whats faster an si or a new V6 mustang?

[Nightwish]

Originally Posted by Blainestang

Wrong...

It's a well-known fact that ALL Mustang owners are rednecks, and that all Civic owners are ricers.

It's simple statistics!

Damn! I've been away from the Civic owners for so long that I forgot all about their naturally ingrained ricer mentalities!

I remember back when rednecks drove Camaros instead of Mustangs, but then Chevy stopped making them so the rednecks had to migrate over to Ford.

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Originally Posted by Nightwish

I wouldn't say that about the new GT, that car will out handle your Si and destroy it in the 1/4. They have shown to pull up to .95 lateral G's.

Unless you're telling me your Si can run under 13.5 in the 1/4.

the gt can outhandle the si? what? can somebody tell me this is correct. if you put the same tires on both cars..

Originally Posted by Blainestang

Consider this:

2009 Mustang GT for $21,795, and it's not even a stripped-down model... and there are 3 stock numbers to choose from.

oh god, not this one little clipping again.

Originally Posted by jlob85

damn. ok. I'm wrong about pricing - i was just going by what i saw on the internet.

but, despite a few examples to the contrary, it's a fact that (older) hondas last longer than american cars. i could talk about the countless examples of american cars my family and friends have owned, but I'll talk about facts. One of my classes for engineering was a stats class revolving around manufacturing processes. It turns out that in the 80s and 90s, the tolerances of honda parts made fit into a much tighter and even distribution than american cars. Parts made with tigther tolerances have a lesser chance of failing. Although there is a wider tolerance range for the american parts, you could still end up with combination of parts on your car that were made with no errors, but the probability is much less compared to hondas. however, because of advances in manufacturing technology, the gap of quality is now much smaller.

just go by msrp, it's the only fair way. i got my si for
$2100 off msrp, but that doesn't mean you can just go pick one up for that price. now i will admit you're gonna get a better deal at a non-honda/toyota, but they're not going to take off 20% of the msrp. i'd stay away from any car that's magically 20% off.

about the quality, i'm really getting tired of hearing about this, because is anybody out there planning on keeping the same car for 150,000+ miles? i highly doubt it. to prove my point, what car did any of you have before the si? if it had less than 100,000 miles on it, then why didn't you just keep driving it? exactly. it's very rare for somebody to drive the same car for 150,000+ miles. but if you're buying a used car that already has 100,000+ miles on it, that's a different story. i just think it's so dumb, because every car is going to be fine up to 100,000 miles if you maintain it properly. maintenance is more important than brand.

[Blainestang]

Originally Posted by SilentBob420BMFJ

the gt can outhandle the si? what? can somebody tell me this is correct. if you put the same tires on both cars..

Well, there will always be variables, but the new GT's really have posted numbers like that. I don't think a simple skidpad number is sufficient to say whether one car handles better than another, though. By that thinking, my MINI Cooper handles as well as an Enzo because the MINI matched the Enzo in slalom speed when tested by Road and Track.

Originally Posted by SilentBob420BMFJ

oh god, not this one little clipping again.

It's not the same clipping. There are new ads all the time for these kinds of prices.

Originally Posted by SilentBob420BMFJ

just go by msrp, it's the only fair way. i got my si for
$2100 off msrp, but that doesn't mean you can just go pick one up for that price. now i will admit you're gonna get a better deal at a non-honda/toyota, but they're not going to take off 20% of the msrp. i'd stay away from any car that's magically 20% off.

The "fair way" would be to take a look at what an intelligent person would ACTUALLY pay for the car. It sounds like you can get an Si for a little under MSRP... maybe not the full $2100 off, but somewhere between there and MSRP. On the other hand, EVERYBODY might not have the opportunity to buy a Mustang GT for $21,795 (although anyone COULD buy one here and drive it back home if the savings are great enough to offset the travel), but it's reasonable to assume that they would pay MUCH less than MSRP.

My family bought a car from Brandon Ford. Brand new Focus.

Sticker Price = ~$16,000
Advertised Price = $9,995

That's almost 40% off.

It's not a bait-and-switch deal. It's a get-lots-of-bonuses-from-Ford-for-selling-a-ridiculous-number-of-cars deal. Either that, or the person decides they want something different when they get there and they buy something that isn't quite as good of a deal.

