The 2011 V6 is going to kick the 2005-10 GT's butt!
2/8/10, 07:44 PM
#42
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly, I just think it's great that we are even having this debate at all! The fact that the base model is now included in performance discussions is good enough for me!
2/8/10, 07:46 PM
#44
FR500 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 1, 2008
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you didnt really get it, now you only have 2 data points, what you need to do is creat a projected acceleration curve as the vehicle passes from launch RPM to shift point and so on. that is why people discuss flat torque curves and wide power bands. you need to create formula based on gearing and the rpm band. ie at 2k rpm torque is XX in the V6 and XX in the V8, then at 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and so on upto rev limiter to get your curve all the way through the rpm band. then apply the portions that will be under the acceleration curve based on shift points, ie 0-30 first gear, 30-65 second gear and so on, basically applying the portion of the rpm band that will be used between shifts. while the v6 may technically be putting more torque down through multiplication at peak, is it higher all the way through the band? based on your data your a making an assumption that the curve shapes are identical and peak power and gearing are the only nessesary comparision values to make a statement on acceleration potential. until some of the V6s end up on dynos or if ford releases thier data you wont know.
2/8/10, 10:03 PM
#45
Cobra R Member
The extra gear is canceled out by the 2.73 rear, unless you get to opt one, and you don't need a dual exhaust just a diff muffler. The 2.5" pipes are more than enough they just put a restrictive muffler on the 05-10 w a 1.75" inner diameter.
2/9/10, 03:56 AM
#48
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 2, 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is definitely a sore point for GT owners. I did some research on this, including real world performance numbers, and I wouldn't call it a butt kicking. I'd love to see some dynos and real numbers but we won't get those until March or so. IMHO, its all about the gears. I think a V6 with 3.31s will beat a GT with 3.31s by a car length or two. A GT with 3.31s will beat a V6 with 2.73s by a car length or two. That's basically a drivers race. The V6 has a high redline that moves "power under the curve" up the power band. This will negate the GTs low end torque advantage. A GT should still beat up a V6 at an autocross. Sorry no spreadsheets or three page reports here.
2/9/10, 09:56 AM
#50
I Have No Life
I think the V6 will be just a bit slower than a 2005 GT with 3.55s in the 1/4
Could be a drivers race depending on who's awake and on Red-Bull.
Now a modded V6 VS stock GT, that's a different story, but not quite fair either.
Could be a drivers race depending on who's awake and on Red-Bull.
Now a modded V6 VS stock GT, that's a different story, but not quite fair either.
2/9/10, 10:34 AM
#51
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 18, 2010
Location: KC, MO
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets see, the transmission, driveshaft, rear end, suspension, exhaust, brakes & chassis stiffening(conv) ALL HEAVIER
The extra gear is canceled out by the 2.73 rear, unless you get to opt one, and you don't need a dual exhaust just a diff muffler. The 2.5" pipes are more than enough they just put a restrictive muffler on the 05-10 w a 1.75" inner diameter.
The extra gear is canceled out by the 2.73 rear, unless you get to opt one, and you don't need a dual exhaust just a diff muffler. The 2.5" pipes are more than enough they just put a restrictive muffler on the 05-10 w a 1.75" inner diameter.
2/9/10, 11:06 AM
#52
Good thing I've got 300hp at the wheels and I'm planning to buy a 5.0 in the future 
2/9/10, 12:23 PM
#53
Shelby GT500 Member
This was bound to happen. As technology advances, so does performance. If you compare a '05 GT to a '97 GT the '97 gets obliterated. If you compare the '11 GT to the '10 GT, the '10 gets obliterated. If you compare the '10 V-6 to the '11 V-6 the '10 gets obliterated. When you compare the '11 V-6 with the '05+ GT you get a tight race. The new V-6 targeted the old V-8 for performance. It'll do exactly what it was engineered to do. Compete with older V-8s and in some cases win. The 4.6 was never a raped ape kind of motor. Will it run well if you throw some money on it, sure, of course it will. It got the job done reasonably well for years, but it was dangerously close to being outgunned by much smaller, more advanced engines including their own new V-6 units. These are all the reasons the new 5.0 is here. It is the advanced technology 4.6.
2/9/10, 12:32 PM
#54
GT Member
Join Date: April 21, 2007
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frankly, I think the person with the real sour grapes should be the guy who bought a 2010 V6. He's the one with the archaic engine. If he'd waited a few more months, he could have gotten a much better engine for the same price.
2/9/10, 12:41 PM
#55
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 18, 2010
Location: KC, MO
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2010 V6 isn't really a bad engine. It puts out numbers very close to what old 5.0's did stock. It just doesn't compare well to the new age engines which are truly phenomenal. If there is ever another gas crisis and the auto industry goes 70's on us again with showrooms full of Smart car variations, you may be wishing you could get a 210 HP V6.
2/9/10, 01:23 PM
#56
Legacy TMS Member
Join Date: January 25, 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,858
Received 1,578 Likes
on
1,082 Posts
nah, I'll take the 305 HP V6 that gets much better gas mileage!
2/9/10, 01:40 PM
#57
Shelby GT500 Member
i have already had a couple of V6 Camaro guys think they were going to beat my 315 hp V8....NOTTA. Beat them and beat them soundly... I am stock besides the exhaust. Torque is a GOOD thing
2/9/10, 02:19 PM
#58
Cobra R Member
The 2010 V6 isn't really a bad engine. It puts out numbers very close to what old 5.0's did stock. It just doesn't compare well to the new age engines which are truly phenomenal. If there is ever another gas crisis and the auto industry goes 70's on us again with showrooms full of Smart car variations, you may be wishing you could get a 210 HP V6.
2/9/10, 03:59 PM
#59
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: Tulsa OK
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 4L is a good engine, I drove a '10 Fusion w/ the 3.5 and I like the 4.0's better, feels a lot more like the older (because it is) '80 mustangs. I have a '10 4.0 DD & '91 5.0 which is faster but mostly cause the car is lighter. I'll wait until I drive the new 3.7 before i bash it any more...
2/9/10, 04:04 PM
#60
GT Member
Join Date: January 3, 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts