Go Back   The Mustang Source - Ford Mustang Forums > Mustang by Model Year > 2010-2014 Mustang
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Search

2010-2014 Mustang News of the Current Generation Mustang
Sponsored By: CARiD

Welcome to The Mustang Source!
Welcome to The Mustang Source,

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!


Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 4/30/10, 10:26 AM   #21
Cobra R Member
 
cinque35's Avatar
 
Sal

Join Date: February 9, 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 1,775
2013
What does Ford have against the Conv that you can't get them anymore? All 2010 V6 & V8's come std with 3.31.. (it's not because of body-flex concerns, the 4.6 is a lot stronger than the 3.7)
2.73's are useless on a car with 27" dia tires, they're just a gimmick so they can claim +30mpg
__________________

cinque35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4/30/10, 10:31 AM   #22
GT Member
 

Join Date: April 2, 2010
Location: Shizuoka City, Japan
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinque35 View Post
2.73's are useless on a car with 27" dia tires, they're just a gimmick so they can claim +30mpg
Then it's not useless, is it? Think about it. Manufacturers have to have their vehicle lines achieve a certain MPG rating. The 2.73s help with that. And there will no doubt be plenty of people who will be perfectly happy with 305 ponies driving 2.73s just as there were no shortage of people who were happy with 210 ponies driving 3.31s.
trane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4/30/10, 11:02 AM   #23
Cobra Member
 
RandyW's Avatar
 
Randy

Join Date: October 23, 2009
Location: NW Minnesota
Posts: 1,280
2011 Mustang GT
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by trane View Post
Then it's not useless, is it? Think about it. Manufacturers have to have their vehicle lines achieve a certain MPG rating. The 2.73s help with that. And there will no doubt be plenty of people who will be perfectly happy with 305 ponies driving 2.73s just as there were no shortage of people who were happy with 210 ponies driving 3.31s.
Right. For a whole lot of people 0-60 in six seconds flat seems like a pretty darn fast car. If someone is commuting 120 miles per day 1 mile per gallon may mean more to them chopping of a few tenths of a second.
RandyW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4/30/10, 11:12 AM   #24
Bullitt Member
 
Jeff

Join Date: February 4, 2010
Location: UAE
Posts: 226
2011 GT
1 MPG? Then they shouldn't be looking at a Mustang. Maybe a Smart car.
jeff s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4/30/10, 11:33 AM   #25
Mach 1 Member
 
fritzOSU03's Avatar
 
James

Join Date: March 25, 2010
Location: Little Elm, TX
Posts: 840
2011 MCA V6 Black
Images: 4
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff s View Post
1 MPG? Then they shouldn't be looking at a Mustang. Maybe a Smart car.
I totally agree because I'm a purist but this is the type of buyer mentality Ford is trying to overcome with these fuel ratings.
__________________

2011 MCA V6 Coupe, Ebony/Charcoal, 6 SP M/T, 3.31 Rear End, Security Package, HID Headlights.
Tint, GT500 Rear Diffuser, 401a Knob and Boot, Roush Axle-Back Exhaust, Roush Extreme Lowering Springs
Ordered: 3/20/10 | Pulled: 4/8/10 | Built: 4/19/10 | ETA #1: 5/6/10 | ETA #2: 7/15/10 | Delivered: 7/24/10
fritzOSU03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4/30/10, 11:36 AM   #26
Bullitt Member
 
Jeff

Join Date: February 4, 2010
Location: UAE
Posts: 226
2011 GT
The first over 300hp and 30 MPG is still a pretty cool distinction though... Says something of Ford's engineering. I just wouldn't go making my purchace decision based on that.
jeff s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4/30/10, 11:45 AM   #27
Team Mustang Source
 
orange3.9stang's Avatar
 
Doug

Join Date: September 20, 2004
Location: N.E. Wisconsin
Posts: 827
'11 Mustang MCA Coupe & '69 Mustang GT Hardtop
2010 V6 AT with 4.171:1 1st Gear, 3.31:1 FD & stk. 215/60-17 tires = 4019 RPM @ 30 MPH
vs.
2011 V6 AT with 3.220:1 1st Gear, 2.73:1 gears & stk. 215/65-17 tires = 4229 RPM @ 30 MPH

Thanks to the lower 1st gear in the new 6-speed trans you see that the 2011 will actually be running at 3.6% higher RPM off the line in 1st gear than a 2010.

