What do you think of this car?

[FDF12389]

http://milwaukee.craigslist.org/car/639276703.html

 

[zerocool84]

Try to start at 4k especially with that little rust that you are going to have to get fixed.

 

[RedArmy]

I never understood why people would want to buy a V6 Mustang. Do you want the appeal of owning a 'muscle car', minus the muscle? If it's for better fuel economy, why even consider a car like that to begin with?

 

[alfa147x]

3\10

 

[FDF12389]

Originally posted by: RedArmy
I never understood why people would want to buy a V6 Mustang. Do you want the appeal of owning a 'muscle car', minus the muscle? If it's for better fuel economy, why even consider a car like that to begin with?

I expected it to be more than 145hp(or is it 190?), was just gonna be a weekend fun car, but I think I'll pass after doing more research.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: RedArmy
I never understood why people would want to buy a V6 Mustang. Do you want the appeal of owning a 'muscle car', minus the muscle? If it's for better fuel economy, why even consider a car like that to begin with?

It's a decent-looking economy coupe. Ford sells far more V6 Mustangs than they do V8s, always have. That's where Chevrolet and Pontiac stumbled with the Camaro and Firebird. The V6 versions of the cars weren't nearly as "livable" as the V6 Mustang and in the years when sales of the V8 models went soft, the V6 Mustang provided the income to allow the V8 model to continue while the Camaro and Firebird had to fade into the sunset.

ZV

 

[dud]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: RedArmy
I never understood why people would want to buy a V6 Mustang. Do you want the appeal of owning a 'muscle car', minus the muscle? If it's for better fuel economy, why even consider a car like that to begin with?

It's a decent-looking economy coupe. Ford sells far more V6 Mustangs than they do V8s, always have. That's where Chevrolet and Pontiac stumbled with the Camaro and Firebird. The V6 versions of the cars weren't nearly as "livable" as the V6 Mustang and in the years when sales of the V8 models went soft, the V6 Mustang provided the income to allow the V8 model to continue while the Camaro and Firebird had to fade into the sunset.

ZV

I am curious Z, why do you consider this an "economy" coupe? The car has a 3.8L V-6. The gas mileage is probably between 15 and 25 MPG, depending upon driving conditions, hardly economical, if you know what I mean.

OP, I would be a little concerned about the rust, the claim of "Great gas mileage" and what this: "Spring is coming!!!" has to do with anything ... since it is not a convertible.

Do the smart thing and get a CARFAX.

 

[996GT2]

If you're into Mustangs, this '96 V8 5 speed is a much better buy at just $3500
http://milwaukee.craigslist.org/car/639124062.html

If you do some searching around I'm sure you can do better than a V6 mustang for over 6k.

 

[alfa147x]

We had this car as a rental and the back has no leg room, and the v6 engine felt week (I normally drive a Acura RDX and a 1994 Altima)
Oh and dont even get me started on the cheap plastics they used in the interior

I probably sound like a domestic basher but we bought one 14 years ago and loved it

Edit: i drove the 2008 Mustang, sorry wrong car...

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: alfa147x
We had this car as a rental and the back has no leg room, and the v6 engine felt week (I normally drive a Acura RDX and a 1994 Altima)
Oh and dont even get me started on the cheap plastics they used in the interior

I probably sound like a domestic basher but we bought one 14 years ago and loved it

Edit: i drove the 2008 Mustang, sorry wrong car...

I would bet money that the current generation V6 Mustang is faster than either one of your parents cars.

 

[zerocool84]

mustangs have never been one for rear roominess

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: alfa147x
We had this car as a rental and the back has no leg room, and the v6 engine felt week (I normally drive a Acura RDX and a 1994 Altima)
Oh and dont even get me started on the cheap plastics they used in the interior

I probably sound like a domestic basher but we bought one 14 years ago and loved it

Edit: i drove the 2008 Mustang, sorry wrong car...

I would bet money that the current generation V6 Mustang is faster than either one of your parents cars.

Actually...

