V6 vs. V8 …
2/26/06, 11:09 AM
#81
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: October 22, 2004
Location: Niantic CT
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(poldrv @ February 22, 2006, 12:23 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
For those of you that like the V6, I am in your corner. As I have indicated before you have to ask yourself were will you ever get to use the 300 horsepower of a 2005 GT. The race track perhaps. Legally on the street....not a chance unless you have a sweet way of getting out of a traffic ticket (s) or a monopoly get out of jail card. If you like paying traffic fines hey by all means buy a GT.
[/b][/quote]
Are you serious? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img]
I can't speak for 100% of the members here, but I know for sure that I use the 300 hp in my GT plenty of times on the street. I mean, when the throttle is to the floor, isn't that using all the available horsepower? I have my throttle to the floor while going through the gears practically any time I enter a highway, and plenty of other times as well. And no, the car doesn't get away...
As far as tickets - have not been pulled over once in almost a year of owning this car. Prior to this car, for the last 13 years I have driven an '87 and a '95 GT, and not a single ticket with either of those either. Those two were red, and my current one is yellow. You figure it out...
But, back to the technological part of the discussion - some day there certainly might be V6 engines coming from Ford that out-perform current V8 engines. My 1984 Camaro Z28 had the "L69" high-output engine option, with 190 hp and 240 lbs-ft of torque. It was a 5.0 liter engine, with 9.5:1 compression ratio. The '05-'06 Mustang V6 puts out 210 hp and 240 lbs-ft of torque with a 4.0 liter engine.
And the potential is there for a lot more horsepower than the 300 we are seeing now from the V8 and 210 we are seeing with the V6.
If you want to think about the potential, look at the IRL IndyCar engines this year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indy_Racing_League They are normally aspirated (no turbo or supercharger) 3.0 liter V8 engines from Honda, that put out 650 horsepower at 10,300 rpm. Not sure about the torque figures, but safe to say it's more than our GTs (I remember a test from Car And Driver magazine, where they drove an IndyCar from a couple years back, and it did 0-60 in 2.6 seconds or so). Anyway, the point is, if Honda can get 650 hp from a 3.0 liter V8, it's not unreasonable to think that 400 or more hp is possible from a V6.
For those of you that like the V6, I am in your corner. As I have indicated before you have to ask yourself were will you ever get to use the 300 horsepower of a 2005 GT. The race track perhaps. Legally on the street....not a chance unless you have a sweet way of getting out of a traffic ticket (s) or a monopoly get out of jail card. If you like paying traffic fines hey by all means buy a GT.
[/b][/quote]
Are you serious? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headscratch.gif[/img]
I can't speak for 100% of the members here, but I know for sure that I use the 300 hp in my GT plenty of times on the street. I mean, when the throttle is to the floor, isn't that using all the available horsepower? I have my throttle to the floor while going through the gears practically any time I enter a highway, and plenty of other times as well. And no, the car doesn't get away...
As far as tickets - have not been pulled over once in almost a year of owning this car. Prior to this car, for the last 13 years I have driven an '87 and a '95 GT, and not a single ticket with either of those either. Those two were red, and my current one is yellow. You figure it out...
But, back to the technological part of the discussion - some day there certainly might be V6 engines coming from Ford that out-perform current V8 engines. My 1984 Camaro Z28 had the "L69" high-output engine option, with 190 hp and 240 lbs-ft of torque. It was a 5.0 liter engine, with 9.5:1 compression ratio. The '05-'06 Mustang V6 puts out 210 hp and 240 lbs-ft of torque with a 4.0 liter engine.
And the potential is there for a lot more horsepower than the 300 we are seeing now from the V8 and 210 we are seeing with the V6.
If you want to think about the potential, look at the IRL IndyCar engines this year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indy_Racing_League They are normally aspirated (no turbo or supercharger) 3.0 liter V8 engines from Honda, that put out 650 horsepower at 10,300 rpm. Not sure about the torque figures, but safe to say it's more than our GTs (I remember a test from Car And Driver magazine, where they drove an IndyCar from a couple years back, and it did 0-60 in 2.6 seconds or so). Anyway, the point is, if Honda can get 650 hp from a 3.0 liter V8, it's not unreasonable to think that 400 or more hp is possible from a V6.
