Ford Unveils Next-Generation V-6 Engine
11/10/05, 08:49 PM
#121
Banned
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by JeffreyDJ@November 10, 2005, 7:43 PM
The real question, is if you put a Turbo in it, will it make 400RWHP and do the 1/4M in 11s.
No wait, what was the topic again?
The real question, is if you put a Turbo in it, will it make 400RWHP and do the 1/4M in 11s.
No wait, what was the topic again?
WORD.
11/10/05, 08:56 PM
#122
Cobra R Member
Join Date: March 18, 2004
Posts: 1,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(edit: apparently i quoted a random post.....)
yup, word indeed.
Who cares? I mean, we get a V6 that'll put out 250hp out of the box, that's all we need for the edge, that'd be freakin awesome for the fusion. Its not like they've announced, the fusion GT and the 500 will get exactly 250hp when this engine gets plopped under the hood in a couple years. until they announce how much power they decide to work into each car, we shouldn't be complaining. We just know that 300hp is about the max for the engine, which for either the fusion or the 500 is more than enough. hehe, 300hp fusion
. The point remains, we still don't know how much power they're giving to each car, so why get all fussed up about it now.
We should be happy that ford's building such a high tech engine and doing it in a smart way. Planning ahead for future tech is really smart. They're actually thinking! They made this engine with a turbo charger in mind. 300hp isn't enough for those family guys who like to race maximas? maybe they'll give us a 500 GT... (whoa, that's confusing... okay FiveHundred GT!) with a turbo v6 with direct injection putting out 330hp to AWD or something like that. Or maybe a 500 V6 hybrid AWD that can do 0-60 in like 7 seconds or something. Look at all the possibilities ford has put out in front of our little speculating heads! We just don't know what they'll give us at this point! So stop complaining and enjoy the good news!
yup, word indeed.
Who cares? I mean, we get a V6 that'll put out 250hp out of the box, that's all we need for the edge, that'd be freakin awesome for the fusion. Its not like they've announced, the fusion GT and the 500 will get exactly 250hp when this engine gets plopped under the hood in a couple years. until they announce how much power they decide to work into each car, we shouldn't be complaining. We just know that 300hp is about the max for the engine, which for either the fusion or the 500 is more than enough. hehe, 300hp fusion
. The point remains, we still don't know how much power they're giving to each car, so why get all fussed up about it now.We should be happy that ford's building such a high tech engine and doing it in a smart way. Planning ahead for future tech is really smart. They're actually thinking! They made this engine with a turbo charger in mind. 300hp isn't enough for those family guys who like to race maximas? maybe they'll give us a 500 GT... (whoa, that's confusing... okay FiveHundred GT!) with a turbo v6 with direct injection putting out 330hp to AWD or something like that. Or maybe a 500 V6 hybrid AWD that can do 0-60 in like 7 seconds or something. Look at all the possibilities ford has put out in front of our little speculating heads! We just don't know what they'll give us at this point! So stop complaining and enjoy the good news!
11/10/05, 11:31 PM
#123
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by MSP@November 10, 2005, 9:41 PM
I would just like to say, I do have lots of respect for max2000jp!! Its plainley obvious that he loves the Japanese cars more than his Mustang GT.. I am just so shocked that he chose a GT.. LOL!! I mean, no matter which angle the guy is coming from, he bought a Mustang GT.. So its not really worth arguing to hard about really.. There is common ground that does exist.. Just for the sake of a needless argument..
I would just like to say, I do have lots of respect for max2000jp!! Its plainley obvious that he loves the Japanese cars more than his Mustang GT.. I am just so shocked that he chose a GT.. LOL!! I mean, no matter which angle the guy is coming from, he bought a Mustang GT.. So its not really worth arguing to hard about really.. There is common ground that does exist.. Just for the sake of a needless argument..
11/10/05, 11:34 PM
#124
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TomServo92@November 10, 2005, 9:48 PM
Who's to say the Ford won't be underrated as well?
As for being late to the party, I don't dispute that. Ford spent too much money developing SUVs and let the Duratec V6 languish. But they now have a very competitive engine and 250HP is just the starting point.
BTW, I didn't say 300HP was max output for VQ. But I am curious, how much did it cost your friend to get 460HP out of the 350Z and what exactly did he do?
Who's to say the Ford won't be underrated as well?