The 2007 RDX does 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, depending on source
http://www.caranddriver.com/bu...ra_rdx_comparison_test

The 2007 Mustang V6 convertible did it in 7.3, according to Car and Driver (who are known to abuse cars to get the best times). The coupe manages 6.9, but still behind an RDX SUV.
C/D link

The fact that a "muscle" car gets beaten to 60 by an SUV with a 4-banger really isn't saying a whole lot for the V6 Mustang's performance...

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: dud

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: RedArmy
I never understood why people would want to buy a V6 Mustang. Do you want the appeal of owning a 'muscle car', minus the muscle? If it's for better fuel economy, why even consider a car like that to begin with?

It's a decent-looking economy coupe. Ford sells far more V6 Mustangs than they do V8s, always have. That's where Chevrolet and Pontiac stumbled with the Camaro and Firebird. The V6 versions of the cars weren't nearly as "livable" as the V6 Mustang and in the years when sales of the V8 models went soft, the V6 Mustang provided the income to allow the V8 model to continue while the Camaro and Firebird had to fade into the sunset.

ZV

I am curious Z, why do you consider this an "economy" coupe? The car has a 3.8L V-6. The gas mileage is probably between 15 and 25 MPG, depending upon driving conditions, hardly economical, if you know what I mean.

Cheap to buy, cheap to insure, cheap to maintain. EPA rated at 20/29 (for the 1999 car with the 5-speed). The 2005 and on models are 19/28 for the 5-speed V6. The 1995 models were rated at 20/30 for the 5-speed V6.

Not an econobox by any means, but certainly not profligate cars. No worse mileage than an Accord coupe with the V6 (in fact, slightly better as the '99 Accord V6 is rated at 20/28 and was only available with the automatic), and significantly less expensive to buy in the first place.

Mileage numbers are currently horribly under-rated with the new EPA measures. Every single car I have owned has done better than the old EPA estimates. Even my 2006 Mustang GT managed 22 mpg in commuting traffic (all city driving).

ZV

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: alfa147x
We had this car as a rental and the back has no leg room, and the v6 engine felt week (I normally drive a Acura RDX and a 1994 Altima)
Oh and dont even get me started on the cheap plastics they used in the interior

I probably sound like a domestic basher but we bought one 14 years ago and loved it

Edit: i drove the 2008 Mustang, sorry wrong car...

I would bet money that the current generation V6 Mustang is faster than either one of your parents cars.

Actually...

The 2007 RDX does 0-60 in 6.8 seconds or less, depending on source
Edmunds link

The 2007 Mustang V6 did it in 7.3, according to Car and Driver (who are known to abuse cars to get the best times). The coupe manages 6.9, but still behind an RDX SUV.
C/D link

Amusingly enough, Motortrend got the exact opposite results. 6.8 sec for the Mustang, and 7.3 for the RDX. The manual transmission Mustang runs it a bit quicker.

 

[996GT2]

Hmm, I just checked #s for C/D on the RDX, and it got 6.5 seconds in the sprint to 60...sure, the numbers vary a little by source, but the fact that an SUV weighing 4000 lbs (600-800 more than the Mustang) and with an engine almost half the size of the 4.0 V6 equals or beats the V6 Mustang to 60 really isn't saying much for the V6's performance.

 

[LTC8K6]

The V6 isn't the performance version of the Mustang.

The Acura is turbocharged.

The Acura needs premium fuel to get all it's performance.

 

[alfa147x]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: alfa147x
We had this car as a rental and the back has no leg room, and the v6 engine felt week (I normally drive a Acura RDX and a 1994 Altima)
Oh and dont even get me started on the cheap plastics they used in the interior

I probably sound like a domestic basher but we bought one 14 years ago and loved it

Edit: i drove the 2008 Mustang, sorry wrong car...

I would bet money that the current generation V6 Mustang is faster than either one of your parents cars.

Actually...

The 2007 RDX does 0-60 in 6.8 seconds or less, depending on source
Edmunds link

The 2007 Mustang V6 did it in 7.3, according to Car and Driver (who are known to abuse cars to get the best times). The coupe manages 6.9, but still behind an RDX SUV.
C/D link

Amusingly enough, Motortrend got the exact opposite results. 6.8 sec for the Mustang, and 7.3 for the RDX. The manual transmission Mustang runs it a bit quicker.

Im talking about the 'feel'
Numbers might be different but thats what I felt...