Doug
__________________
My Stangs ...
1969 Calypso Coral 351W 4V 4-Spd Deluxe GT Hardtop (owned since '81)
2011 Kona Blue 3.7L V6 6-Spd MT Prem Coupe, MCA pkg & HID's (ordered 2/18/10 arrived 5/21)
past rides:
2004 Comp Orange 3.9L V6 5-Spd MT Prem Coupe (0-126k miles)
1998 Chrome Yellow 3.8L V6 5-Spd MT Coupe (0-131k miles)
1994 Bright Blue 3.8L V6 5-Spd MT Coupe (0-89k miles)
1979 Fairmont Futura w/ '85 HO 5.0L, built AOD, 8.8 T-Lok, & more (a Stang w/real back seat & trunk)

Last edited by orange3.9stang; 4/30/10 at 11:47 AM.
orange3.9stang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4/30/10, 11:51 AM   #28
Cobra R Member
 
cinque35's Avatar
 
Sal

Join Date: February 9, 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 1,775
2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by trane View Post
Then it's not useless, is it? Think about it. Manufacturers have to have their vehicle lines achieve a certain MPG rating. The 2.73s help with that. And there will no doubt be plenty of people who will be perfectly happy with 305 ponies driving 2.73s just as there were no shortage of people who were happy with 210 ponies driving 3.31s.
^ Read Fail... My question was why isn't it an option for ppl who want it?
__________________

cinque35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4/30/10, 11:53 AM   #29
Cobra R Member
 
cinque35's Avatar
 
Sal

Join Date: February 9, 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 1,775
2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by orange3.9stang View Post
2010 V6 AT with 4.171:1 1st Gear, 3.31:1 FD & stk. 215/60-17 tires = 4019 RPM @ 30 MPH
vs.
2011 V6 AT with 3.220:1 1st Gear, 2.73:1 gears & stk. 215/65-17 tires = 4229 RPM @ 30 MPH

Thanks to the lower 1st gear in the new 6-speed trans you see that the 2011 will actually be running at 3.6% higher RPM off the line in 1st gear than a 2010.

Doug
That's true, to bad about the 150 lb weight increase.. (200 since the engine is 50lbs lighter)
__________________

cinque35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4/30/10, 12:35 PM   #30
GT Member
 

Join Date: April 2, 2010
Location: Shizuoka City, Japan
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinque35 View Post
^ Read Fail... My question was why isn't it an option for ppl who want it?
Urgh. Sowwy. Not only did I miss the vert-specific aspect, I was unaware that the 3.31s were not an option for the verts at all. That sucks and, yeah, I'm with you; it should be an option!
trane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4/30/10, 12:44 PM   #31
Cobra R Member
 
cinque35's Avatar
 
Sal

Join Date: February 9, 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 1,775
2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by trane View Post
Urgh. Sowwy. Not only did I miss the vert-specific aspect, I was unaware that the 3.31s were not an option for the verts at all. That sucks and, yeah, I'm with you; it should be an option!
__________________

cinque35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4/30/10, 1:08 PM   #32
Cobra Member
 
RandyW's Avatar
 
Randy

Join Date: October 23, 2009
Location: NW Minnesota
Posts: 1,280
2011 Mustang GT
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by orange3.9stang View Post
2010 V6 AT with 4.171:1 1st Gear, 3.31:1 FD & stk. 215/60-17 tires = 4019 RPM @ 30 MPH
vs.
2011 V6 AT with 3.220:1 1st Gear, 2.73:1 gears & stk. 215/65-17 tires = 4229 RPM @ 30 MPH

Thanks to the lower 1st gear in the new 6-speed trans you see that the 2011 will actually be running at 3.6% higher RPM off the line in 1st gear than a 2010.