As for being late to the party, I don't dispute that. Ford spent too much money developing SUVs and let the Duratec V6 languish. But they now have a very competitive engine and 250HP is just the starting point.BTW, I didn't say 300HP was max output for VQ. But I am curious, how much did it cost your friend to get 460HP out of the 350Z and what exactly did he do?
My friend's 350Z has an APS Twin Turbo kit. The engine is otherwise bone stock. The internals are stock, as is the block. The VQ can handle a lot of power reliably, assuming a good tune. I think he spent 7K on the kit total. The car put down 460 rwhp on 10lbs of boost. The APS kit really impressed me when I drove it. It was engineered so well, it's hard to tell it wasn't OEM.
11/11/05, 05:01 AM
#125
Legacy TMS Member
Originally posted by max2000jp@November 11, 2005, 12:37 AM
My friend's 350Z has an APS Twin Turbo kit. The engine is otherwise bone stock. The internals are stock, as is the block. The VQ can handle a lot of power reliably, assuming a good tune. I think he spent 7K on the kit total. The car put down 460 rwhp on 10lbs of boost. The APS kit really impressed me when I drove it. It was engineered so well, it's hard to tell it wasn't OEM.
My friend's 350Z has an APS Twin Turbo kit. The engine is otherwise bone stock. The internals are stock, as is the block. The VQ can handle a lot of power reliably, assuming a good tune. I think he spent 7K on the kit total. The car put down 460 rwhp on 10lbs of boost. The APS kit really impressed me when I drove it. It was engineered so well, it's hard to tell it wasn't OEM.
11/11/05, 07:56 AM
#126
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TomServo92@November 11, 2005, 7:04 AM
I certainly would hope a twin turbo kit would put down those kinds of numbers. Without it, he's still only making the stock 300HP like I said. At any rate, we've pretty much pummeled this deceased equine all we can. I suggest we just agree to disagree.
I certainly would hope a twin turbo kit would put down those kinds of numbers. Without it, he's still only making the stock 300HP like I said. At any rate, we've pretty much pummeled this deceased equine all we can. I suggest we just agree to disagree.
287 at the crank to be exact. He had a few bolt ons before, but didn't need those parts obviously when he installed the turbo. Like I stated before, the VQ can produce a lot more power than 287 or 300 in the 06 Track Model. The engine was derived from a race motor. The race series never got off the ground and Nissan spent a lot of time and development on it. They adapated it to street use and in a nutshell that's how the VQ was born.
I personally don't care much about gas mileage and most of the nation doesn't either. Basing that a motor is designed to run 87, 91, or 93 octane is kind of grasping at straws. I would point to America's love affair with the SUV as a prime example of how much gas factors into the purchase decision.
11/11/05, 08:42 AM
#127
Legacy TMS Member
Originally posted by max2000jp@November 11, 2005, 8:59 AM
287 at the crank to be exact. He had a few bolt ons before, but didn't need those parts obviously when he installed the turbo. Like I stated before, the VQ can produce a lot more power than 287 or 300 in the 06 Track Model. The engine was derived from a race motor. The race series never got off the ground and Nissan spent a lot of time and development on it. They adapated it to street use and in a nutshell that's how the VQ was born.
I personally don't care much about gas mileage and most of the nation doesn't either. Basing that a motor is designed to run 87, 91, or 93 octane is kind of grasping at straws. I would point to America's love affair with the SUV as a prime example of how much gas factors into the purchase decision.
287 at the crank to be exact. He had a few bolt ons before, but didn't need those parts obviously when he installed the turbo. Like I stated before, the VQ can produce a lot more power than 287 or 300 in the 06 Track Model. The engine was derived from a race motor. The race series never got off the ground and Nissan spent a lot of time and development on it. They adapated it to street use and in a nutshell that's how the VQ was born.
I personally don't care much about gas mileage and most of the nation doesn't either. Basing that a motor is designed to run 87, 91, or 93 octane is kind of grasping at straws. I would point to America's love affair with the SUV as a prime example of how much gas factors into the purchase decision.
11/11/05, 09:44 AM
#128
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TomServo92@November 11, 2005, 10:45 AM
SUV sales are dropping like a rock so I would say the love affair with big SUVs is over. At any rate, my comment about the octane was more about how much power is produced than mileage. If you take the same engine and tune it to run on 93, it will generally make more power than one tuned for 87.
SUV sales are dropping like a rock so I would say the love affair with big SUVs is over. At any rate, my comment about the octane was more about how much power is produced than mileage. If you take the same engine and tune it to run on 93, it will generally make more power than one tuned for 87.
