300HP 3.5 duratec 07 Mustang
#21
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.
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.
#22
Originally posted by André@April 8, 2005, 3:58 PM
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...
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...
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.
#23
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: January 29, 2004
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
...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...
#24
Originally posted by André+April 8, 2005, 2:58 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(André @ April 8, 2005, 2:58 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-grabbergreen@April 8, 2005, 4:32 AM
Umm, no.
The 4.0L Cologne pumps out a whopping 240 lb/ft of torque. Compare that to the Duratech 30's measly 197 lb/ft.
If Ford replaces the old 4.0, it had BETTER be the Duratech 35. The fact that I can get a Toyota Avalon with a V6 that pumps out 70 more horsepower than a base Mustang is just... well... troubling...
Umm, no.
The 4.0L Cologne pumps out a whopping 240 lb/ft of torque. Compare that to the Duratech 30's measly 197 lb/ft.
If Ford replaces the old 4.0, it had BETTER be the Duratech 35. The fact that I can get a Toyota Avalon with a V6 that pumps out 70 more horsepower than a base Mustang is just... well... troubling...
[/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"...
#25
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.
#26
Originally posted by TURBO 05@April 9, 2005, 3:01 AM
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.
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.
#27
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!!!!
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!!!!
#28
Legacy TMS Member
Originally posted by kevinv-6@April 11, 2005, 8:27 AM
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!!!!
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!!!!
#29
I'm people, and I like.
Join Date: March 13, 2004
Location: PDX
Posts: 9,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
More HP, Torque, MPG, Cleaner burning, faster times... Is Ford in the works on a Hydrogen powered car?
#30
Originally posted by TomServo92+April 11, 2005, 9:46 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TomServo92 @ April 11, 2005, 9:46 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-kevinv-6@April 11, 2005, 8:27 AM
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!!!!
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!!!!
[/b][/quote]
I just checked again and it says its the Mazda 6s with V6 automatic.
You could be right though.
#31
Legacy TMS Member
Originally posted by kevinv-6@April 11, 2005, 8:59 AM
I just checked again and it says its the Mazda 6s with V6 automatic.
You could be right though.
I just checked again and it says its the Mazda 6s with V6 automatic.
You could be right though.
#36
Legacy TMS Member
Originally posted by grabbergreen@April 5, 2005, 11:56 AM
2) Ford can switch their V8 to DOHC with VVT on each cam. Adding Variable Valve Lift, which I'm confident Ford engineers can do, can boost the power even further. So, with all these enhancements, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to see Ford's 4.6L intrude into LS-1 or 5.7L HEMI territory...
2) Ford can switch their V8 to DOHC with VVT on each cam. Adding Variable Valve Lift, which I'm confident Ford engineers can do, can boost the power even further. So, with all these enhancements, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to see Ford's 4.6L intrude into LS-1 or 5.7L HEMI territory...
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,
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
carid
Vendor Showcase
0
7/20/15 06:26 AM