Doug
Good point, Doug. Furthermore, the 2011 has a higher redline so there's more room to rev in each gear. Even with the standard axle ratio, this car is no dog.
RandyW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4/30/10, 2:18 PM   #33
GT Member
 
Tom

Join Date: January 3, 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 164
2011 V6 Kona Blue MCA
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzOSU03 View Post
I totally agree because I'm a purist but this is the type of buyer mentality Ford is trying to overcome with these fuel ratings.
One article I had seen said the most commonly looked at competition among those interested in a V6 Mustang was the Honda Accord coupe. Below are some numbers for based on automatic transmissions.

2010 Honda Accord EX-L V4
horsepower@rpm: 190@7000
torque (lb-ft@rpm): 162@4400
fuel economy: 21/31
price: $26,880

2010 Honda Accord EX-L V6
horsepower@rpm: 271@6200
torque (lb-ft@rpm): 254@5000
fuel economy: 19/28
price: $29,305

2011 Mustang V6 Premium
horsepower@rpm: 305 @6,500
torque (lb-ft@rpm): 280@4,250
fuel economy: 19/31
price: $26,840

Comparable price. Comparable fuel efficiency. A lot more fun. And yes, my first choice was an Accord coupe until I learned about the 2011 V6.
tmclaugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4/30/10, 2:24 PM   #34
Mach 1 Member
 
Bert's Avatar
 
John

Join Date: January 25, 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 840
2010 Red Candy GT
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmclaugh View Post
One article I had seen said the most commonly looked at competition among those interested in a V6 Mustang was the Honda Accord coupe. Below are some numbers for based on automatic transmissions.

2010 Honda Accord EX-L V4
horsepower@rpm: 190@7000
torque (lb-ft@rpm): 162@4400
fuel economy: 21/31
price: $26,880

2010 Honda Accord EX-L V6
horsepower@rpm: 271@6200
torque (lb-ft@rpm): 254@5000
fuel economy: 19/28
price: $29,305

2011 Mustang V6 Premium
horsepower@rpm: 305 @6,500
torque (lb-ft@rpm): 280@4,250
fuel economy: 19/31
price: $26,840

Comparable price. Comparable fuel efficiency. A lot more fun. And yes, my first choice was an Accord coupe until I learned about the 2011 V6.
Hey Tom, I'm kinda thinking the same thing . . . I need a new daily driver and I'd much rather go with a Mustang this time instead of another boring sedan, especially when the fuel economy is about the same . . . to avoid carbon footprint guilt, I figure I'm OK as long as the new Stang gets as good or better gas mileage than my outgoing Toyota.

So I'll probably go with the 2.73 rear, (definitely going with manual transmission) so I can get maximum gas mileage for the commute, but also have fun when I want to . . . I don't really care about the absolute maximum off-the-line performance, and I figure once the car is moving I can just wind it out a little more in a lower gear and get about the same FTD (fun to drive) factor that I would get with the 3.31 rear.

Last edited by Bert; 4/30/10 at 2:26 PM.
Bert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4/30/10, 7:09 PM   #35
GT Member
 
Tom

Join Date: January 3, 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 164
2011 V6 Kona Blue MCA
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert View Post
Hey Tom, I'm kinda thinking the same thing . . . I need a new daily driver and I'd much rather go with a Mustang this time instead of another boring sedan, especially when the fuel economy is about the same . . . to avoid carbon footprint guilt, I figure I'm OK as long as the new Stang gets as good or better gas mileage than my outgoing Toyota.

