Mustang V6 Mayhem

RexSeven wrote: If I bought it I would like to drive it in Stock or Street Tire class but there are no 19" R-comps or Extreme High Performance tires (i.e. Dunlop Star Spec). The same tire problem exists with the Hyundai Genesis R-Spec and possibly with the Scion FT-whatever (esp. since kidz liek me luv dem dubz). I'm thinking of submitting a proposal to SCCA: If a car or a car's performance option package comes with 19"+ wheels stock, then the driver can swap them out for 18s if they are the same width and if they are within +/- 5mm of stock offset. There are plenty of R-comp and XHP tires in 18" diameter. If your car comes with 17" wheels or below, you cannot upsize to 18" wheels unless the car has been entirely upgraded with the performance option package that contains the 19"+ wheels. For example, a normal 2011 Mustang V-6 Coupe comes with 17" wheels stock. You cannot put 18" wheels on it unless you upgrade it to Mayhem package-spec with all OEM parts. Although 19" wheels are a stand-alone option, they cannot be used as an excuse to upsize to 18s- the car must be upgraded otherwise to Mayhem-spec first. Am I way off the mark with this idea? Any tweaks?

Hoosier has 7 different 19" sizes available for R-Comps. it is 20" tires that are not available yet. If you look in the latest fastrack you will see that somebody has already written in about 20" wheels.

Javelin wrote:

Bench Racer (BowtieBandit) wrote: That new V6 is great in it's own right, but to make it handle better is even better. I'd rock a glass roof though, cause I'm a baller. I'd really like to see about doing some GT parts swapping on a base SN95 V6 manual car. Hard as crap to find a V6 stick though.

The 3.8L one!!?!?!?! Are you a masochist or something?

Replace the Mustang V6 with a Supercoupe engine and have at it. Plenty of guys have done that swap.

moxnix wrote: Hoosier has 7 different 19" sizes available for R-Comps. it is 20" tires that are not available yet. If you look in the latest fastrack you will see that somebody has already written in about 20" wheels.

Ok. I only looked at the Tire Rack and not Hoosier's website. I'll have to look at the latest issue of Fastrack for the 20" wheel thing.

RexSeven wrote:

moxnix wrote: Hoosier has 7 different 19" sizes available for R-Comps. it is 20" tires that are not available yet. If you look in the latest fastrack you will see that somebody has already written in about 20" wheels.

Ok. I only looked at the Tire Rack and not Hoosier's website. I'll have to look at the latest issue of Fastrack for the 20" wheel thing.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Hoosier&tireModel=A6&sidewall=Blackwall&partnum=635ZR9A6&tab=Sizes

I was a little off it was the Jan issue.

Per the SAC, the following rule change proposal is published here for member comment: - Add to section 13.4 as a new third paragraph: “Vehicle option packages equipped only with 20” wheels as standard, may use 19-inch diameter wheels of the same width as standard and offset within +/- 0.25 inch of standard.” (ref. #2678)

If you support it I suggest writing in on the new letter system http://sebscca.com/

I was thinking a Windstar intake swap and some sortof forced induction. One guy on Allfordmustangs.com claims to have gotten around 34 MPG with just an intake swap.

I was thinkin about em 'cause I can't afford a new one, and late V6 SN95's are dirt cheap.

cheap = Grassroots... duh.

In reply to Bench Racer (BowtieBandit):

Have you ever driven one? It's like the engineering staff was told to make an engine that couldn't rev. Anything can be fixed but the starting point isn't so much cheaper than the PI 4.6 cars to make this seem interesting. My 2 cents, everyone has opinions, etc.

oldeskewltoy wrote:

Javelin wrote: 3500 is fly-weight for pony cars man! The Challenger and Camaro are both well north of 4,000.

If I'm not mistaken my 1970 Mach1 428SCJ was about that.... It has been a few years since I unloaded it, but 3500# seems to sound familiar... No?? And 4000 #s is just crazy....

My '65 weighs 2780.

Bench Racer (BowtieBandit) wrote: I was thinking a Windstar intake swap and some sortof forced induction. One guy on Allfordmustangs.com claims to have gotten around 34 MPG with just an intake swap. I was thinkin about em 'cause I can't afford a new one, and late V6 SN95's are dirt cheap. cheap = Grassroots... duh.

The 94-95 5.0's are nearly the same price. I've found multiple good running/driving ones for under $1500.

does the mustang with the performance pack and 3.31 gears still get 30mpg?

Did someone say Mayhem?

In all seriousness I really dig the direction they're taking with the performance of the new 'Stang.

Javelin wrote:

Bench Racer (BowtieBandit) wrote: That new V6 is great in it's own right, but to make it handle better is even better. I'd rock a glass roof though, cause I'm a baller. I'd really like to see about doing some GT parts swapping on a base SN95 V6 manual car. Hard as crap to find a V6 stick though.

The 3.8L one!!?!?!?! Are you a masochist or something?

