What does Ford have against the Conv that you can't get them anymore? All 2010 V6 & V8's come std with 3.31.. (it's not because of body-flex concerns, the 4.6 is a lot stronger than the 3.7)
2.73's are useless on a car with 27" dia tires, they're just a gimmick so they can claim +30mpg

 

Then it's not useless, is it? Think about it. Manufacturers have to have their vehicle lines achieve a certain MPG rating. The 2.73s help with that. And there will no doubt be plenty of people who will be perfectly happy with 305 ponies driving 2.73s just as there were no shortage of people who were happy with 210 ponies driving 3.31s.

 

Right. For a whole lot of people 0-60 in six seconds flat seems like a pretty darn fast car. If someone is commuting 120 miles per day 1 mile per gallon may mean more to them chopping of a few tenths of a second.

 

1 MPG? Then they shouldn't be looking at a Mustang. Maybe a Smart car.

 

I totally agree because I'm a purist but this is the type of buyer mentality Ford is trying to overcome with these fuel ratings.

 

The first over 300hp and 30 MPG is still a pretty cool distinction though... Says something of Ford's engineering. I just wouldn't go making my purchace decision based on that.

 

2010 V6 AT with 4.171:1 1st Gear, 3.31:1 FD & stk. 215/60-17 tires = 4019 RPM @ 30 MPH
vs.
2011 V6 AT with 3.220:1 1st Gear, 2.73:1 gears & stk. 215/65-17 tires = 4229 RPM @ 30 MPH

Thanks to the lower 1st gear in the new 6-speed trans you see that the 2011 will actually be running at 3.6% higher RPM off the line in 1st gear than a 2010.

Doug

 

^ Read Fail... My question was why isn't it an option for ppl who want it?

 

That's true, to bad about the 150 lb weight increase.. (200 since the engine is 50lbs lighter)

 

Urgh. Sowwy. Not only did I miss the vert-specific aspect, I was unaware that the 3.31s were not an option for the verts at all. That sucks and, yeah, I'm with you; it should be an option!

 

 

Good point, Doug. Furthermore, the 2011 has a higher redline so there's more room to rev in each gear. Even with the standard axle ratio, this car is no dog.

 

One article I had seen said the most commonly looked at competition among those interested in a V6 Mustang was the Honda Accord coupe. Below are some numbers for based on automatic transmissions.

2010 Honda Accord EX-L V4
horsepower@rpm: 190@7000
torque (lb-ft@rpm): 162@4400
fuel economy: 21/31
price: $26,880

2010 Honda Accord EX-L V6
horsepower@rpm: 271@6200
torque (lb-ft@rpm): 254@5000
fuel economy: 19/28
price: $29,305

2011 Mustang V6 Premium
horsepower@rpm: 305 @6,500
torque (lb-ft@rpm): 280@4,250
fuel economy: 19/31
price: $26,840

Comparable price. Comparable fuel efficiency. A lot more fun. And yes, my first choice was an Accord coupe until I learned about the 2011 V6.

 

Hey Tom, I'm kinda thinking the same thing . . . I need a new daily driver and I'd much rather go with a Mustang this time instead of another boring sedan, especially when the fuel economy is about the same . . . to avoid carbon footprint guilt, I figure I'm OK as long as the new Stang gets as good or better gas mileage than my outgoing Toyota.

So I'll probably go with the 2.73 rear, (definitely going with manual transmission) so I can get maximum gas mileage for the commute, but also have fun when I want to . . . I don't really care about the absolute maximum off-the-line performance, and I figure once the car is moving I can just wind it out a little more in a lower gear and get about the same FTD (fun to drive) factor that I would get with the 3.31 rear.

 

I'm still going with the 3.31 option. I have a tendency to jackrabbit my car and the loss shouldn't be too much from what I read. I may take it up to Epping, NH once or twice but really I just want to make my daily commute up and other drives more enjoyable.

Everyone is so busy talking about the Mustang vs. the Camaro but I'm more interested in how it competes with similar more conservative coupes in its price range. I think that will be a more interesting story sales wise this year. The new V6 commercial was probably the first time I can ever recall seeing a TV ad for a Mustang. I think it will cause people who never would have considered a Mustang to maybe take a look. FWIW I'm not really much of a car person. I couldn't tell you the subtle nuances between a good handling car from a bad handling car or why RWD is superior to FWD. When I started reasearching it was affordability, fuel economy, and does it not like like something that could double as space Voltron's foot. (I'm looking at you Scion xD and Toyota Cube...) Finally then a test drive to make sure the ride was comfortable.

Bringing it back on topic, the new standard gear will satisfy many of the people who would have bought a V6 along with the potential new customers we might start seeing. Plus, the option is always there for those of us who would like a little more kick.

 

I ordered my '11 V6 coupe with 3:31 gears.

 

Three words: REAR WHEEL DRIVE.

I'll take a slower RWD car over a fast FWD car almost any day. Good thing the Mustang is neither slower nor FWD.

 

bump?

 

Thanks for that, I had completely forgot that I wanted to see this.

Edit: I just PM'ed EVO to see if they'd post up a graphic of their curve.