The Subaru SVX World Network   SVX Network Forums
Live Chat!
SVX or Subaru Links
Old Lockers
Photo Post
How-To Documents
Message Archive
SVX Shop Search
IRC users:

Go Back   The Subaru SVX World Network > SVX Main Forums > Not Exactly SVX

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-15-2010, 04:56 AM
dcarrb dcarrb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: none
Posts: 3,430
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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-15-2010, 06:18 AM
Sean486's Avatar
Sean486 Sean486 is offline
Happy SVX
Subaru Silver Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mechanicsburg, PA
Posts: 3,406
Registered SVX
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.
__________________
1992 LSL ebony pearl 170k - Thank you Ron Mummert
Reading Box of Wine Car
-----------------------------------
1992 SVX LSL 5-Speed Sold at 180K 2019
1995 SVX Lsi Polo Sold at 118K 2007
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-15-2010, 06:35 AM
dcarrb dcarrb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: none
Posts: 3,430
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
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-16-2010, 11:27 AM
TN_fwdsvx's Avatar
TN_fwdsvx TN_fwdsvx is offline
SVX Owner
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Somerville, TN
Posts: 66
Registered SVX
Re: Mustang vs. Mustang

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcarrb View Post
...Think I'm most surprised by the braking.
dcb
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.
__________________
Tom Millican
'92 SVX LS-L, Claret [Daughter's]
'94 SVX LE (FWD), Barcelona Red
'99 Outback SUS, 2.5L, Winestone (Burgundy/Gray) [Daughter Killed it]
'02 Outback SUS VDC, 3.0L, Green/Gray [Spouse's; Died at 500,000+]
'18 Legacy w/eyesight, Blue [Spouse's]
'94 Subaru Sambar KS-4, White [Farm UTV]
'94 Ford Ranger Extended Cab, Tomato Red
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-16-2010, 08:02 PM
Blacky Blacky is offline
51 Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: LSM, Quebec
Posts: 2,534
Registered SVX
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.

Last edited by Blacky; 09-16-2010 at 08:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-16-2010, 08:56 PM
svxfiles's Avatar
svxfiles svxfiles is offline
There's a storm coming.
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Wiley Ford WV
Posts: 8,650
Significant Technical Input Registered SVX
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!
__________________
www.svxfiles.com
The first SuperCharged SVX,
the first 4.44 gears,
the first equal length headers,
the first phenolic spacers,
the first Class Glass fiberglass hood,
the first with 4, 4.44s in his driveway


Fiberglass Hood thread
My locker
4.44 Swap link

Last edited by svxfiles; 09-16-2010 at 08:58 PM. Reason: I had a 69 T-Bird 429 in my 67 Parklane Convertable, 10mpg
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-16-2010, 09:46 PM
subi-crosser's Avatar
subi-crosser subi-crosser is offline
Now with more color
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: cumberland, md
Posts: 2,452
Send a message via Yahoo to subi-crosser
Registered SVX Classic SVX
Re: Mustang vs. Mustang

[QUOTE=svxfiles;658045]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacky View Post
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!
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.
__________________
I'm not a REDNECK! I am an Appalachian-AMERICAN!!

"Can't go to work today. The 'voices' said to "Stay home and clean the guns".


Most famous Red-Neck last words...
" Hey Everybody, Watch This!!)


http://s306.photobucket.com/albums/nn272/subi-crosser/
Jerry
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-17-2010, 04:53 AM
dcarrb dcarrb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: none
Posts: 3,430
Re: Mustang vs. Mustang

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacky View Post
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.
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
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-17-2010, 05:14 AM
1986nate 1986nate is offline
Senior Member
Subaru Silver Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meadville, PA-but I'll still travel
Posts: 4,672
Registered SVX
Re: Mustang vs. Mustang

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacky View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-17-2010, 05:28 AM
dcarrb dcarrb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: none
Posts: 3,430
Re: Mustang vs. Mustang

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

dcb
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2001-2015 SVX World Network
(208)-906-1122