2/26/06, 04:17 PM
#82
GT Member
Join Date: March 20, 2005
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm an "old guy!' (54) When I was 13 years old my dad told me "There will never be any substitution for cubic inches!" It is still true today. Any of the technology you put on a small engine would still work better on a big one! That being said, if we were talking a 4.6 6 cylinder verses the 4.6 V-8 the 6 would probably have more torque due to a longer stroke. It probably wouldn't be able to rev as fast as the V-8 or have the horsepower but , I think it would have more torque.
Which one would I rather have? I've got to go with the V-8 just on the sound alone.
I have a 1978 Jeep CJ-5 with a 401 Cubic inch engine that sits in the garage all winter while my Mustang sits outside. That engine has the same stroke as the old AMC 6 cylinder. It creates massive amounts of torque at low RPM. It has a strange firing pattern that always sounds like it has a miss in it. If you rev the engine sitting still the Jeep torques so much you wonder if it is going to flip on it's side. Torque is fun & so is the big V-8 sound! It is not loud, it just has deep tone!
Which one would I rather have? I've got to go with the V-8 just on the sound alone.
I have a 1978 Jeep CJ-5 with a 401 Cubic inch engine that sits in the garage all winter while my Mustang sits outside. That engine has the same stroke as the old AMC 6 cylinder. It creates massive amounts of torque at low RPM. It has a strange firing pattern that always sounds like it has a miss in it. If you rev the engine sitting still the Jeep torques so much you wonder if it is going to flip on it's side. Torque is fun & so is the big V-8 sound! It is not loud, it just has deep tone!
2/26/06, 05:50 PM
#83
GT Member
Join Date: December 28, 2004
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Enfynet @ February 25, 2006, 1:06 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Well if the V6 is anything like the 5.9L I6 that Dodge is putting out... Well I'd still take the 8. But a 6 like that would be sweet [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrinjester.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]
You mean that Cummins is putting out? Dodge doesn't make an I6.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cavero @ February 25, 2006, 8:23 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
That's the V6 with a std transmission vs the V8 with the std, highway milage, under the overly optimistic EPA testing guidelines...basically driving it like it's an Escort. 04.gif[/b][/quote]
I've never failed to meet EPA city or highway numbers for any car I've owned or driven over a decent distance.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wjones14 @ February 26, 2006, 1:12 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>Anyway, the point is, if Honda can get 650 hp from a 3.0 liter V8, it's not unreasonable to think that 400 or more hp is possible from a V6.[/b][/quote]
Comparing a Honda IRL engine to a stock V6 is like comparing apples to the planet Mars. That Honda engine cost many more times than your entire car, and likely as much as your house. Most engines I've seen which exceed 100 hp/L are either forcibly inducted or have very little torque.
Creating 400 hp from a V6 for a Mustang isn't worth it, IMO...it would drive the price up and would not have the torque of the V8, unless it was directly injected or had a large displacement. And in that case, why not just use a V8? Possible, yes, but not practical.
Well if the V6 is anything like the 5.9L I6 that Dodge is putting out... Well I'd still take the 8. But a 6 like that would be sweet [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrinjester.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]
You mean that Cummins is putting out? Dodge doesn't make an I6.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cavero @ February 25, 2006, 8:23 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
That's the V6 with a std transmission vs the V8 with the std, highway milage, under the overly optimistic EPA testing guidelines...basically driving it like it's an Escort. 04.gif[/b][/quote]
I've never failed to meet EPA city or highway numbers for any car I've owned or driven over a decent distance.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wjones14 @ February 26, 2006, 1:12 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>Anyway, the point is, if Honda can get 650 hp from a 3.0 liter V8, it's not unreasonable to think that 400 or more hp is possible from a V6.[/b][/quote]
Comparing a Honda IRL engine to a stock V6 is like comparing apples to the planet Mars. That Honda engine cost many more times than your entire car, and likely as much as your house. Most engines I've seen which exceed 100 hp/L are either forcibly inducted or have very little torque.
Creating 400 hp from a V6 for a Mustang isn't worth it, IMO...it would drive the price up and would not have the torque of the V8, unless it was directly injected or had a large displacement. And in that case, why not just use a V8? Possible, yes, but not practical.
2/27/06, 10:56 AM
#84
GT Member
This is a great thread. A couple of comments ...
1) We need to remember that the "subset" of owners we see in this forum are technologically advanced and are able to / willing to commit a fair % of their $ resources to their car. Not everyone fits in this boat.
