>well, this is flat out >sure helps were going downhill

both of them know it's a shitbox

>>16637631
210bhp is inexcusable for a car that heavy, and it's not like you argue 'it's just a cruiser xd' because it has a manuel.

File: bought a v6.webm (3MB, 912x512px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 912x512px

>>16637625
>Why is this guy so mean?
That's Fatt Marah's shtick. He's supposed to be an asshole.

>Also why would anyone buy a V6 Mustang?
2poor for the V8, muh fuel economy, some sort of deluded fantasy of tricking girls into thinking it's the same as a V8 because bitches don't know fuck about shit and couldn't tell you the difference between an inline six and a V6, let alone a V6 and V8.

>>16637661
>that webm
I know that feel, almost fell asleep driving a V6 Audi it was so boring.

>>16637658
>210bhp is inexcusable for a car that heavy

Ok? What about all those 4.6 V8's from the early 2000's that made ~210 Hp?

4.0 mustangs were never meant by ford to be any kind of "fast" car. Just a car for those that wanted a "mustang". It wasnt as slow as some are saying though. 210 HP is still 210 HP.

"Slow" is something like a 3.0 Vulcan taurus.

>>16637737

200hp and 3800lbs is the same power to weight ratio as a Chevy Blazer... It's slow, maybe quick in the 2000's but now days a minivan is quicker.

File: 1486615595157.jpg (7KB, 200x213px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 200x213px

>>16637757
its actually worse than a 1969 mustang Mach 1...

250hp 3250lbs

>>16637737
You've got to be shitting me. Even a base model X300 Jag XJ 3.2 has 216bhp and that's considered an extremely slow, luxury cruiser. This was twenty years ago.

>210 HP is still 210 HP
It really isn't, go sit on the back of a litre bike and tell me x amount of bhp is x amount of bhp.

>>16637757
>but now days a minivan is quicker.

Well yeah, when youve got pretty much every minivan with 300 or nearly 300 HP they tend to be fairly quick.

Back in the mid 2000's it wasnt bad for its time. Adequate is the word. ~200 HP V6's were the norm then.

Now 300 HP V6's are the norm and thats what the base mustangs have now.

In the 90's the V6's mustangs had between 145-193 HP, as time goes on the HP numbers went up. Kinda dumb now to look back and complain as in those days they didnt have nearly as many 300 HP V6's cars rolling around. Those were the days of 200 HP 3.8 GM engines.

>>16637798
A jag is a snowflake car and has no bearing on this. If they were nearly as ubiquitous as the mustang then id give you that but problem is they are not a good benchmark.

Dont try and bring bikes into this.

All I was saying is, it was OK for its time. with 4.10 gears and a tune it might have even been considered quick but not many did this.

>>16637757
Guaranteed to beat a blazer in a race though, thats for sure. thanks aerodynamics.

>>16637843
Jag is not at all a snowflake car, 210bhp in a 1750kg car is slow as shit by anyone's measure.

>>16637850

It would be a pretty close race. My blazer s10 vortec didn't take that long to hit 100mph. That engine had a bit of balls.

>>16637661
>That pole

He was so close to removing his retarded self for good.

>>16637897
That's what happens when you drive a V6, not his fault.

>>16637922
>He hasn't seen his youtube channel

>>16638001
Isn't it that kid who uploads videos of every tiny fault drivers make that he catches on dash-cam?