WBstangGT

Yeah, but it also depends on who ya know. I have more then ample access to any garage service I'd need, well 8 hours away... but flatbed it up there and I'd be able to drive it home at least.

grabbergreen

Well, that was the point. I was going to start a thread asking why Ford didn't use the Falcon's Inline-6, then decided instead to do a search to see if it has been discussed before. Lo and behold, this thread was one of two that popped up in the search results, though the topic I was looking up was only mentioned in passing.

To me, a 245-hp, 280-lb/ft inline-6 sounds like the perfect Mustang motor. The original 1964.5 featured an inline-6 too, so I thought giving the new Mustang an engine format used in the originals would be an intriguing, and surprising, nod to the original 'stang.

Of course, after a few drives in a Bimmer M3 and a Toyota Altezza ("Lexus IS-300" here in the states), I'm hopelessly-addicted to six-bangers! :P

I've heard a few times from some ambiguous sources that Ford didn't consider the 4.0L straight-six because it was too long. But then I have to ask how BMW fits 3.2L straight-sixes under their hoods... which are noticeably shorter than the Mustang's hood...

Does anybody have a definite answer? I would really like to know, one way or the other.

Thanks in advance!

James4litre

How about the fact that our new Mustang GT has lower peak horsepower and torque than the last generation of F-body it made extinct. :scratch:

Not that I'm complaining. I'd rather be around than rusting with the last of my kind. [/b][/quote]
I am obviously not a genius when it comes to engines but i know a little. Explain what you mean by more peak horsepower on the older models. I thought they had about 260 and the new 05's have around 300hp. I figured ford would give the peak horsepower when it advertieses. Sorry for my ignorance

Nathan_H

Hey Berol, totally understood. Have to look at things from all angles. 1-did your grandfathers windstar have the 3.8?? 2-I checked and double checked. According to car and driver, msn auto and actually doing it, the windstar does runa n average of about 17.28. The v6 stangs time was one particular guy, although the guy below him with a '95 3.8 ran an even slower time... As said, no argument, discussion is the purpose for the forum.

Berol

I'm glad you're cool with it.

I believe the times you've quoted. Maybe the 4.0L will have a better torque curve and help improve the situation. I'd also like to see curves for the upcoming 3.5L motor.

For the other question- Yeah it had the 3.8L. It also has traction control but I don't think that it effected the outcome of the comparison. But having it off would have been the fairest test.

Oh well. In any case, I'll let the thread get back on topic

kevinb120

Im betting the 4.0 takes a full 2 sec off the v6 quarter mile.

Dr Iven

Holy CRAP!!

I'm sorry to discredit the source, but that time was with a dog of a Mustang.

Either that, or the automatic is just extremely slow.

I ran my girlfriend's 2000 V6 5-speed at Gainesville Raceway last summer. The temp was about 88F and the humidity was about the same number... 85%.

Even though I wasn't hooking up well at all, I still consistently ran 16.3 at 85mph with her totally unmodified car, and her in the front seat. Granted, she only weighs 115 lbs., but that's another tenth easily.

A stock late model V6 'stang should be able to easily break into the 15's under normal conditions with good tires. In fact, most performance sites say it should run anywhere from 15.5-15.9.

kevinb120

thats about what I was thinking too, mid 15's

VillianousBlak

I am obviously not a genius when it comes to engines but i know a little. Explain what you mean by more peak horsepower on the older models. I thought they had about 260 and the new 05's have around 300hp. I figured ford would give the peak horsepower when it advertieses. Sorry for my ignorance [/b][/quote]
Quickly summarized he said "F-bodies Pwn3d Joo."

PS: the horsepower thing is explained on like page two of this topic.

PPS: We still own you.

thegoalie

You're planning on using your 401K as a car fund? I commend you for trying to plan ahead, but this is a horrible idea.

I'd be happy to explain to you, in detail, why it's a huge mistake. If you're interested, PM me.

thegoalie

Your idea is great for cars with the same redline, but impractical for comparing cars with different RPM ranges.

For example, a Mustang GT has comparible power to a Mazda RX-8. But the Rx-8 would kill the Stang in performance under your system, because it's redline is so much higher than the Mustang's.

Kudos for trying something new, though.

FYI, the "area under the curve" method is used in many applications. We mechanical engineers know that the "toughness" of a material is the area under the stress-strain curve.

bob

To me, a 245-hp, 280-lb/ft inline-6 sounds like the perfect Mustang motor. The original 1964.5 featured an inline-6 too, so I thought giving the new Mustang an engine format used in the originals would be an intriguing, and surprising, nod to the original 'stang.

I6's are very good engines, probably a space issue with anything Ford might have right now, but something with an under square siamesed bore slanted block would probably fit?

Also can somebody please define efficiency? Are we talking fuel efficiency, mechanical efficiency what?? Smaller higher revving engines do not automatically denote a more efficient engine or powerful engine. Nor do buzz words like; DOHC, 4v, V-TEC, etc. :bang: :scratch:

e.g.: 400hp 6.0 LS2 vs. 300hp 4.6 3v - somebody please tell me which engine based on displacment and power is inferior to the other?

BillP

I have the 4.0 SOHC in my 1997 Explorer.

That engine at 215hp used to be able to move my truck 0-60 in 8.1 secs. That's with a V6 hauling around a lot more weight than the 05 mustang has to haul around.

Big 6's can be good for those who don't require the V8.

grabbergreen

I guess efficiency can be looked-at two ways--

1) The amount of horsepower and torque per liter.

2) Gas mileage per horsepower... how much power a motor can generate with a given quantity of fuel.

At least, that's how I look at it. Electronic regulation, such as Variable Valve Timing, can simultaneously increase power and gas mileage if designed and executed properly...

I guess you can say that BMW's 3.2-Liter straight-six is more "efficient" than Ford's 4.6L V-8 because it produces more power per cubic liter... but then you have to take into account that the BMW requires premium petrol, while the Ford V-8 runs just fine on regular unleaded.

In this regard, there seems to be two different "schools" of powertrain efficiency. The Europeans and Japanese seem to favor small displacement, lightweight, highly-digitized powertrains that guzzle premium fuel. The Americans seem to favor big-displacement, heavier, less digitized powertrains that run on regular fuel. If you have the cash to spare, then an import powertrain might suit you better. Average joe's like me are more than content with good ol' Detroit iron... B)

Nathan_H

I agree, I6's are great. For instance, the 300cid, I6, used in the early-mid 1980's f-trucks. TOUGH motor, and nearly bullet proof block. Plus tons of torque. An I6 from the falcon woud've and should've been the best motor for the 05 mustang, in the 6 cylinder category.IMO

saleen

New Falcon XR6 Turbo with 4.0L Turbo I6. 240kw(320hp)

grabbergreen

Oh, come on...

That hood has got to be shorter than the '05 Stang's...

*sigh* It's official. Ford hates America.

Why else would Australia get the Falcon while we get the freaking Taurus?

future9er24

duude i kno. i want a falcon bad. i'd luv to see that i6 in a 6banger stang in da future

kevinb120

Oh, come on...

That hood has got to be shorter than the '05 Stang's...

*sigh* It's official. Ford hates America.

Why else would Australia get the Falcon while we get the freaking Taurus? [/b][/quote]
$

Lalo

that is one nice looking falcon