What do you think of the early gen V (2005-2007) mustangs? Are

>>17680142

You can get a C5 Corvette in that range, can't you? It comes with an LS1 and (imo) better looks.

Theyre just fine if you want a car that looks okay and runs decently well. Interior is pretty cheap, though.

Get a GT. The 3 valve may be a bit lazy in stock form, but its bulletproof and takes mods pretty well.

>>17681089
$5-7k c5? No way
Maybe a c4 but they're fucking garbage

All mustang v6s before 2011 suck monkey balls and should never be owned by someone who wants sporty and fast. The year range is actually 2005-2009. The GTs of those years come as perfect platforms. Limited slip in the rear, 3.73 rear gears. 305hp v8 friendly to mods. I'm a mustang guy down to my soul. Even though you can get a GM product and btfo the mustang j say go for a GT of that year range. Mustangs are lovely cars with rich heritage.

File: disgust.jpg (86KB, 841x622px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 841x622px

>>17682265
>300hp from a V8

>>17682287
300hp is more than enough in 90% of cases unless you want to prove you can beat some faggot at a stoplight. I've driven the 2017 stang and I thought 435 hp was bananas. Can't imagine a 707hp hell cat. I know youre just shitposting but you got my mind going.

>>17680142
I'm a Dodge fella and generally dislike the mustang but I really do like the looks of that generation in particular. Hell I'd drive one, to me it has that throwback muscle car look not unlike the new Challengers. I think that generation has aged well, it just looks good IMO. I would definitely get the GT though.

File: IMG_0228.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>17682306
I'm not shit posting, the 350z made 300hp from a v6. That generation is one of the worst for mustangs.

>>17680142
What state are you in?

>>17682306
nigga a v6 mustang is slower than my 2017 civic turbo with a fucking CVT

Don't be that faggot anon, just don't.

>>17680142

Get an Accord coupe V6. Better quality car, better, more powerful V6.

Mustang is still kind of a boat that little V6 shouldn't be carrying around. But your gf wants a V6 Mustang because it looks cool even though it's dogshit, and she's going to get it because you're pussy whipped.

>>17682400
Lol all about powerbands. I doubt a FWD turbo CVT civic can beat a 2011+ v6 mustang from a dig. Hell even on the highway. I know CVTs can move on the highway but don't even come at me with that ignorant bullshit.

>>17682477
You do realize that this thread is about 2005-2007 Mustangs right? Those V6s were dogshit and slow as fuck.

It's the same v6 that was in the ranger and f150. They are OK but a same year 350z with the same hp as the v8 destroys one.

File: sick-motorcycle-helmet.jpg (37KB, 500x344px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x344px

>>17680142
Fugly trash

>>17682400
It would be close with a manual but the v6 is faster going against the CVT

>>17680142
2011+ for V6 you want to get the cyclone 3.7.

File: IMG_2063.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>17680142
The v6 mustangs are good daily's but at the same time sporty. My 05 v6 has 120k on it and it's running fine, just as long as you keep proper maintenance, you should be good
>>17682374
Thanks for posting my car bb

>>17682265
Agreed, I believe the shitty Mustang v6 is the 250 HP 4.0L motor. That thing sucks but it sounds good