Hey all, my dad is looking to buy a cheap Mustang to have some fun with. He found an almost mint 1997 Mustang 3.8L V6 auto with 120K for only $2300. My question is, are the 3.8L engines in these severely underpowered? Is there any potential to have fun with them without spending more then he pays for the car? Thanks!
1994-1998 Mustang V6's?
- Thread starter renegade_987
- Start date
- Status
A 3.8L Mustang from that era saddled with an automatic probably won't be a load of fun. I would look for one with a manual transmission, and for a few reasons:
1) They're generally more engaging to drive in general, regardless of engine choice.
2) They don't saddle the engine down as much as a manual will, so you will likely get better performance from what's there.
3) Reliability of manuals (save for a smoked clutch) is generally better than automatics, so you stand more of a chance of spending your money on go-fast parts than on a replacement transmission.
1) They're generally more engaging to drive in general, regardless of engine choice.
2) They don't saddle the engine down as much as a manual will, so you will likely get better performance from what's there.
3) Reliability of manuals (save for a smoked clutch) is generally better than automatics, so you stand more of a chance of spending your money on go-fast parts than on a replacement transmission.
^ what he said concerning the manual. I test drove a V-6 Mustang in '98 and I thought it was fun at the time, but it had a clutch.
I don't mind a nice automatic, but I'm sure the one in that vintage of Mustang is on the slow and dim-witted side.
I don't mind a nice automatic, but I'm sure the one in that vintage of Mustang is on the slow and dim-witted side.
I have driven a 96 v-6 convertible with a manual a good bit. It is a lot of fun to drive. Will burn one tire off sitting still and gets 27-30mpg on the hwy. I think he'd enjoy it. I have also driven the automatic and I personally though it was awful. Totally changed the personality of the car.
I've driven a '98 Mustang V6 and it didn't feel all that slow to me. With an aftermarket exhaust, it didn't sound that bad either. Then again, I'm used to 4-cylinder cars, so my feelings are probably relative.
Tell him not to do it. That is a terrible engine that lived on a decade after it should've been put out to pasture. It's underpowered, rough, sounds bad, and isn't all that efficient.
My neighbors got a V6 AT Mustang for their daughter and it had an aftermarket exhaust on it we could always hear it coming down the road and the sound was so fatiguing and unpleasant we all hated it. They were all glad when it got hit and was totaled.
My neighbors got a V6 AT Mustang for their daughter and it had an aftermarket exhaust on it we could always hear it coming down the road and the sound was so fatiguing and unpleasant we all hated it. They were all glad when it got hit and was totaled.
My daughter had a 98 Mustang with the 3.8 auto (120+K on odometer) and the tall 2.? rear end gears. Had plenty of torque to move around. Had a good custom muffler shop go single with a Flowmaster 40. Sounded good. Averaged about 20 around town and 24 or so on the highway. The old pushrod Essex V-6 sounded better than any import DOHC V-6. Reliable drivetrain and easy to maintain.
We sold it, as the Wife wanted my daughter to have a newer, 4 door car.
Dave
We sold it, as the Wife wanted my daughter to have a newer, 4 door car.
Dave
The only real problem with the Essex V-6 is the passenger side exhaust manifold. Will sound like rod knock at low speeds. Take it off, have a good shop re-weld the tubes, and it will be fine.
Dave
Dave
They can be a lot of fun. Back in 1988 we bought a new Cougar for the wife to drive to work. The Cougar was a Fox body, just like the Mustang of that time, but with a longer wheelbase and more weight. It had the 3.8 V6 with the automatic and power everything. I figured it to be a chick version of the T-Bird and never thought much of it until I drove it. I was really surprised how much power it had.
Ford set it up just right, it had great low-end and mid-range power. It was responsive and had very good gas mileage, about 32mpg on the Interstate. It had 230,000 miles on it when we sold it, and it was still going strong. It just wouldn't die.
It was such fun to drive that after a couple of years I spent some money on mods to get more out of it. I put on a rear anti-sway bar, a bigger front bar, Edelbrock IAS shocks, 15x7 Mustang Wheels with good, performance tires, Performance Friction Carbon Metallic brakes, and had a blast carving up the back roads. I never felt a need to do anything to the engine, transmission or rear axle, besides good maintenance.
In a Mustang that is 6 to 10 years newer it'll have more power and subtract the extra Cougar weight and it becomes even more fun.
The bottom line though, is he'll just have to drive the one he's looking at and see what it's got.
Ford set it up just right, it had great low-end and mid-range power. It was responsive and had very good gas mileage, about 32mpg on the Interstate. It had 230,000 miles on it when we sold it, and it was still going strong. It just wouldn't die.
It was such fun to drive that after a couple of years I spent some money on mods to get more out of it. I put on a rear anti-sway bar, a bigger front bar, Edelbrock IAS shocks, 15x7 Mustang Wheels with good, performance tires, Performance Friction Carbon Metallic brakes, and had a blast carving up the back roads. I never felt a need to do anything to the engine, transmission or rear axle, besides good maintenance.
In a Mustang that is 6 to 10 years newer it'll have more power and subtract the extra Cougar weight and it becomes even more fun.
