Notices
2010-2014 Mustang Information on The S197 {GenII}
Sponsored By:
Sponsored By:

2011 V6 Mustang to out-torque Camaro V6!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 9/19/09, 08:27 PM
  #21  
MBK
Mach 1 Member
 
MBK's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 31, 2008
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
imo tapshift is good to have just for kicks. 2lb torque more doesn't matter; the whole package has to be there, and i think that is what Ford is shooting for.
Old 9/19/09, 08:54 PM
  #22  
Mach 1 Member
 
FordBlueHeart's Avatar
 
Join Date: July 24, 2008
Location: Traverse City
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Having driven corvettes, 300Ms, MKSs, Flex ecoboost, and numerous other cars with the tapshift, I found it to be a gimmick that lost its appeal after a day. That's ok, to each their own zabo. The DCT will change that. It can't be that expensive either, the new fiesta will have it. Not one that can handle that kind of torque but we will see.
Old 9/19/09, 11:04 PM
  #23  
Mach 1 Member
 
3Mach1's Avatar
 
Join Date: August 19, 2006
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FordBlueHeart
Having driven corvettes, 300Ms, MKSs, Flex ecoboost, and numerous other cars with the tapshift, I found it to be a gimmick that lost its appeal after a day. That's ok, to each their own zabo. The DCT will change that. It can't be that expensive either, the new fiesta will have it. Not one that can handle that kind of torque but we will see.
Plus one million. Just say no to the one wheel peels. If, and thats a big word, Ford would offer the 3.7 Stang with the track pack it would be a hoot to drive and would put the Camaro fan boys on their heels. Can you just imagine? Im darn near as excited about this car as I am the GT. It would make an excellent daily driver. I wonder what kind of fuel mileage could be expected? These are exciting times for sure.
Old 9/20/09, 01:05 AM
  #24  
V6 Member
 
thomasstang09's Avatar
 
Join Date: September 11, 2009
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was thinking it would be higher than 275. The 4.0 has 245 ft lbs. Figured the 3.7 would be closer to 300
Old 9/20/09, 06:00 AM
  #25  
Mach 1 Member
 
1trickpony's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2, 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Zabo
And being a fan of both cars, I gotta say that this is a freaking godsend that Ford's not taking this lying down. The LLT in the LT and LS should have more wiggleroom to boost output. Same way Ford's doing it with the 3.7L (which should have even more, so no worries there). Granted the Camaro will still be heavier until they run though this design cycle, but damnit this war is gonna be a blast nonetheless.

I think GM can find another 20 HP for the 3.6 DI. The 3.0L in the CTS is making 90 HP a liter so 324 HP doesn't sound crazy. The problem is it will be a 6800 rpm and TQ won't go up by much (276 lol!). GM can take the HP title back but the 3.7L should still walk the Camaro in a straight line. There's no getting around 3800 pounds.
Old 9/20/09, 06:02 AM
  #26  
Mach 1 Member
 
1trickpony's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2, 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by thomasstang09
I was thinking it would be higher than 275. The 4.0 has 245 ft lbs. Figured the 3.7 would be closer to 300
75 lbs/ft of torque per liter is all you can expect from a NA engine so I'm not surprised by the TQ numbers. 275 is right in there.
Old 9/20/09, 06:12 AM
  #27  
Mach 1 Member
 
1trickpony's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2, 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by All-Or-Nothing
The funniest things over ther are the look at me threads. for example, "2 UFOs crashed on the highway at rush hour but since traffic was stopped everyone got out their cars to come look at Me and my Camaro. No one even noticed the UFOs. I am such a Rockstar now."



OK back to the topic. If FORD does follow thru with these numbers it will be a great day indeed.
I'm with you, "Dude they totally ignored the UFO to check out my Transformer stickers!" I know some Mustang fans have done this too. I guess I'm just frustrated by a lack of objectivity in some of the posts. I promise you if I said the 2011 Camaro weighed 3400 pounds and made 315 HP they'd be jumping up and down talking about high 13s in the quarter. I hope folks would call the game straight up home or away.
Old 9/20/09, 07:31 AM
  #28  
Member
 
Zabo's Avatar
 
Join Date: September 11, 2009
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FordBlueHeart
The DCT will change that. It can't be that expensive either, the new fiesta will have it. Not one that can handle that kind of torque but we will see.
Hence why I said we'd probably see a CVT before they threw in a proper DCT. It'll take some engineering brain wracking to see that come to fruition, but for now an Auto with tapshift should fit the bill for a majority of buyers.

Remember, like the Camaro, not all buyers of the Mustang are ZOMGPERFORMANCE oriented and worry about shaving 1/32nd of a second off their 1/4mile times. The business is to sell cars, and here.. the Mustang won the numbers war for '11.