11/11/05, 10:02 AM
#129
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 25, 2004
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all the bickering about hp vs. the VQ35, I think the biggest unkown is how cheaply Ford can make them. Price per hp is a better comparrison than hp per liter IMHO. You want to talk about hp per liter, I would not be comparring the VQ (4G63, F22C, etc.).
If Ford can produce it and sell it for cheaper than Nissan's VQ, then it will be a great product (i.e. a $22.5k Fusion v. $24k Altima 3.5).
Even if it was 4.0L and still getting 250/240, it would still be a better buy.
If Ford can produce it and sell it for cheaper than Nissan's VQ, then it will be a great product (i.e. a $22.5k Fusion v. $24k Altima 3.5).
Even if it was 4.0L and still getting 250/240, it would still be a better buy.
11/11/05, 02:05 PM
#130
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 31, 2004
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by max2000jp@November 9, 2005, 10:37 AM
About 3 years late Ford; better late than never. I am a bit disppointed that the engine isn't a bit more powerful. The 3.5 VQ is more powerful and it has been around since 2002 in the Maxima. Otherwise, this engine sounds like a step in the right direction. Put this engine in the Fusion GT and Ford 500 Stat!!
About 3 years late Ford; better late than never. I am a bit disppointed that the engine isn't a bit more powerful. The 3.5 VQ is more powerful and it has been around since 2002 in the Maxima. Otherwise, this engine sounds like a step in the right direction. Put this engine in the Fusion GT and Ford 500 Stat!!
seems ever since the 1999 Cobra debacle, Ford has underrated theirs engines. Even the 3V 4.6 is around 315hp. I figure the new 3.5 wil be good for 260hp at least.
11/11/05, 04:32 PM
#131
Banned
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 35thGT@November 11, 2005, 1:08 PM
seems ever since the 1999 Cobra debacle, Ford has underrated theirs engines. Even the 3V 4.6 is around 315hp. I figure the new 3.5 wil be good for 260hp at least.
seems ever since the 1999 Cobra debacle, Ford has underrated theirs engines. Even the 3V 4.6 is around 315hp. I figure the new 3.5 wil be good for 260hp at least.
You know, if the 2005 Mustangs were properly rated at 225HP, most people would not have a problem consdering them as just LX Mustangs basically.. It would probably boost sales as well.. You could more easily compare it to the 1987 GT less 60Ft. lbs on the TQ!
Imagine a comercial which states, "The all new 2005 Mustang V6, with an incredible 225HP!"... LOL!! People would be linning up to sign the $20,000 dollar finance papers!
All of us here know how very little 225HP is.. But imagine that statement in 1987...
11/11/05, 06:13 PM
#132
Originally posted by MSP@November 11, 2005, 5:35 PM
Sounds about right.. Just like the 2005 V6 Mustang, they have rated at 210HP, is actually more like 225HP which equates to 191RWHP.. Most guys who dyno their cars see this number.. But I guess 225HP would have made the car seem to overpowered for cheaper insurance rates, and thus the whimpy 210HP campaign has raged..
You know, if the 2005 Mustangs were properly rated at 225HP, most people would not have a problem consdering them as just LX Mustangs basically.. It would probably boost sales as well.. You could more easily compare it to the 1987 GT less 60Ft. lbs on the TQ!
Imagine a comercial which states, "The all new 2005 Mustang V6, with an incredible 225HP!"... LOL!! People would be linning up to sign the $20,000 dollar finance papers!
All of us here know how very little 225HP is.. But imagine that statement in 1987...
Sounds about right.. Just like the 2005 V6 Mustang, they have rated at 210HP, is actually more like 225HP which equates to 191RWHP.. Most guys who dyno their cars see this number.. But I guess 225HP would have made the car seem to overpowered for cheaper insurance rates, and thus the whimpy 210HP campaign has raged..
You know, if the 2005 Mustangs were properly rated at 225HP, most people would not have a problem consdering them as just LX Mustangs basically.. It would probably boost sales as well.. You could more easily compare it to the 1987 GT less 60Ft. lbs on the TQ!
Imagine a comercial which states, "The all new 2005 Mustang V6, with an incredible 225HP!"... LOL!! People would be linning up to sign the $20,000 dollar finance papers!
All of us here know how very little 225HP is.. But imagine that statement in 1987...
Here is another article on the Japanese inflated HP #s.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0.../A01-283759.htm
It says that Ford will not be re-testing existing engines to the new standard (any new engines will be tested per the new rules) The Duratec30 in the 2006 Fusion was originally tested under Ford's interpretation of the old SAE standard @ 210 HP. Then they re-tested it under the new proceedure and came up with 221 HP.
