/2-barrel/C-6 automatic. That thing seemed to have a hole in the 22-gallon gas tank, and it needed an anchor to stop. Of course, I only paid $300 for it...

dcb

Re: Mustang vs. Mustang
 

You do realize that 24mpg figure is combined, not highway. And getting 300 hp out of it. I'm pretty sure that's the best power to mileage combination you are going to find on any v6 out there today.
I hate Fords but if this motor proves reliable, it is quite a feat of engineering if you ask me.

Re: Mustang vs. Mustang
 

And it bears mentioning that Consumer Reports mileage findings are from actual road tests and are NOT estimates.

dcb