jsaylor

If the reports of a future 10-15% improvement in rwhp are to be believed for the GT then I could easily see a 250 or 260hp V-6 coming soon. Do the math and note that a 15% improvement in rwhp generally turns the currently 310-320hp (roughly based on dyno results of 270-275rwhp and clearly in spite of it's 300hp rating) into a 350-360 actual hp car. All of a sudden even a 280hp V-6 is stepping on nobodies toes anymore.

And in actuality, a jump to a rated 340hp or so on the V-8 would leave under-rating at about the same 20hp it is hovering at now and sounds totally believable. You could easily have a rated 260-280hp V-6 Mustang and that would leave a perceived difference of 60-80hp. That is more than enough to make a clear difference in actual performance, especially when you take torque into consideration, and perception.

jsaylor

I actually cannot agree. I think GT owners are likely more often concerned with hp than are V-6 owners, but I would hardly say base Mustang ownes couldn't care less. Heck, even V-6 Camry owners care about hp or else they would have bought a V-6, and the V-6 Mustang is no Camry.

I think adding some more oats to the V-6 and giving it a sportier/faster edge while retaining the economy it currently offers could be very good for the car indeed. It would peak my interest for sure.

André

A base mustang with 260 to 280 HPs just seems wrong to me
...and with prediction of $100 per barrel of oil, I believe ford should concentrate more on fuel efficiency while keeping the same power output, at least for the base version.

The core buyers of the V6 mustang are women, and they are not usually fans of muscle cars, let's remember that the F-bodies won the HP battle but where are they today...

grabbergreen

The duratec 3.0 has about the same HP, it's lighter, smoother, more fuel efficient than the cologne 4.0, and could be as fast, or very close. The base Mustang is NOT about power or acceleration time for most people who buy it, most just want an economical sport coupe and could not care less about HP figures. The GT, that's another story...
[/b][/quote]

Lighter? Okay. Smoother? Perhaps. More fuel efficient? Won't argue with you there. Make no mistake, though. Despite the similar horsepower figures, the extra torque delivered by the Cologne 4.0 makes a world of difference during your initial launch, or when accellerating out of a curve, or when accellerating uphill.

There's much more to an engine's power output than just the peak horsepower...

As for your niche argument, it's arguable. While you could argue that women (read: fashion-divas) are the big buyers of V6 Mustangs (often in convertible form), there is still a market for someone who buys a V6 Mustang to get a reasonably fast car with decent handling. Maybe they can't shell out the extra 5 grand for the GT. Who knows? Either way, while it is just about time to say good-bye to the 4.0, I don't think the 3.0 has nearly enough low-end grunt to replace it. Torque and the subsequent ability to get a good launch without having to replace your transmission every 6 months is what separates an American muscle car from the FWD high-strung imports a la "The Fast and the Furious"...

TURBO 05

aside from a few enthusiat V6 Mustang owners the average V6 mustang owner is not as concerned with high horse pwer they would rather sacrafice the hp for mph. If someone wants power they have many options but the V6 will remain in the under 250 hp range as far as I can guess. It doesn't make sence to invest in a higher hp motor, the car can be put together and sold for under $20k, it is a heck of a deal for 210 hp.

grabbergreen

You perhaps meant MPG (miles per gallon)?

kevinv-6

since h/p numbers are being thrown around here I thought I would post some 1/4 mile numbers and 0-60 numbers from road and tracks april 05 issue.
car 0-60 1/4mile
Mustang 6.8seconds 15.1seconds@92.7mph
Tiburon 7.6seconds 15.9seconds@87.6mph
Crossfire 6.7seconds 14.9seconds@96.0moh
PT Turbo 7.2seconds 15.7econds@88.9mph
AccordEXV-6 7.3seconds 15.7seconds@91.0mph
AccordEXV-6Coupe 6.3seconds 14.8seconds@97.2mph
Mazda 6 8.1seconds 16.3seconds@87.1mph
Eclipse GT 7.0seconds 15.3seconds@91.4mph
Altima 3.5SE 7.1seconds 15.4seconds@90.9mph
Maxima 3.5SE 6.5seconds 15.0seconds@95.4mph
Camry XLE V-6 8.7seconds 16.7seconds@84mph
Solara SE Sport 6.6seconds 15.0seconds@94.1mph
Celica GT-S 6.8seconds 15.4seconds@91.5mph
Passat GLX 9.2seconds 17.0seconds@84.2mph
Acura RL 6.7seconds 15.1seconds@95.1mph
Acura TL 6.3seconds 14.8seconds@96.6mph

Our 4.0 liter 210hp stands up for itself very well!!!!

TomServo92

That Mazda6 number has to be for the 4 cylinder model. The V6 model is a mid 6 second 0-60 and around 15.0 in the quarter.

Lalo

I'm most likely to get a V6 Stang in the future (what with me becoming a teacher and starting a car-toon business as an unknown), so I hope Ford does something that makes everyone happy when they replace the 4.0

More HP, Torque, MPG, Cleaner burning, faster times... Is Ford in the works on a Hydrogen powered car?

kevinv-6

That Mazda6 number has to be for the 4 cylinder model. The V6 model is a mid 6 second 0-60 and around 15.0 in the quarter.
[/b][/quote]

I just checked again and it says its the Mazda 6s with V6 automatic.
You could be right though.

TomServo92

Hmmmm....the V6 autos are slower but not by that much. They should be mid 7s and around 15.5-15.8. Was it a 2005 model? It's my understand that they do weigh a bit more than 03/04 due to increased noise reduction materials.

kevinv-6

it doesnt say what year or when it was tested..sorry.
the V-6 Mustang that was tested was also an automatic.

MrMorden

Ford would do it if they had plans for a 350+hp GT...

kevinspann

I say Use the 3.5 and bring back a turbo 4 (the 2.3 Zetec, or the mazda designed one, since they already have a turbo and RWD in the miata

one2gamble

i cant see it, I can see something in the 240hp range though. Ford has to be careful with the 6. They dont want to overpower the market the car sells in.

bob

VVT = - A useful technology with good performance benefits vs. complexity

variable valve lift = :notnice: - excessively complex for what real gain?

Now utilize light weight valves, retainers, springs, etc. refine the cylinder head castings, refine intake and exhaust systems. utilize more aggressive cam profiles and then you get some nice low buck power without the added expense, weight, and complexity of a VVL,