The bottom line though, is he'll just have to drive the one he's looking at and see what it's got.
Originally Posted By: renegade_987
Hey all, my dad is looking to buy a cheap Mustang to have some fun with. He found an almost mint 1997 Mustang 3.8L V6 auto with 120K for only $2300. My question is, are the 3.8L engines in these severely underpowered? Is there any potential to have fun with them without spending more then he pays for the car? Thanks!
Underpowered by modern standards, but very reliable in that application. Seemed to have lots of trouble in the Windstar minivan, but that's a pretty significantly different engine installation that probably caused the issues.
Its a 90-degree block, aluminum heads, iron block, cam-in-block, and is the same basic engine that was used with an Eaton blower in the Thunderbird SC. Its a 90-degree v6 with splayed crankpins and a slight residual odd-fire, giving it the typical odd-fire growly exhaust note and some higher-order imbalance... just like the Chevy Vortec v6 and the Dodge Magnum 3.9 that are built the same way.
Hey all, my dad is looking to buy a cheap Mustang to have some fun with. He found an almost mint 1997 Mustang 3.8L V6 auto with 120K for only $2300. My question is, are the 3.8L engines in these severely underpowered? Is there any potential to have fun with them without spending more then he pays for the car? Thanks!
Underpowered by modern standards, but very reliable in that application. Seemed to have lots of trouble in the Windstar minivan, but that's a pretty significantly different engine installation that probably caused the issues.
Its a 90-degree block, aluminum heads, iron block, cam-in-block, and is the same basic engine that was used with an Eaton blower in the Thunderbird SC. Its a 90-degree v6 with splayed crankpins and a slight residual odd-fire, giving it the typical odd-fire growly exhaust note and some higher-order imbalance... just like the Chevy Vortec v6 and the Dodge Magnum 3.9 that are built the same way.
Originally Posted By: silverrat
Are people really ok with a 140hp automatic Mustang?
Of course not, but the OP's father might not have the budget for a V8 GT not to mention the additional repairs that often comes with a GT that's been flogged. A V6 was more likely to have been adult driven, particularly one that is in great shape.
They can be a fun car to drive.
Are people really ok with a 140hp automatic Mustang?
Of course not, but the OP's father might not have the budget for a V8 GT not to mention the additional repairs that often comes with a GT that's been flogged. A V6 was more likely to have been adult driven, particularly one that is in great shape.
They can be a fun car to drive.
Originally Posted By: silverrat
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: silverrat
Are people really ok with a 140hp automatic Mustang?
A 1997 V-6 Mustang should have around 200.
In 1997 the GT only had 215
I was two years off. It was '99 when the power was bumped. I thought it was '97.
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: silverrat
Are people really ok with a 140hp automatic Mustang?
A 1997 V-6 Mustang should have around 200.
In 1997 the GT only had 215
I was two years off. It was '99 when the power was bumped. I thought it was '97.
Honestly my sisters has enough power to make it entertaining, and it has 150k on it with no serious problems. She has magnaflow dual exhaust and it sounds as good as any six will.
Originally Posted By: silverrat
Are people really ok with a 140hp automatic Mustang?
As someone who drove a second generation mustang with the cologne v6, 140hp at the wheel from a V6 is not that bad. Heck my V8 Monte Carlo SS only has 180 net horsepower with the "high output" 5.0/305.
Are people really ok with a 140hp automatic Mustang?
As someone who drove a second generation mustang with the cologne v6, 140hp at the wheel from a V6 is not that bad. Heck my V8 Monte Carlo SS only has 180 net horsepower with the "high output" 5.0/305.
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: silverrat
Are people really ok with a 140hp automatic Mustang?
A 1997 V-6 Mustang should have around 200.
Nahh....It didn't get the Windstar's variable intake until 1999 and even then they just ran all 12 runners open all the time for 190 hp. The Essex at that time only made about 145hp. Roughly the same horsepower as the Vulcan 3.0. Little more torque at a significantly lower rpm.
It's not too much different than the 3.4 Camaro from that era. Boring with an automatic. Can be kinda' fun with a manual.
I don't care for the Essex myself. The transverse mounted ones seem to be worse than the longitudinal mounted ones like the Mustang.
Originally Posted By: silverrat
Are people really ok with a 140hp automatic Mustang?
A 1997 V-6 Mustang should have around 200.
Nahh....It didn't get the Windstar's variable intake until 1999 and even then they just ran all 12 runners open all the time for 190 hp. The Essex at that time only made about 145hp. Roughly the same horsepower as the Vulcan 3.0. Little more torque at a significantly lower rpm.
It's not too much different than the 3.4 Camaro from that era. Boring with an automatic. Can be kinda' fun with a manual.
I don't care for the Essex myself. The transverse mounted ones seem to be worse than the longitudinal mounted ones like the Mustang.
The 6er was a very durable engine. In fact there is a man in michigan with over 1/2 million miles on his,with the sixxer. Ford included him in a ceremony and there were write ups about his car in many magazines.
Stock they will get you around but they aren't really fast.
If it's not beat up it is sure to be a reliable driver.
Stock they will get you around but they aren't really fast.
If it's not beat up it is sure to be a reliable driver.
- Status