So it stands to reason that the 4.0L Mustang V6 is closer to 225 HP than 210 HP. Ford would have been wise to re-test the the Mustang V6 and up it's HP ratings if the #s come out higher.
11/12/05, 06:41 PM
#133
Member
Join Date: November 12, 2005
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by mustang_sallad@November 10, 2005, 11:59 PM
We should be happy that ford's building such a high tech engine and doing it in a smart way. Planning ahead for future tech is really smart. They're actually thinking! They made this engine with a turbo charger in mind. 300hp isn't enough for those family guys who like to race maximas? maybe they'll give us a 500 GT... (whoa, that's confusing... okay FiveHundred GT!) with a turbo v6 with direct injection putting out 330hp to AWD or something like that. Or maybe a 500 V6 hybrid AWD that can do 0-60 in like 7 seconds or something. Look at all the possibilities ford has put out in front of our little speculating heads! We just don't know what they'll give us at this point! So stop complaining and enjoy the good news!
We should be happy that ford's building such a high tech engine and doing it in a smart way. Planning ahead for future tech is really smart. They're actually thinking! They made this engine with a turbo charger in mind. 300hp isn't enough for those family guys who like to race maximas? maybe they'll give us a 500 GT... (whoa, that's confusing... okay FiveHundred GT!) with a turbo v6 with direct injection putting out 330hp to AWD or something like that. Or maybe a 500 V6 hybrid AWD that can do 0-60 in like 7 seconds or something. Look at all the possibilities ford has put out in front of our little speculating heads! We just don't know what they'll give us at this point! So stop complaining and enjoy the good news!
2010 ford mustang AWD ,3.5L V6 250HP, Hybrid. i'd buy that for a dollar, or even 30,000. :worship:
if you build it they will come, of course the mustang doesn't have a problem selling now, but this could be a nice road to go down in a couple years.. only time will tell what's next.
untill then my 2005 4.0 L V6 will keep me happy..
11/12/05, 07:42 PM
#134
Originally posted by max2000jp@November 10, 2005, 8:30 PM
Again, the Altima 3.5L VQ is UNDERRATED. As in, it makes slightly more power than the advertise HP ratings :bang: It took Ford 5 more years to build an engine that merely matches the competition. Do you not see a problem with this??? Great innovation there.
Again, the Altima 3.5L VQ is UNDERRATED. As in, it makes slightly more power than the advertise HP ratings :bang: It took Ford 5 more years to build an engine that merely matches the competition. Do you not see a problem with this??? Great innovation there.
By the way, I'm not knocking the VQ series. I think the VQ is the best V6 on the market right now.
11/14/05, 06:15 PM
#135
Cam Tease
Join Date: September 30, 2004
Posts: 1,378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You make a good point Curtis, but really....I friggin hate the government. If emissions is important to the consumer, it will become important to the manufacturers. Same with CAFE standards, i mean WTF government?? How about a free market?
11/15/05, 08:39 AM
#136
Banned
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by tpwiptttt@November 12, 2005, 5:44 PM
if this engine(3.5L) makes it into the mustang 250 hp AWD, (hope they skip simple FWD) cool; then add a hybrid version yee-haw....
2010 ford mustang AWD ,3.5L V6 250HP, Hybrid. i'd buy that for a dollar, or even 30,000. :worship:
if you build it they will come, of course the mustang doesn't have a problem selling now, but this could be a nice road to go down in a couple years.. only time will tell what's next.
untill then my 2005 4.0 L V6 will keep me happy..
if this engine(3.5L) makes it into the mustang 250 hp AWD, (hope they skip simple FWD) cool; then add a hybrid version yee-haw....
2010 ford mustang AWD ,3.5L V6 250HP, Hybrid. i'd buy that for a dollar, or even 30,000. :worship:
if you build it they will come, of course the mustang doesn't have a problem selling now, but this could be a nice road to go down in a couple years.. only time will tell what's next.
untill then my 2005 4.0 L V6 will keep me happy..
WOW!! I never tried to imagine an AWD Mustang! That would be totally insane.. So what your saying is plant this engine into a Mustang, but also bring with it AWD... Now, the engine has been built for turbo operation, so they could introduce 2 models right off the bat..
1. 2007 AWD Mustang RS- 300HP
2. 2007 AWD Mustang RS-R- Twin Turbo 400HP
So lets say the raise the HP level of the motor for the stock Mustang application..