Originally Posted by SilentBob420BMFJ

about the quality, i'm really getting tired of hearing about this, because is anybody out there planning on keeping the same car for 150,000+ miles? i highly doubt it. to prove my point, what car did any of you have before the si? if it had less than 100,000 miles on it, then why didn't you just keep driving it? exactly. it's very rare for somebody to drive the same car for 150,000+ miles. but if you're buying a used car that already has 100,000+ miles on it, that's a different story. i just think it's so dumb, because every car is going to be fine up to 100,000 miles if you maintain it properly. maintenance is more important than brand.

I agree with your point that almost anything will last the amount of miles the average person actually puts on it... if you maintain it.

[Sean Newman]

Haha, just found this thread looking up an AC failure, and it is four pages of "lose".

Never before has the term "apples and oranges" been more appropriate. Other than being fruit, and other than being sporty cars, the similarities end there.

I love Honda, but obviously this argument has been put to bed since Mustang updated their V6 to put out more power than their V8 did not-too-long ago, and the Civic SI hasn't done SFA.

That's beside the point though, the list of pros and cons are completely different for both cars. Do I care at all that a Mustang is faster than my Civic? No, because I bought my Civic to be reliable and economical. When I want to go fast I get on my sportbike so I can beat any car worth less than a million dollars.

[Blainestang]

Originally Posted by Sean Newman

Haha, just found this thread looking up an AC failure

Originally Posted by Sean Newman

Do I care at all that a Mustang is faster than my Civic? No, because I bought my Civic to be reliable and economical.

You bought the Civic because it's reliable and economical, but the V6 Mustang gets similar gas mileage and you're here researching an A/C failure.

[w00t692]

Originally Posted by Blainestang

You bought the Civic because it's reliable and economical, but the V6 Mustang gets similar gas mileage and you're here researching an A/C failure.

You're right, no one should own anything but mustangs, how dare they comment on this thread as well.

[shawnperolis]

The Mustang is definitely faster in a straight line, but if you read the reviews it isn't much of a handler. The Civic is more for the twisty roads. Unfortunately, Honda isn't doing much to keep up with the other car companies so the 2013 Mustang is probably faster around the track than the 2013 Civic Si. It hurts me to say that, because I absolutely hate Mustangs. =/

[Blainestang]

Originally Posted by w00t692

You're right, no one should own anything but mustangs, how dare they comment on this thread as well.

Never said that. In fact, the last 2 cars I've purchased are Civic competitors and NOT Mustangs... But the irony of his post was too much to pass up. Nice try though.

Originally Posted by shawnperolis

The Mustang is definitely faster in a straight line, but if you read the reviews it isn't much of a handler. The Civic is more for the twisty roads. Unfortunately, Honda isn't doing much to keep up with the other car companies so the 2013 Mustang is probably faster around the track than the 2013 Civic Si. It hurts me to say that, because I absolutely hate Mustangs. =/

The Mustang is a very capable handler, as evidenced by the Mustang GT being roughly equal with an equally powerful M3 on a road course. Or, in the case of this discussion, the V6 Mustang is a whole 12 seconds faster than the Civic Si in Car and Driver's Lightning Lap. Certainly, the extra power in the V6 Mustang helps, but 12 seconds is an eternity on a 3-minute track. In fact, the Mustang would be even faster except that it bumps off the 120mph governor multiple times each lap.

[HeelsandEers]

This thread was initially comparing the Si to the 210hp v6 Mustang.

The 305hp newer v6 model is not much of a comparison.

[shawnperolis]

Originally Posted by HeelsandEers

This thread was initially comparing the Si to the 210hp v6 Mustang.

The 305hp newer v6 model is not much of a comparison.

Yeah, that is what I was saying. Honda isn't even trying to compete anymore. But I mean what I say about the handling of even the new 2013 Mustang. Live axle rear suspension, lots of weight, and quite a bit of body roll. It has over 100hp more than the Scion FRS/Subaru BRZ and it those cars still run very similar times on the same track. Our Civic can't keep up with the newer cars though, so no use comparing it anymore.

[Blainestang]

Originally Posted by HeelsandEers

This thread was initially comparing the Si to the 210hp v6 Mustang.

The 305hp newer v6 model is not much of a comparison.

Agreed... Huge difference

Originally Posted by shawnperolis

Live axle rear suspension, lots of weight, and quite a bit of body roll.

And yet with the same power as an M3, it's just as fast around a track. They may not be the most rewarding or fun to drive, but the facts are that they're capable at handling now, too.