2) In addition to the performance differences, there are marketing differences in the V6 vs. V8. For as many people I know who say, "the smaller the engine, the harder it has to work, so, get the V8 (right or wrong)," others say, "I'd never have a 'wasteful' V8!" I used to be a Ford rep, and we used to say, when wholesaling Tempos, "there's an hiney for every seat!"
3) My first Mustang was an '89 Dover Grey GL notchback. It was all I could afford. I REALLY respect Ford for making decisions to keep the base Mustangs affordable. It gets more people into the car and the brand w/o adversely effecting those who want it all. The fact that the base V6 has super performance is a testiment to caring about the brand. No one wants a dog.
So, if I could afford the V8, I'd get the V8 (which I did), even if the V6 had similar performance. But, if I couldn'f afford the V8, I'd be thrilled that Ford baked so much strong performance into the V6 as well.
1) We need to remember that the "subset" of owners we see in this forum are technologically advanced and are able to / willing to commit a fair % of their $ resources to their car. Not everyone fits in this boat.
2) In addition to the performance differences, there are marketing differences in the V6 vs. V8. For as many people I know who say, "the smaller the engine, the harder it has to work, so, get the V8 (right or wrong)," others say, "I'd never have a 'wasteful' V8!" I used to be a Ford rep, and we used to say, when wholesaling Tempos, "there's an hiney for every seat!"
3) My first Mustang was an '89 Dover Grey GL notchback. It was all I could afford. I REALLY respect Ford for making decisions to keep the base Mustangs affordable. It gets more people into the car and the brand w/o adversely effecting those who want it all. The fact that the base V6 has super performance is a testiment to caring about the brand. No one wants a dog.
So, if I could afford the V8, I'd get the V8 (which I did), even if the V6 had similar performance. But, if I couldn'f afford the V8, I'd be thrilled that Ford baked so much strong performance into the V6 as well.
2/27/06, 02:20 PM
#85
V6 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 23, 2004
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To pull my own topic off-topic just for a bit …
It’s unfortunate that the choice of V6 or V8 really is a choice of “base” Mustang or Mustang GT. I remember when you could option in or out all sorts of options that are now fixed to basic packages. I remember when you could option in a V8 into the base package.
It’s not so much that I wanted a V8 this time; I wanted to finally get the GT I never could afford. I did an experiment, starting with a V6 deluxe, added the pony package, IUP, and power seat. This gets me the 17” wheels, anti-lock brakes, and suspension upgrades. I still don’t get dual exhaust, 3.55 limited-slip rear axle, and the more aggressive look of a GT. I also like the look of the cloth GT seats over the base V6 seats. And although the pony suspension is upgraded from the base V6, I still believe its not the same as a GT, and aren’t the disk-brake diameters larger on the GT as well?
Bottom line, the GT is another level - not just a Mustang with a V8. By my calculation, the GT is about $3800 over a base V6 optioned-up as close to a GT as I would want. The GT, to me, is worth the extra $3800, but I gotta admit, a pony-packaged V6 is a very attractive package. To me, it’s like a “V6 GT”. I think Ford was very smart to offer it.
It is obvious, though, that a HO V6 GT wouldn’t cut it with this crowd.
It’s unfortunate that the choice of V6 or V8 really is a choice of “base” Mustang or Mustang GT. I remember when you could option in or out all sorts of options that are now fixed to basic packages. I remember when you could option in a V8 into the base package.
It’s not so much that I wanted a V8 this time; I wanted to finally get the GT I never could afford. I did an experiment, starting with a V6 deluxe, added the pony package, IUP, and power seat. This gets me the 17” wheels, anti-lock brakes, and suspension upgrades. I still don’t get dual exhaust, 3.55 limited-slip rear axle, and the more aggressive look of a GT. I also like the look of the cloth GT seats over the base V6 seats. And although the pony suspension is upgraded from the base V6, I still believe its not the same as a GT, and aren’t the disk-brake diameters larger on the GT as well?
Bottom line, the GT is another level - not just a Mustang with a V8. By my calculation, the GT is about $3800 over a base V6 optioned-up as close to a GT as I would want. The GT, to me, is worth the extra $3800, but I gotta admit, a pony-packaged V6 is a very attractive package. To me, it’s like a “V6 GT”. I think Ford was very smart to offer it.
It is obvious, though, that a HO V6 GT wouldn’t cut it with this crowd.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Diode Dynamics
Vendor Showcase
3
6/12/18 03:26 PM
Diode Dynamics
Vendor Showcase
7
2/28/18 09:37 AM