Nathan_H

My windstar- 200 hp@4900 rpm
with 3.8 litre 240 lb/ft@3600 rpm

2002 mustang- 190 hp @5250 rpm
v6, 3.8 litre 220 lb/ft@2750 rpm

WHAT IS UP WITH THAT, I'm not complaining, but when my van is 800 pounds more, and does the 1/4 mile in in about the same time, something is wrong.IMO

Lalo

mustang_sallad

speaking of trying to figure out what the important numbers are. Some people say torque is important, others power, while others understand that the two are directly related, power being the product of torque and engine speed.

Anyways, i propose a new set of numbers which would equal the areas under the curves of Torque vs RPM and Power vs RPM graphs, or for those blessed with having studied some calculus, the integrals of torque and power w.r.t. engine speed. Lets give these integrals names... umm... k... TqRPM and HpRPM
These would give you a better idea of the engine's potential across its entire range, as opposed to just some peak number.
Lemme give an example, lets look at HpRPM, so the area under the curve of a Hp vs RPM graph. Say one car (lets say, accord v6) has a slowly increasing Hp as the RPMs grow until it gets to a pretty high peak Hp. Another car ('05 v6 mustang) has a pretty high Hp early on, and keeps this power going across a good chunk of its rpm range. Even though the peak Hp of the Accord might be higher than the mustang, the mustang would still have a greater area under the curve, and that gives you a better idea of how the car will perform.
Hehehe, here, look at my picture.

mustang_sallad

oops, here ya go.

So do you guys get it? I'm proposing a new unit that'll measure the total power output over its entire rpm range, not just some peak number. This'll show you whether a car has a really peaky power band, or whether its a wide power band, with good power from down at low RPMs.
Tell me what you think of the idea.

Nathan_H

Totally understood. Horsepower is nothing more than the ratio between torque and rpm, thus proving what you said. Oh and I do have some calculus under my belt. It's still sad when my windstar is competition for a mustang. Oh well, as said, thats why we have GT's and Special Editions. Wait, this is my one hundredth post. YIPPEE...

tom_vilsack

Im getting a V6 and will be more then happy with 200+ horsepower...then again this comes from a guy with a 89 fox with only 88 hp.I just hope the V6 is more impressive then the ones that are in the stangs right now.I took a test drive in a 2000 V6 a few weeks back,and main reason i didnt buy was because the motor felt sloppy and (best i can describe) all air.Im keeping my fingers crossed that i will be happy with the 05 V6,or i guess it will be more 88 hp for near future lol

hiznherponies

I don't know how a windstar could compete with a mustang at the drags or stoplight g.p., but i know that my ranger 4x4 w/ a 4.0 gets pretty good mileage considering the added weight, and driveline friction, around 17 on the hwy, and i know that some windstars are dogs for mileage, not much over 20. i'll bet i can jump a windstar on acceleration anyday, with the 4.10's i've got in it from the factory. I've already caught a few guys either napping or with their mommas with them 'cause that little truck sure spanked them!! Won't go over 90 in it though, gotta get that limiter removed. the 3.8 is the out going motor, the 4.0 is the new sohc motor and its really nice!!!

The Deviant One

Speakin of the 3.5 duratec....isn't it's hp rating well over 225+hp and has something like 240+lb ft. of torque? I read that somewhere. but can't really remember exactly where I got that from. I might be a bit off on the numbers, especially on the torque, but I've heard of good things with this new mustang engine.

WBstangGT

LOL that's how I stumbled across the 2005 mustang. I was researching for a good 5.0 motor to swap into my ranger. I think the name says the rest of the story.

Dr Iven

Heh, heh, yeah... I was gonna do the 5.0 swap on my '93, but decided to go with just modding the 4.0 that's in it. I know every inch of my motor, and my dad knows every centimeter (used to be his), so I know it's in great shape even at 175k. A used 5.0 would be playing with fire.

Dr Iven

Oh, and look at all the other car companies. Their vans have even more powerful engines than the Windstar/Freestar. The new Odyssey is getting a 250/260 hp version of the Accord 3.5 V6. The Nissan Quest has a version of the Maxima engine (I think). Since 90% of minivan drivers are women, and moms at that, it's safe to say that vans are not Mustang competition. Even if they had Viper V10's, soccer moms would still drive their vans in slow motion.

adrenalin

I wouldn't complain about the V6 too much. It is only 25hp less than the 97 GT V8 4.6l I had.

Berol

I don't think the Van would be pulling 1/4 mi times anywhere near a Mustang.
Besides the weight, you have to factor in the ride height, aerodynamics and gearing.

My truck has a V10 with 425 lb ft of torque, but I can guarantee you that any V6 Mustang would own me in the 1/4 mile.

Nathan_H

#48 Joshua Brinsfield 2002 3.8,automatic, radials, mods -17.0554@82.01

Ford Windstar LX - V6 3.8L (200 hp) 4A + ABS -17.28@80.9

taken from http://www.3.8mustang.com/timeslips/

taken from http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/spec_eng...imid=-1&src=vip

Nathan_H

AND the mustang has mods. As I said before this is why we have GT's and SE's. But yes, if it came down to drivers, a windstar has a chance...I can't believe I just said that, but hey, the truth hurts...

Nathan_H

Despite height, etc... the 3.8 in the windstar turns its max hp at a lower rpm, hence a wider power band.

USA-Adam

Actually, the 3.8L in that T-bird is the same block and motor. The same basic 3.8L has been used in the Ford camp since the mid-late eighties. The 3.8L in our 89, 93, and 95 Sables is the same block if I'm not mistaken. They have some nice torque. I'm convinced that Ford should have put a dual stage intake on the 99+ Mustangs. That's what the Windstars have. It gives the engine good torque and high power. But, that would have likely made it too costly.

3.8L falls flat on its face in the upper revs without the dual stage intake. The Windstars were slow pre-96 because they didn't have it.

Nathan_H

Our 1999 windstar has no problems reaching 550 rpm. Hey good idea though...

Nathan_H

Our 1999 windstar has no problems reaching 5500 rpm. Hey good idea though...

Berol

I see your point. However, taking 2 seperate times like makes things hard to compare. My truck has been at the strip and I ran a 19.1 @ 72. However, on an untimed run, I once drove my Grandfather's 2003 Windstar, my dad drove my truck, and I got SMOKED by my own truck. I even had a better jump off the line in the van.

With this information, you can either say that my 1/4 time is not legit or my Grandfather's windstar is a complete lemon because it's getting beat by a vehicle thats about 2 seconds slower in the quarter mile. The more likely reason is the first. Not every time slip is a good one.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just trying to be as objective as possible.