[shawnperolis]

Originally Posted by Blainestang

And yet with the same power as an M3, it's just as fast around a track. They may not be the most rewarding or fun to drive, but the facts are that they're capable at handling now, too.

MotorTrend Comparison: 2011 Ford Mustang GT vs. 2011 BMW M3 Coupe

Where are you getting that information? This is a comparison between the 2011 models and it clearly says the M3 wins around the track even though the Mustang is faster in a straight line.

[HeelsandEers]

Originally Posted by shawnperolis

MotorTrend Comparison: 2011 Ford Mustang GT vs. 2011 BMW M3 Coupe

Where are you getting that information? This is a comparison between the 2011 models and it clearly says the M3 wins around the track even though the Mustang is faster in a straight line.

"The Mustang carries 8.8 pounds per pony to the M3′s 8.6. And yet, at the test track, the 5.0 equals or betters the M3 in every performance category we measure. Both hit 60 mph in 4.4 seconds, but the Mustang is faster to the quarter mile by a tenth of a second and 0.7 mph-12.7 seconds at 111.6 mph. It also stops two feet shorter from 60 mph-a tie as far as we’re concerned-and the GT really shatters the M myth on the skidpad. America’s original ponycar manages to outgrip one of Germany’s most iconic sports cars to the tune 0.2 second through our figure eight and by 0.01 g in lateral acceleration.

………

For the definitive answer, we go to Randy’s times: 87.67 seconds in the BMW to 87.76 seconds for the Ford. That’s right, the difference between the fastest laps of the M3 and Mustang GT is, literally, less than an eye blink: 0.09 second, to be exact."

For the price, the Mustang offers way more bang for the buck. We're talking about a sub 40k dollar car vs one that costs 60K+...

[Blainestang]

Originally Posted by HeelsandEers

"The Mustang carries 8.8 pounds per pony to the M3′s 8.6. And yet, at the test track, the 5.0 equals or betters the M3 in every performance category we measure. Both hit 60 mph in 4.4 seconds, but the Mustang is faster to the quarter mile by a tenth of a second and 0.7 mph-12.7 seconds at 111.6 mph. It also stops two feet shorter from 60 mph-a tie as far as we’re concerned-and the GT really shatters the M myth on the skidpad. America’s original ponycar manages to outgrip one of Germany’s most iconic sports cars to the tune 0.2 second through our figure eight and by 0.01 g in lateral acceleration.

………

For the definitive answer, we go to Randy’s times: 87.67 seconds in the BMW to 87.76 seconds for the Ford. That’s right, the difference between the fastest laps of the M3 and Mustang GT is, literally, less than an eye blink: 0.09 second, to be exact."

For the price, the Mustang offers way more bang for the buck. We're talking about a sub 40k dollar car vs one that costs 60K+...

Great post... Saved me the effort of posting the same thing

[Shark Tek]

Guys this is a honda civic forum filled with hardcore fans.
According to them everything out there will be a POS compared to the civic.
Dont lose your time.

[killswitch21]

depends, if ur refering to 09 or earlyier v6 stang, i think u got it as long as u do a descent launch and dont mishift.

idk though, 2011+ v6 stang makes 300 hp, so 11+ might prob take us.

[DPMAce]

Mustang look good. I would get one if I had the money. But for driving around town everyday, nothing beats a civic

[shawnperolis]

Originally Posted by HeelsandEers

"The Mustang carries 8.8 pounds per pony to the M3′s 8.6. And yet, at the test track, the 5.0 equals or betters the M3 in every performance category we measure. Both hit 60 mph in 4.4 seconds, but the Mustang is faster to the quarter mile by a tenth of a second and 0.7 mph-12.7 seconds at 111.6 mph. It also stops two feet shorter from 60 mph-a tie as far as we’re concerned-and the GT really shatters the M myth on the skidpad. America’s original ponycar manages to outgrip one of Germany’s most iconic sports cars to the tune 0.2 second through our figure eight and by 0.01 g in lateral acceleration.

………

For the definitive answer, we go to Randy’s times: 87.67 seconds in the BMW to 87.76 seconds for the Ford. That’s right, the difference between the fastest laps of the M3 and Mustang GT is, literally, less than an eye blink: 0.09 second, to be exact."

For the price, the Mustang offers way more bang for the buck. We're talking about a sub 40k dollar car vs one that costs 60K+...

haha my bad, I didn't see the link to go to the full article.

[Mat8754]

Mustang would probably get the jump with a proper launch I would think

[Blue_blur47]

Mustang