Not to mention I agree that with weight and TC and all that carried over from the '10, this car would be a bad *** DD.
Old 9/20/09, 08:05 AM
  #29  
I Have No Life
 
Boomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 10,445
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
CVT is dead at Ford as far as I can remember.
Old 9/20/09, 01:21 PM
  #30  
Mach 1 Member
 
FordBlueHeart's Avatar
 
Join Date: July 24, 2008
Location: Traverse City
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Last time CVT was used by Ford was in the 2005 freestyle. Too many complaints about not feeling any shifts.
Old 9/21/09, 12:05 AM
  #31  
Team Mustang Source
 
theedge67's Avatar
 
Join Date: July 4, 2006
Location: St. Louis Area
Posts: 2,872
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
CVT is used in the hybrids, the Fusion and Escape Hybrid models. My wife has an Escape Hybrid and I love that thing. I have no complaints about the CVT.
Old 9/21/09, 06:09 AM
  #32  
Mach 1 Member
 
FordBlueHeart's Avatar
 
Join Date: July 24, 2008
Location: Traverse City
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My bad, you are correct. I should have prefaced it with non-hybrid vehicles. I drove the hybrid and the previously mentioned freestyle as well and it didn't bother me except when driving spiritedly it "felt like it was searchng for the next gear" sometimes. Just different.
Old 9/21/09, 09:25 AM
  #33  
 
rhumb's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good for Ford in that it seems to be shedding its "good enough" ethic for 'best in class" (I'll ignore the 370Z motor for a moment). Now if that would apply that ethos to the chassis and brakes.

As for DCT, I don't think they are necessarily too expensive, cheap VWs have had them for years now, nor necessarily too weak to handle a lot of torque (the Bugatti Veyron's seems to hold up fine to the 1,000 lb/ft or so that beast dishes out.
Old 9/21/09, 08:31 PM
  #34  
V6 Member
 
Klay's Avatar
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
While I am happy Ford is stepping up its game for the base mustang, I think they would gain more sales by focusing more on the MPG side of the engine as opposed to the HP. For people who want more HP, they generally tend to go with the GT. People who just want a car that looks good go for the V6 model.

If the mustang beats the camaro by a little bit of HP and Torque but loses in the gas mileage category, they won't be gaining any sales away from the camaro. Now the GT is a different story, that car needs to focus more on HP but for the base, having the same or slightly less HP won't break the car if it gets better mileage than the Camaro.
Old 9/21/09, 10:00 PM
  #35  
Mach 1 Member
 
1trickpony's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2, 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Klay
While I am happy Ford is stepping up its game for the base mustang, I think they would gain more sales by focusing more on the MPG side of the engine as opposed to the HP. For people who want more HP, they generally tend to go with the GT. People who just want a car that looks good go for the V6 model.

If the mustang beats the camaro by a little bit of HP and Torque but loses in the gas mileage category, they won't be gaining any sales away from the camaro. Now the GT is a different story, that car needs to focus more on HP but for the base, having the same or slightly less HP won't break the car if it gets better mileage than the Camaro.
I agree MPG is an important point especially with the base model. I think the 3.7L should match the Camaro 3.6L engine. City mileage is mostly curb weight and the Mustang should be at least 300 pounds lighter. Highway mileage should be close. I'd expect at least 28 and maybe 29 highway. the 3.5L is making 28 highway in a Taurus.
Old 9/21/09, 10:11 PM
  #36  
Team Mustang Source
 
jsaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,357
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Klay
While I am happy Ford is stepping up its game for the base mustang, I think they would gain more sales by focusing more on the MPG side of the engine as opposed to the HP. For people who want more HP, they generally tend to go with the GT. People who just want a car that looks good go for the V6 model.

If the mustang beats the camaro by a little bit of HP and Torque but loses in the gas mileage category, they won't be gaining any sales away from the camaro. Now the GT is a different story, that car needs to focus more on HP but for the base, having the same or slightly less HP won't break the car if it gets better mileage than the Camaro.
The problem is that sometimes what you have is just what you have. Outside of the 3.0L PIP Duratec V6 used in the Escape The 3.7L is really the only suitable existing engine for base Mustang duty until the larger Ecoboost four cylinders start showing up. And since the 3.0L doesn't actually best the larger 3.5L Duratec V6 in terms of fuel economy there is no good reason to consider that engine as a viable alternative.

Could Ford detune the 3.7L V6 in an effort to net better fuel economy? They could certainly try, but I doubt less power would yield a significant gain in fuel economy if it yielded any gain at all. Take the Taurus SHO for example. The Ecoboost V6 used in that car is running in a seriously detuned state compared to what that engine can actually produce, but rumors indicate that does absolutely nothing for fuel economy ratings or for real world fuel economy when you aren't deep into the powerband. In fact, the only reason we have the Taurus SHO as an example at all is because the driveline cannot handle the Ecoboost six when running at full steam so they had to detune it in order to save the driveline.
Old 9/21/09, 10:12 PM
  #37  
Mach 1 Member
 
Clino's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Kinda makes you wonder whether they might be considering the EcoBoost 4cyl in a year or two. That would leave a lot of different options for a lot of different buyers, but still preserve the performance image.
Old 9/21/09, 10:21 PM
  #38  
FR500 Member
 
hi5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: August 15, 2005
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm sure the new V6 should get the same or better fuel economy compared to the ancient 4.0 V6, what with the vast difference and improvement in technology between the two engines. Also hoping the 6-speed transmission will help further in the MPG department. Being lighter than the Camaro already gives the Mustang the edge too.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RedCandy5.0
General Vehicle Discussion/News
9
10/4/15 06:51 AM
Warrior316
Introductions
3
7/28/15 11:05 AM
MRGTX
2015 - 2023 MUSTANG
5
7/21/15 02:08 PM
Kgilly
5.0L GT Modifications
6
7/9/15 01:47 PM



Quick Reply: 2011 V6 Mustang to out-torque Camaro V6!



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:25 PM.