<![CDATA[95 v6 stang #'s]]>stock #'s
dyno#s 226 rwhp@ 4800rpm
284 rwtq@ 4000rpm

new #'s 587rwhp/601rwtq 26psi race gas
legacy image
Mod list
ported single port heads(stock valves)
ported lower intake
custom boxed upper intake
218/224 cam
60mm stock fox body tb
8.2:1 compression 4.2L
main girdle and studs
head studs
roller rockers
custom turbo kit with a 62-1 turbo p-trim turbine wheel with a .81 a/r housing
single 3'' exhaust with a Hooker Aero chamber muffler
underdrive pulley and no a/c or p/s
60# injectors
255 in-tank pump. stock fuel lines and rails.
turbonetic racegate wastegate
bosh blow off valve
custom water/ air intercooler.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/topic/1957/95-v6-stang-sRSS for NodeThu, 28 May 2026 03:35:47 GMTWed, 16 Mar 2005 04:08:07 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:14:36 GMT]]>a the 4.2 is the new version of the 3.8l...the 4.2l uses the same block as the 3.8l

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/36183https://fargostreet.com/post/36183Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:14:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:06:25 GMT]]>Haha, pretty sure a stock mustang V6 doesn't put down 226whp and 284tq, especially a 95. Lets see, probably about 150 max. What the heck is a 4.2? I am guessing just a bored out built up 3.8? Needs a bigger turbo and throttle body:) That isn't all that much power for a 4.2l engine with 26psi.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/36182https://fargostreet.com/post/36182Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:06:25 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:38:22 GMT]]>Not really sure... I was just throwin in my .02. I hope nobody will go out there with the intentions of building up a 6cyl Mustang with 500+HP.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/36095https://fargostreet.com/post/36095Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:38:22 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:24:58 GMT]]>

03SVT wrote:
The guy is probably one of the better tuners in North America and he tuned it. It was WHP. I don' t know how he did it, but he, like myself, have absolutely no reason to make up stories.
any block work? (4.2 or still the 3.8?)

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/36076https://fargostreet.com/post/36076Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:24:58 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:19:17 GMT]]>

dubbsy wrote:
270 crank I sure hope... and even that requires some explaining IMO....

The guy is probably one of the better tuners in North America and he tuned it. It was WHP. I don' t know how he did it, but he, like myself, have absolutely no reason to make up stories.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/36074https://fargostreet.com/post/36074Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:19:17 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:10:57 GMT]]>Yeah it does those 3.8's are weak as hell I beat one in my mom's Lumina for Christ's sake.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/36070https://fargostreet.com/post/36070Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:10:57 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:05:00 GMT]]>

03SVT wrote:
The guy that tuned my car in Winnipeg, Ed Hohenberg at wolfperformance.com was telling me he was able to tune a V6 to about 270HP. That was with headwork, cams, exhaust, and intake. It is pretty realistic, I think. I don't know why anyone wouldn't just buy a 5.0 or 4.6 and put in the car, but to each his own.

270 crank I sure hope... and even that requires some explaining IMO....

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/36063https://fargostreet.com/post/36063Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:05:00 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:59:07 GMT]]>The guy that tuned my car in Winnipeg, Ed Hohenberg at wolfperformance.com was telling me he was able to tune a V6 to about 270HP. That was with headwork, cams, exhaust, and intake. It is pretty realistic, I think. I don't know why anyone wouldn't just buy a 5.0 or 4.6 and put in the car, but to each his own.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/36059https://fargostreet.com/post/36059Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:59:07 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:48:31 GMT]]>I have heard about these V6 stangs making great power from being turbocharged Otherwise it is uber hard to make any power with them even with a supercharger.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/35655https://fargostreet.com/post/35655Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:48:31 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:28:06 GMT]]>

StangerBanger96 wrote:
Its a 3.8 stock, its bored out to 4.2
Sorry guys, In my opinion a bored out 4.2 isn't stock. I guess thats what threw me off. I didn't see where it said 4.2. I still wouldnot lable it as a stock baseline, but that's just me.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/35534https://fargostreet.com/post/35534Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:28:06 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:32:54 GMT]]>

94NDTA wrote:
Something is WAY off. a 95 V6 stang will in no way shape or form dyno 226 rwhp STOCK. Hell, a 95 V8 put s down about 220-230 rwhp. Something is fishy.