So I'll probably go with the 2.73 rear, (definitely going with manual transmission) so I can get maximum gas mileage for the commute, but also have fun when I want to . . . I don't really care about the absolute maximum off-the-line performance, and I figure once the car is moving I can just wind it out a little more in a lower gear and get about the same FTD (fun to drive) factor that I would get with the 3.31 rear.
I'm still going with the 3.31 option. I have a tendency to jackrabbit my car and the loss shouldn't be too much from what I read. I may take it up to Epping, NH once or twice but really I just want to make my daily commute up and other drives more enjoyable.

Everyone is so busy talking about the Mustang vs. the Camaro but I'm more interested in how it competes with similar more conservative coupes in its price range. I think that will be a more interesting story sales wise this year. The new V6 commercial was probably the first time I can ever recall seeing a TV ad for a Mustang. I think it will cause people who never would have considered a Mustang to maybe take a look. FWIW I'm not really much of a car person. I couldn't tell you the subtle nuances between a good handling car from a bad handling car or why RWD is superior to FWD. When I started reasearching it was affordability, fuel economy, and does it not like like something that could double as space Voltron's foot. (I'm looking at you Scion xD and Toyota Cube...) Finally then a test drive to make sure the ride was comfortable.

Bringing it back on topic, the new standard gear will satisfy many of the people who would have bought a V6 along with the potential new customers we might start seeing. Plus, the option is always there for those of us who would like a little more kick.
tmclaugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5/2/10, 6:01 PM   #36
Member
 
nitrous's Avatar
 
Steven

Join Date: May 1, 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 30
2011 V6 Prem Coupe Grabber Blue 3.31 gears
2011 V6 Torque

I ordered my '11 V6 coupe with 3:31 gears.
nitrous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5/2/10, 6:13 PM   #37
Cobra R Member
 
corvettedreamin's Avatar
 
Jerry

Join Date: April 3, 2010
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmclaugh View Post
...
Comparable price. Comparable fuel efficiency. A lot more fun. And yes, my first choice was an Accord coupe until I learned about the 2011 V6.
Three words: REAR WHEEL DRIVE.

I'll take a slower RWD car over a fast FWD car almost any day. Good thing the Mustang is neither slower nor FWD.
__________________
FINALLY: 2011 Kona Blue V6 Premium Coupe, MCA Package with tape stripe delete, 6 spd MT, 3.31 Axle, Electronics pkg, Comfort pkg, Security Pkg, Rear video camera
corvettedreamin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6/3/10, 2:15 PM   #38
Bullitt Member
 
Jay

Join Date: April 26, 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 267
bump?
ireallycare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6/3/10, 2:17 PM   #39
Mach 1 Member
 
fritzOSU03's Avatar
 
James

Join Date: March 25, 2010
Location: Little Elm, TX
Posts: 840
2011 MCA V6 Black
Images: 4
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by ireallycare View Post
bump?
Thanks for that, I had completely forgot that I wanted to see this.

Edit: I just PM'ed EVO to see if they'd post up a graphic of their curve.
__________________

2011 MCA V6 Coupe, Ebony/Charcoal, 6 SP M/T, 3.31 Rear End, Security Package, HID Headlights.
Tint, GT500 Rear Diffuser, 401a Knob and Boot, Roush Axle-Back Exhaust, Roush Extreme Lowering Springs
Ordered: 3/20/10 | Pulled: 4/8/10 | Built: 4/19/10 | ETA #1: 5/6/10 | ETA #2: 7/15/10 | Delivered: 7/24/10

Last edited by fritzOSU03; 6/3/10 at 2:22 PM. Reason: Update
fritzOSU03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6/3/10, 2:17 PM
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

Sponsors



 

MotM Winners
December 2012 MotM Winner November 2012 MotM Winner September 2012 MotM Winner August 2012 MotM Winner

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:26 AM.


Clubs, Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.