That car was a performance package car not a base V6 Mustang.
2014 GT500 vs. 2004 EVO
- Thread starter stutter
- Start date
That car was a performance package car not a base V6 Mustang.
I think the EVO should take the win, but a stock EVO couldn't sleep the new v6 Mustangs either. The new v6 Mustangs seem to be able to run times real similar to a 01-04 L. They are a mid to high 13 second cars stock so they aren't a slow car for what they are which is the bottom, budget Mustang. Hell just 10 years ago a car running in the 13's was a pretty damn strong running car.
People are exaggerating and over-simplifying how easy, and cheap it is to go out and beat a 662 BHP Mustang that runs as strong as a stock C6Z in a roll race. I think most people on this site have a good appreciation for what a EVO is. They are badass little cars with huge potential. Someone said that the 4G63 is the Japanese equivalent to a 350 SBC and I disagree. A 350 SBC is very inferior to modern day v8's. If I was to compare the 4G63 to an American v8 then it would be a Terminators motor. It's a iron block, and overbuilt motor for its factory HP, and it will handle a ton of boost, and HP on it's factory motor before having to go built. It is the I4 equivalent to a I6 2JZ-GTE. Still a 13/14 GT500 is a very fast highway roll car even stock, and beating one with a car making well under half the HP in factory forum is not just a snap of your fingers away. Often times people exaggerate how cheap and easy it is to reach X HP goal. Terminator owners are terrible about this. You'll hear stuff like, "I can spend $2K and make over 500 WHP on a otherwise stock car." It might can be done, but it's likely going to end up costing more in reality unless you just have good connections, and are a patent and smart shopper.
If this thread was to have been a "I lost to a EVO with $10K in mods in a 70 MPH roll race in my stock 13/14 GT500" then it wouldn't have surprised me. At the same time it should come as no surprise to anyone that a stock 13/14 GT500 beat a EVO VIII/IX with $10K in mods in a roll race. A new GT500 is just too fast for it to be a given. Would people be calling BS if it was a stock C6Z vs a EVO with $10K in mods? It seems like some people who don't own a Ford often like to come on here just to keep people that do hump like everyone on here just has a big head about a Ford car or something, and in doing so they always insult the cars that this niche site caters to. Sometimes you win and sometime you don't I guess.
There is no guarantee that a EVO with $10K in mods will beat a stock GT500 or vice versa. It makes me think back to when the C6Z first came out. Sometime they would beat a TS Terminator in stock forum, and sometime a TS Terminator would beat them. A stock C6Z was a good matchup for your typical TS Terminator.
Last edited:
That's getting petty. Who care if the car has a $1500-$2000 PP.
Base EVO VIII vs EVO VIII MR, base Corvette vs Z51 equipped Corvette, base GT500 vs GT500 SVTPP, Formula Firebird vs T/A WS6, base GT vs Brembo Pack equipped GT, Boss 302 vs Boss 302 LS, base GTR vs GTR Black Edition.
Your profile says a 99 Cobra convertible.
Stalker much?
That is 3 strikes son. I find it sad that you have no idea that I could look at a profile you posted and see what you drive. Again, how is the current Mustang an economy based platform like the Evo is? Answer is that it isn't.
You are sadly mistaken if you think that is actually what I drive. The Mustang GT is based on a lesser car which most DO NOT consider to be a performance car in its base form just like the Lancer is. The point is that there is absolute stupidity in thinking that driving a Ford Mustang somehow elevates someone to Porsche status.
Nope, Id rather be a tough guy badass driving a V8 Mustang than a douchey prick driving a Porsche. Problem? We'll solve it like men. Something a Porsche owner can seldom do.
This
Because a base v6 Mustang would tear a base Mitsubishi Lancer a new one in any performance category. I mean it really would whether or not you want to admit it. I mean a v6 Mustang is certainly not the epidemy of performance, but compared to a Lancer it's certainly more performance based.
Last edited:
So if one economy car wins over another then the one that wins is no longer a economy car?
So I guess a Genius coupe, Scion FR-S, Miata, etc are all economy cars? These are more of the cars the Mustang v6 competes with, and I don't consider them economy cars. I would consider a Focus or a Fusion an economy car, but not a 2 door Mustang.
As sad as it is Mustang is Fords only legit performance car offering so yes in it's base forum it's no doubt a better performance car, and more performance oriented than a Mitsubishi Lancer which is a N/A FWD ecobox. As much as I wouldn't have wanted too admit it my Moms old 99 v6 Fireturd would of beat up on my old 95 Integra GSR without much of a problem, and a new Mustang v6 will not have a problem beating up on a old v6 Fbody in any manner of performance.
A Mustang v6 is not an economy car. It's a cheap sport car, and yes a modern Mustang is a sport car.
they didn't make the mustang to compete with those cars , they happen to be in the same price range so they compare them .Just because cars cost the same does not mean they are in the same class. They also compare a civic , fiesta and others to that list of cars you mentioned.
