# Before and after pics of the sixer. Big DUW **URL:** \ **Category:** PittSpeed Off Topic\ **Created:** [September 21, 2008, 11:21am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/before-and-after-pics-of-the-sixer-big-duw/199728 "2008-09-21T11:21:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 57
**Author:** ![85StangGT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/8/278dde/32.png) [@85StangGT](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/85StangGT)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2008, 8:29am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/before-and-after-pics-of-the-sixer-big-duw/199728/57 "2008-09-28T08:29:37Z")
> [@Irish song](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/irish-song/38072/4): > > calm down…its just the internet.just ignore it.the car does look a lot better though.u no the early years of the 4.6 were super slow ne ways.and if u had an automatic it was even worse.the v6 idea isnt a bad 1.especially if its all u got.maybe u should keep that how it sits and save up for a v8.u can probably still pick up a 94-95 for like 6k. ya i know. and i don’t want a 94-95 i personally like the 99-04 body style better. ill buy another v8 when im older and can afford it. > [@FS: Truck Cap... $50](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/fs-truck-cap-50/38050/2): > > fuck saving for the V8. turbo it to a mid to low 122 car and call it a day. i bet the v6 would have whomped your 85 turd thats what i plan to do is turbo or supercharge the 6. some sort of F/I is a must. and actually my 85 was pretty extensively modified… so there would have been no outrunning that with the '99. > [@Halloween Party Pics](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/halloween-party-pics/37786/78): > > well said, early 5.0s only had like 205 hp. yes, but that is stock. and who owns a stock fox body these days?? > [@Sold my small, nimble and efficient Brittish made penis enlarger for...](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/sold-my-small-nimble-and-efficient-brittish-made-penis-enlarger-for/38066/19): > > it is ricey to have saleen and mach1 parts on a v6 mustang. thats cool. im not worried about it. i don’t go around and say my car is so fast because i know it isn’t. so i could care less if you think its ricey.:booty: > [@What are you listening to RIGHT NOW? Pt. NYSpeed](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/what-are-you-listening-to-right-now-pt-nyspeed/183/860): > > yeah well, early 5.0’s also has torque. Mine had 225 hp and 300 lb torque sounds about right. mine had 275 lb torque. > [@Sold my small, nimble and efficient Brittish made penis enlarger for...](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/sold-my-small-nimble-and-efficient-brittish-made-penis-enlarger-for/38066/30): > > 87-93 V8= 225 HP 94-98 V8= 215 HP 99-04 V8= 260 HP 99-04 V6 = 193 HP. Not a bad start if you look at the past years. eh to a certain extent. > [@FS: 1993 Ranger V6 4x4 $1200](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/fs-1993-ranger-v6-4x4-1200/37703/22): > > an 87-93 would still outrun a 99-04 though if your talkin v8 to v8, the 99-04 would definately come out on top. > [@Swarzkopf"](#): > > Yeah…it’s nice to be proud of your car and all but let’s not kid ourselves. Even the heaviest, automatic, convertible 5.0 would walk a 99-04 V6 Mustang stock to stock. There’s more to performance then peak horsepower. The 5.0 makes more torque, delivers it earlier, and sustains more horsepower and torque through the power band. 99-04 V6s are 16 second cars stock. i totally agree with your statement. and not that this is incredibly better. but the v6 auto’s were 16 second cars stock. the 5 speeds were alot quicker than the auto’s obviously. > [@wtb: awd car, or awd/4wd truck/suv](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/wtb-awd-car-or-awd-4wd-truck-suv/38065/11): > > wow how did this get so offtopics?? who cares if its not the fastest thing on the road. i dont think the op came off saying it was anything special powerwise. its kinda narrowminded to base everything on this car about the engine. imo its a nice looking,clean car with tasteful things done to it. to the op just do your thing because your car is nice and well thought out. thanks man. nice to actually get a good comment out of this thread lol. > [@On another topic](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/38058/22): > > That’s just how it is on pittspeed. I would be pissed if I posted up a pic of my cars and didn’t receive 200 replies about how shitty it is. is his mustang nice looking, yes. Is his mustang rice, yes. Putting racecar parts on a non racecar car is ricey. If you have a saleen or mach1, then by all means put saleen and mach1 parts all over your car. but if you had a saleen or mach 1, they would already come with those parts on the car:finger: and a mach 1 is by no means a race car. some of you people are ridiculous. --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/before-and-after-pics-of-the-sixer-big-duw/199728)._