OMG, Dude you are a genius.. This motor could fit the bill for an extraordinary type of new Mustang... Now we know with a different tune, the motor could conceivably produce 300HP N/A.. Also, with a twin turbo, 400HP will also be a snap.. The Motor is already design to handle an all wheel drive situation..
My friend, you are an absolute genius!
I like it.. I love it!!
11/15/05, 08:59 AM
#137
Banned
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On 2nd thought just a few things on the AWD Mustang Concept..
One this would absolutley push the base price of the Mustang RS to $45,000 for starters.. The RS-R Twin Turbo could easily be priced at $55,000... Then you have convertibiles which would for sure be North of $60K.. So this brings to mind the plausability that Ford would introduce such a car.. The R&D would be enormous... I doubt this thought will ever cross Fords Mind.. It basically places the car in a new section..
Its a brilliant idea, however not one that will ever happen I'm afraid..
Looking at this Mercedes E-320 4Matic, I think my prices are in the ballpark in terms of value...
http://reviews.cnet.com/2005_Mercedes_Benz...7-31504070.html
Here is another list of AWD Audi vehicles..
http://autos.msn.com/browse/Audi.aspx
So this would definately place the Mustang AWD above a base price of $40K for the non-turbo version for sure..
One this would absolutley push the base price of the Mustang RS to $45,000 for starters.. The RS-R Twin Turbo could easily be priced at $55,000... Then you have convertibiles which would for sure be North of $60K.. So this brings to mind the plausability that Ford would introduce such a car.. The R&D would be enormous... I doubt this thought will ever cross Fords Mind.. It basically places the car in a new section..
Its a brilliant idea, however not one that will ever happen I'm afraid..
Looking at this Mercedes E-320 4Matic, I think my prices are in the ballpark in terms of value...
http://reviews.cnet.com/2005_Mercedes_Benz...7-31504070.html
Here is another list of AWD Audi vehicles..
http://autos.msn.com/browse/Audi.aspx
So this would definately place the Mustang AWD above a base price of $40K for the non-turbo version for sure..
11/15/05, 09:10 AM
#138
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: October 17, 2005
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,002
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're forgetting the old adage "There's no replacement for displacement." The point being that you can tweak a 4.0L for more HP than you can a 3.5L, blower or not. I'd think that if Ford put a smaller engine in the V6, the tuners out there would be screaming. <_<
11/15/05, 09:14 AM
#139
Banned
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by HadAStang@November 15, 2005, 8:13 AM
We're forgetting the old adage "There's no replacement for displacement." The point being that you can tweak a 4.0L for more HP than you can a 3.5L, blower or not. I'd think that if Ford put a smaller engine in the V6, the tuners out there would be screaming. <_<
We're forgetting the old adage "There's no replacement for displacement." The point being that you can tweak a 4.0L for more HP than you can a 3.5L, blower or not. I'd think that if Ford put a smaller engine in the V6, the tuners out there would be screaming. <_<
This particular idea has no chance at all of ever being discussed by Ford.. I believe the tuners would love to get their grubby little hands on this engine inside a Mustang, with turbos.. However its best we end this type of speculation quick.. This was just a casual passing thought, that hurts to think about because we all know this will never happen to a Mustang.. I say we just let this idea go...
11/15/05, 10:24 AM
#140
Cobra R Member
Join Date: March 18, 2004
Posts: 1,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by AnotherMustangMan@November 14, 2005, 8:18 PM
You make a good point Curtis, but really....I friggin hate the government. If emissions is important to the consumer, it will become important to the manufacturers. Same with CAFE standards, i mean WTF government?? How about a free market?
You make a good point Curtis, but really....I friggin hate the government. If emissions is important to the consumer, it will become important to the manufacturers. Same with CAFE standards, i mean WTF government?? How about a free market?
How bout a free market full of consumers who don't seem to understand the impact of their purchases? Lets leave out any kind of intervention, let people buy whatever they want, and see how quickly the market reacts to young and elderly dropping off like flies during a summer heat wave due to terrible air quality. Leave the government out of the equation, and most people just won't think there's anything wrong, automakers will give them whatever they wanna buy, and by the time the market realizes the relation between emissions from cars and people dying and starts factoring the killing of old people into their purchase decisions, we'll be in it pretty deep. The government is giving us a sweet early warning, cause they have access to tons more information, they have a bit of a better idea of what's going on.