In the end I understand you thought process I just don't agree with it. To me its a grasping at straws mentality to make this debate justifiable.
A V6 305hp 280 lb of TQ isnt considered a sporty car? If im not mistaken thats more than the FRS and more comparable to the 350/370Zs. a 2011+ V6 Mustang is a respectable performer for what it is, and has performance potential. People used to compare the Mustang GT to the 350Z, now with the new Coyote engine that comparison no longer exists, its compared to the V6 Mustang.
I can see how the pre '11 V6 Mustangs got a bad rap, but after 2011 Ford made their V6 Pony somewhat more sporty.
How about you show me one comparison where the Mustang v6 don't beat all those cars I mentioned performance #'s. The Mustang v6 betters them on a strip, on a road course, it doesn't matter. During the 2011 C&D Lightning lap the Mustang v6 beat the STI, and would of likely bettered the EVO's time if it didn't run into it's 114 MPH speed limiter for more than 15 seconds a lap.
Lightning Lap 2011 - Feature - Page 2
I'm gasping for straws? Well you're just a Mustang hater who goes out his way to try and bring the cars down, and likes to sell them way short. I mean that's fine that you aren't a Mustang fan but own it. You don't have to like Mustangs if you don't want, but don't lie to us about it. Don't tell me that you really like Mustangs when you really don't and you constantly bring them down regardless of what they are being compared to. Man up and own it.
The new Mustangs are pretty damn capable cars. I'm not saying they're 911's, but they are easily capable of holding their own against others cars in their class and price range, and they tend to better most of their foreign competition $ for $ in most performance categories.
The V6 Mustang was definitely not aimed at the performance segment. Its a basic financial moneymaker for Ford. Had they intended the V6 to be a decent performer, they would have put different tires on it and not speed limited the car to 112mph.
Jroc
To call me a mustang hater because I don't agree with some ppl's thought process is naïve and childish. Not once have a bashed a mustang in this thread or any other thread. I simply pointed out somebody bashing a performance car because of its roots when he IMO drives the same thing. I didnt not say anything negetive or trash the GT500 in the early or late pages of this thread either. It is well known I am a GM hater and I trash them on a regular, that I can own up to but my being a mustang or ford hater is just not even close to being true.
Now back to the topic at hand, I see your point in the performance test but if we go by that as being the sole identity then the brz/fr-s wouldn't be considered one judging by the numbers but it is every bit a sports car. I just don't feel that a car that is last in its food chain can be called a sports car simply because it is faster then other cars in its price range. I still feel a person owning a mustang gt and trashing an evo because of the evos roots is the pot calling the kettle black. I know the v6 puts down decent times for what it is but that doesn't mean I will just just at the chance to call it a sports car.
As I said earlier, I understand your thought process I just don't agree with it. If me not agreeing with everything and anything another ford fan says makes me a hater than you have some growing up to do. I like the debates and I am trying to think of an example ( car comparison) so you can visualize what I am saying but my mind is drawning a blank as it was a long night last night lol...I will reply to you though is I feel for the most part you can actually hold a discussion unlike most others I have talked to in this thread
To call me a mustang hater because I don't agree with some ppl's thought process is naïve and childish. Not once have a bashed a mustang in this thread or any other thread. I simply pointed out somebody bashing a performance car because of its roots when he IMO drives the same thing. I didnt not say anything negetive or trash the GT500 in the early or late pages of this thread either. It is well known I am a GM hater and I trash them on a regular, that I can own up to but my being a mustang or ford hater is just not even close to being true.
Now back to the topic at hand, I see your point in the performance test but if we go by that as being the sole identity then the brz/fr-s wouldn't be considered one judging by the numbers but it is every bit a sports car. I just don't feel that a car that is last in its food chain can be called a sports car simply because it is faster then other cars in its price range. I still feel a person owning a mustang gt and trashing an evo because of the evos roots is the pot calling the kettle black. I know the v6 puts down decent times for what it is but that doesn't mean I will just just at the chance to call it a sports car.
As I said earlier, I understand your thought process I just don't agree with it. If me not agreeing with everything and anything another ford fan says makes me a hater than you have some growing up to do. I like the debates and I am trying to think of an example ( car comparison) so you can visualize what I am saying but my mind is drawning a blank as it was a long night last night lol...I will reply to you though is I feel for the most part you can actually hold a discussion unlike most others I have talked to in this thread
I haven't done my research on the v6 so I wasn't going to speak to that fact when jroc posted that article didnt know if itbut was just that car or are they all limited to that speed? If so how can one argue it is a performance car? It has the same basic build as the other eco cars, (yes it performs better I get that) but just because it is fastest in its class doesn't mean it chances categories
The car is capable of higher speeds. Its just a tire speed rating thing. Put some z rated tires on it and tune out the limiter and you are set. They are decent performers though.. average high 13sec et's. There are a few pretty quick ones too.. in the 12's and I believe a turbo V6 in the 10's.
Users who are viewing this thread
