P
PNewitt
Guest
Don--gorgeous GT/CS!! There is a "value" to spending more than what a car is worth. The value is in the fun and enjoyment you are getting out of the car. Compare that to, say, playing golf, and course fees, or having a big boat, and licensing, or many other hobbies and interests. Besides--the reduction in stress from this kind of fun is worth thousands by "not" spending future medical costs, etc....so, it is all relevant.
On another note--since someone may ask:
The '06 4.0 V6 has 210hp @ 5300 rpm, and 240 lbs. of torque @ 3500 rpm
The '68 289 2 bbl has 195hp, and 288 lbs of torque @ 2600 rpm.
Yes--this is sorta like apples and oranges in comparison, and despite how they measure hp differently now, look at the torque numbers. The added two cylinders, and a longer stroke of the 289 (despite the 2bbl), gives you 28 more lbs. of torque. This will give you more pulling power off the line than the V6.
I know this is a potentially arguable point, but I just wanted to show how "valid" the 289 2 bbl. is, compared to a 2006 Mustang V6.
So--if you have any doubts, the 289 is nothing to sneeze at.
PAUL N.
On another note--since someone may ask:
The '06 4.0 V6 has 210hp @ 5300 rpm, and 240 lbs. of torque @ 3500 rpm
The '68 289 2 bbl has 195hp, and 288 lbs of torque @ 2600 rpm.
Yes--this is sorta like apples and oranges in comparison, and despite how they measure hp differently now, look at the torque numbers. The added two cylinders, and a longer stroke of the 289 (despite the 2bbl), gives you 28 more lbs. of torque. This will give you more pulling power off the line than the V6.
I know this is a potentially arguable point, but I just wanted to show how "valid" the 289 2 bbl. is, compared to a 2006 Mustang V6.
So--if you have any doubts, the 289 is nothing to sneeze at.
PAUL N.