I am. I REALLY like the Split Port V6. Add a 4.2L short block, some real pistons with 9.0-9.5:1CR some 70lb injectors and a Holset with a boxed upper, E85 and a proper tune... WHEEE!!!!!

In reply to John Brown:

You talked up that horrible motor a while back in a Merkur swap discussion. I about wrote something rude here about drug use but I don't know if anyone would see the intended humor. Have you ever actually done this swap, and are there pictures, drag times, etc?

If I had $35K burning a hole in my pocket (a big if), I would run out and get a new Mustang. The only question for me would be the V6 or the V8. Kudos to Ford for doing such a great job with the '11 Mustang (both V6 and GT). Now, if they could only get the size and weight down a little, I'd be sold.

pres589 wrote: In reply to John Brown: You talked up that horrible motor a while back in a Merkur swap discussion. I about wrote something rude here about drug use but I don't know if anyone would see the intended humor. Have you ever actually done this swap, and are there pictures, drag times, etc?

I would have seen the humor.

I often talk of doing the 4.2L swap into XR4Tis and Miatas. Part of it is my Ford love, part of it is my T5 love part of it is my addiction to meth.

Take a trip over to http://www.v6power.net/ for timeslips. Morana in Canada is a great sourece for parts and information, think of them as the FlyingMiata of the V6 Ford world. I have used a 4.2L rotating assembly with Supercoupe heads in a cammed NA 1994 SN95 tuned by Pauls High Performance in Jackson. It was a snotty bear and a load of fun.

integraguy wrote: So what is the difference between this and the currently available PERFORMANCE PACKAGE? NOTHING!!!! Ford's marketting dept. ran a contest via FaceBook to RE-NAME this package, and the best entry they got (according to the marketting dept.) was Mayhem. Go to the Ford website and it is still call PERFORMANCE PACKAGE. It is a bargain, but it has a stupid name. Apparently, the "rage" around Detroit nowadays, is to distinguish different trim levels with names/terms that get the attention of 15-25 year old guys....because we all know how many NEW cars they buy. Look at the Chrysler models for their "unusual" names (esp. Dodges) for the trim/models of something as mundane as a Caliber or Journey.

Yeah! What's the deal with Detroit and all these new-fangeldy names! "judge" and "'cuda" and...

Joey

joey48442 wrote:

integraguy wrote: So what is the difference between this and the currently available PERFORMANCE PACKAGE? NOTHING!!!! Ford's marketting dept. ran a contest via FaceBook to RE-NAME this package, and the best entry they got (according to the marketting dept.) was Mayhem. Go to the Ford website and it is still call PERFORMANCE PACKAGE. It is a bargain, but it has a stupid name. Apparently, the "rage" around Detroit nowadays, is to distinguish different trim levels with names/terms that get the attention of 15-25 year old guys....because we all know how many NEW cars they buy. Look at the Chrysler models for their "unusual" names (esp. Dodges) for the trim/models of something as mundane as a Caliber or Journey.

Yeah! What's the deal with Detroit and all these new-fangeldy names! "judge" and "'cuda" and... MIATA... Clearly they are Tempests, Valiants and MX5s! Joey

I concur!

grizzled voice I'm a sub-$25k RWD car with 300hp and performance tuned suspension. Some teenager's parents just bought me for him. He's only just learned to drive and wants to impress his friends. Would your cut-rate insurance protect you from Mayhem like me?

FlightService wrote: Hey, If memory serves the Mustang V6 is based on the EcoBoost V6...

If you that the only thing that is remotely the same as an EcoBoost would be the block, and that is what "based" means, you'd be right. And only if you also mean that the 3.7 displacement is ok vs. the 3.5l GTDI engines.

Otherwise, not the same animal.

Grizz wrote: *grizzled voice* I'm a sub-$25k RWD car with 300hp and performance tuned suspension. Some teenager's parents just bought me for him. He's only just learned to drive and wants to impress his friends. Would your cut-rate insurance protect you from Mayhem like me?

and I like it.

Time to write letters to stop the move to D-Stock.

I think if I ate so much that I weighed 300 pounds then I might consider one of these giant Mustangs. I love them on paper. Great bang for the buck. First time in forever that I've even cared even a little bit about a Mustang that wasn't made in the 60's, but those things are huge. Why are they so darn big? So, unless I somehow gain 100 pounds I will abstain from owning one.

TTAC just found something else wrong with the V-6 (and GT) Mustangs: Their manual transmissions are made of glass, or rather, China:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/05/fords-v-6-pony-saddled-with-stupid-new-name/

alfadriver wrote:

FlightService wrote: Hey, If memory serves the Mustang V6 is based on the EcoBoost V6...

If you that the only thing that is remotely the same as an EcoBoost would be the block, and that is what "based" means, you'd be right. And only if you also mean that the 3.7 displacement is ok vs. the 3.5l GTDI engines. Otherwise, not the same animal.

So the important part is there, so a little mod here and a little mo ther and you have twin turbo DI mustang,

Thing that make you go hummm.

isnt the 114mph speed limiter just a tune away from no limiter?