EDIT: on a MUSTANG dyno none the less. Hell on a mustang dyno MY car stock would dyno around 220 rwhp.

This thing would be pushing around 260 rwhp on a dynojet, about 650 rwhp with the mods

All on stock internals? Something is REALLY fishy here. I'm not buying it.

Its a 3.8 stock, its bored out to 4.2

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/34985https://fargostreet.com/post/34985Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:32:54 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:41:17 GMT]]>some guy on v6power.com posted his results and thought I would share

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/34981https://fargostreet.com/post/34981Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:41:17 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:27:02 GMT]]>thats is pretty nice, pretty nice mod list also

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/34977https://fargostreet.com/post/34977Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:27:02 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:25:36 GMT]]>nice numbers cant wait until i do my dyno tune

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/34971https://fargostreet.com/post/34971Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:25:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:07:37 GMT]]>

94NDTA wrote:
Something is WAY off. a 95 V6 stang will in no way shape or form dyno 226 rwhp STOCK.

closer to 140-145 rwhp stock I would guess....

Built 4.2L? (Probably, that's alotta boost)

Raider, who's car is that?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/34969https://fargostreet.com/post/34969Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:07:37 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:53:23 GMT]]>i don't think it's a stock block, the displacement is listed as 4.2, and compression at 8.2
i think that the 60mm tb is definitely a bottleneck in this setup, at least a 75mm

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/34956https://fargostreet.com/post/34956Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:53:23 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:41:47 GMT]]>hey smarty did you see it was a 4.2liter with 8.2:1 compression....no where did it say it was stock bottom end

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/34953https://fargostreet.com/post/34953Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:41:47 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:40:11 GMT]]>

97Cav wrote:
your just mad because it would beat your car, JK
The truth comes out 😞

Actually, I'm just trying to clear some things up.

Now it that were a 4.6L instead of a 3.8L, I might beleive it. It's still a hefty load to be putting on a stock bottom end though.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/34951https://fargostreet.com/post/34951Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:40:11 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:30:26 GMT]]>

94NDTA wrote:
Something is WAY off. a 95 V6 stang will in no way shape or form dyno 226 rwhp STOCK. Hell, a 95 V8 put s down about 220-230 rwhp. Something is fishy.

EDIT: on a MUSTANG dyno none the less. Hell on a mustang dyno MY car stock would dyno around 220 rwhp.

This thing would be pushing around 260 rwhp on a dynojet, about 650 rwhp with the mods

All on stock internals? Something is REALLY fishy here. I'm not buying it.

your just mad because it would beat your car, JK

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/34946https://fargostreet.com/post/34946Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:30:26 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:23:01 GMT]]>Something is WAY off. a 95 V6 stang will in no way shape or form dyno 226 rwhp STOCK. Hell, a 95 V8 put s down about 220-230 rwhp. Something is fishy.

EDIT: on a MUSTANG dyno none the less. Hell on a mustang dyno MY car stock would dyno around 220 rwhp.

This thing would be pushing around 260 rwhp on a dynojet, about 650 rwhp with the mods

All on stock internals? Something is REALLY fishy here. I'm not buying it.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/34943https://fargostreet.com/post/34943Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:23:01 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 04:20:45 GMT]]>that's nice i would mind having that one!

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/34926https://fargostreet.com/post/34926Wed, 16 Mar 2005 04:20:45 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to 95 v6 stang #'s on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 04:13:42 GMT]]>:eek: :eek: holy shit!

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/34922https://fargostreet.com/post/34922Wed, 16 Mar 2005 04:13:42 GMT