Woulda been cool indeed. Would make for a very cool swap for someone who wants something different.

Sadly, the 4L I6 will probably be phased out end of decade and replaced by a Duratec 35 (or larger). They should be keeping this alive if for no other reason than to use in trucks here, like GM does with their 4.2L I6.

 

Not all of us can afford a GT. I will Probably get the V6 model and build it up over time.

 

Not all of us can afford a GT. I will Probably get the V6 model and build it up over time. [/b][/quote]
Yeah me too. There's nothing wrong with a v6. Especially a 4.0L. I was thinking of getting an 04 GT. But the new 05 bodystyle has me hooked. And I like the bladed wheels center caps on the v6 models. Plus, there is an option of getting a wing, and the option of pin stripes along the rocker panel area. I think the v6 mustang will be a good investment for a graduating college student like myself. Plus insurance and gas prices will cost less. The aftermarket will be full of parts to make the v6 faster. And if the starting price is under $20k, that's a heck of a deal if you ask me. I'm not really into performance, or street racing, so it just makes logical sense for me to get the v6 IMO. I have the rest of my life to buy my dream car. But in the meantime, I'll be saving $$$ in my 401K for a future purchase. Planning ahead and patience is the key...thanks for the advice Brad. :w00t:

 

Speaking of the 3.5...when are they going to start putting them into the V6 models? 2006 maybe?

 

Probably buy the time I actually get enough money to afford one. (which would be the end of this bodystyle's run most likely )

 

That motor doesn't go into production until Jan 2006. It wil reportedly debut in the new Lincoln Aviator. I would not look for it in the Mustang until at leat MY2008, and possibly (a lot) later.

 

I know a lot of people want the 3.5L V-6 pretty badly. But, if refinement is good then the 4.0L is great with me. As a matter of fact for less money I would much rather have the 4.0L V-6. And actually, the only way I would prefer the 3.5L is if it were about the same or barely more money. Again, this is assuming that refinement doesn't take a nose-dive in a transfer from the trucks on the 4.0L. And, IMHO I doubt that it will.

 

As someone else eluded to, peak HP and torque is not what it is about. Give me displacement any day. The HP graph down 2 to 5 thousand range will be much better and that range is what makes a car fun to drive, unless you like winding your engine at 6 thousand all day.
The 4.0 they use in the Explorer is a strong engine People use it in off road racing and get some big power out of it. Ford restricts the exhaust in it big time, easy 25 hp gain availble.
The more important thing will be the gearing and shift points.

 

I dont know. The 3.0 has good power and I would think the 3.5 would be even better(more power) I wouldnt mind taking a 3.5 equiped car for a spin.

 

Yep, same situation with the current V6 and the now defunct Taurus SHO's Yamaha V8.

Heck the current V6 stang has more displacement that a Ferrari 360, but makes less than half the power. Makes almost as much torque though. [/b][/quote]
My girlfriend back in the day had a 1.8L V6 in her mazda mx3, it was pretty neat although a butt ugly car. B)

 

I'd absolutely love to see the 4.0L Inline-6 from the Australian Ford Falcon in a Mustang.

The original mustang had an inline-6, after all...

And, from the accounts of the several Aussies I've been talking to on a few other forums, the Falcon is a blast to drive.

What was the main consideration for choosing against this motor? Cost? Dimensions? Weight?

For those of us who don't use Metric, this Inline-6 pumps out 280lb/ft @3250rpm, and 245hp @5000rpm... assuming my conversions are correct.

 

The final and official rating for the '05 Stang V6 is:

210 HP @ 5250 RPM
240 lb. ft @ 3500 RPM

Indications are that the engine is very conservatively rated (as is Ford's practice these days) and that it most likely has over 220 HP.

But as someone else pointedout, HP not all that important. Torque is the important #. And Torque at low RPM is really important.

From the Ford order guide the 2005 Taurus with the Duratec 30 has:

200 HP @ 5650 RPM
207 lb ft @ 4400 RPM

So the 4.0 not only has 33 more lb ft of torque ( 16% more) but it delivers all that torque at 3500 RPM, 900 RPM lower RPM than the Taurus engine.

 

IMHO to all who say the V6 is good enough, I say Pony up the extra money for the GT or you will be saying... COULDA, SHOULDA WISH I WOULDA.

 

and even funnier the new honda accord has 240 horses so much for the 6ers being able to eat rice...

 

The New Honda Accord V6 weighs in at 3415 lbs. I'm pretty sure the V6 Mustang wouldn't be too far behind it.

It also is short on torque.

On top of that, don't forget the new Mustang has a 5-speed automatic and it also uses REGULAR unleaded. The Accord uses premium.

 

yeah, not to mention the difference in prices. V6 accord sells at the price of a mustang gt. I didn't know that about the gas... just one more bullet I can shoot my wife with for thinking about buying one.

 

Our '99 windstar has a 3.8 litre, and it has *****. Kick it in the guts and you know it. Now I'm not saying that vans are fast, but I was impressed when we took it for a drive. Needless to say it sits in our driveway, and we've never had a better van. Even with the 4 speed tranny, I have no complaints. Why don't they refine that motor and put it in the new v6 coupe??

 

I love 5-month old topic rehashes.

I think they're trying to move on from the 3.8L engine. I remember my mom's '85 T-bird had the 3.8L V6. I'm sure it wasn't really the same engine as the ones used in 'stangs the past few years, but that number has been around for awhile. Not only that, but the 4.0L SOHC is a more technologically advanced engine than the 3.8L OHV.

I know some guys with newer Rangers with the 4.0L V6, and they've hit the 14's with just a few minor mods. I'm sure the 'stang will be even quicker with a 5-speed, better gearing, and less weight. :yes:

 

that is very very good to hear

 

and, oh yea. i would rather have 5 month old rehashes, then have a double thread on the same topic