2011 V6 Torque Curve
#21
Cobra R Member
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
2.73's are useless on a car with 27" dia tires, they're just a gimmick so they can claim +30mpg
#22
GT Member
Join Date: April 2, 2010
Location: Shizuoka City, Japan
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#23
Cobra Member
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.
#25
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: March 25, 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#26
Bullitt Member
Join Date: February 4, 2010
Location: UAE
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#27
Legacy TMS Member
Join Date: September 20, 2004
Location: N.E. Wisconsin
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
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
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
Last edited by orange3.9stang; 4/30/10 at 11:47 AM.
#28
Cobra R Member
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.
#29
Cobra R Member
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
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
#30
GT Member
Join Date: April 2, 2010
Location: Shizuoka City, Japan
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#31
Cobra R Member
#32
Cobra Member
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
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
#33
GT Member
Join Date: January 3, 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#34
Legacy TMS Member
Join Date: January 25, 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,754
Received 1,493 Likes
on
1,018 Posts
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.
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.
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 02:26 PM.
#35
GT Member
Join Date: January 3, 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
#37
Cobra R Member
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll take a slower RWD car over a fast FWD car almost any day. Good thing the Mustang is neither slower nor FWD.
#39
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: March 25, 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post