Presumably there could be some issue of overlap between similarly-powerful TTV6s and V8s. Not that other companies haven't done that, Audi comes to mind with their A6 series a few years ago.

Generally though, where both motors have existed -- V8 and boosted V6 -- the V8s seem to have survived and thrived, at least in recent history. Seems the putative weight, packaging and efficiency benefits promised by the TTV6 approach were too small to justify supporting two similarly powerful motors.

Of course, skyrocketing gas prices could drastically change that scenario, making a TTV6 more viable instead, what with $5+ a gallon and increased CAFE rules.

I think a more fruitful focus would be on mass and drag reduction as both of these can result in significant improvements in both fuel economy AND performance, not to mention also hugely benefitting handling and braking performance too. IMHO, manufacturers and engineers have gotten rather sloppy and complacent in these cheap fuel days, opting for more engineering and content rather than better engineering. Sure, safety requirements and other necessities explain some of the weight bloat of the past two decades, but I think a lot of it is a lack of engineering.

As for an IRS not improving performance, that would only be true on straight or very smooth roads (someone belieing their drag race orientation here?). On curvy roads and most certainly on less than smooth roads, a decent IRS could reap significant real performance gains, being able to hold the road much better and put down more actual power to the road rather than being bucked off into the weeds. I'm not even going to mention better suspension compliance for a given level of handling because some dolt will immediately conflate that with wanting a Buick Park Avenue ride.

That IRS is nothing more than a huge hi-tech image marketing scam with no real benefits borders on the conspiratorial. Guess all those poor sucker F1, Ferrari, Porche, Lotus, Corvette, Viper ... engineers really got snookered.

Cost would be somewhat more, but you would be realizing a significant benefit for that cost resulting in equal or greater realized value, presuming you really are interested in all around handling excellence vs cheap straight line acceleration and mere handling adequacy.

 

I agree. But I am inclined to believe that any potential TT V6 Mustangs are likely meant to slot in between a future Boss-powered GT and the base V6 model since, according to rumours, we can likely expect any Boss powered GT to produce something very close to 400hp. If that is ultimately the case then Ford will be left with a lot of real estate between the GT and the naturally aspirated base V-6 offering, even at 265hp+.

This also seems logical since that is exactly the role in which Ford will employ the TT V6 you mentionwithin the F-150 lineup. And, it is likewise similar to how Ford positioned the XR6 within the Falcon lineup too, so their is some history here to go along with the above. What we likely have here is the rumoured ~350hp 'mainstream' version of the TT V6 being brought into the Mustang lineup creating a new 'hot' Mustang to fill the large amount of real estate a newly powerful GT will leave.

Like you, I'd expect Ford's draw here is better fuel economy combined with easier and cheaper turbo tunability all wrapped in a package less expensive than the GT. Less ultimate power potential, lower stock power levels, and the lack of a V8's cachet or sound track are the draw backs that leave room for both. However, I wouldn't expect such a package to try and differentiate itself on the basis of handling this go round. And frankly, I don't think we'll see IRS reappear on any Mustang until we see it as an across the board feature.

 

All I want is a turbo for my Lincoln MKX's D35 and I'll be quite happy. I'd love a high 13 second CUV to act as the luxury to my Stang's pure agressiveness and lack of fuel economy.

-Dan

 

Kenny Brown built a V-6 Mustang that just killed the imports back in the day, surprised all of you haven't mentioned it yet, he also built the CSR package for the Cobra's ('99+) that made them into really awesome road racers. I guess you guys would rather Ford build it for you instead of keeping the price down and selling more cars, allowing you to build your 'stang your way with the money you saved.

 

There is no money saved by modding the current 4.0 to accomodate turbos. You would have to rebuild/reinforce the entire engine. Not to mention the cost of Aftermarket turbo kits.

Options! I want optioins. I don't want the "this is what you get" crap that all the manufacturers are giving. Not to mention I don't want to wait 5yrs/60K miles before I get a fast car. KB's V6/CSR pckgs shot your warranty to ****. If ford builds it, it will by covered by warranty, done to factory specs, etc. Now I am not saying that they will do it right, or that there won't be room for improvement, but at least it will be there. Imagine having the Mitsubishi eclipse opportunity with a Mustang. You buy a very quick car from the Ford, built accomodating turbo's and internals for boost. After your warranty does expire, crank up the boost/swap turbos/reroute the exhaust/remap the ECU/ whatever. and with a few short mods you have a killer. I took my 98 eclipse from 210HP to 310HP and drove it everyday. Swapped the turbo, remapped the ecu and Bang. This is what the TTV6 could be, but so much more.

 

some of us older guys remember the '86-'87 Buick grand national turbo V6.That was one hot car in its day and so easily moddable.I would love a TTV6 mustang.Turn up the boost and watch out!!!!!!!!!

 

Based on the marketing survey in another thread, I'd say Ford is definately considering a TT V6 and IRS for the Stang. Based on the survey, it looks like a TT V6 would cost more than a bigger N/A V-8. I'd take a V-8 with equal HP. IMHO a big V-8 (400ish HP) with IRS and a 6-speed would be perfect for the Stang. It sounds like the GT 500 is having trouble laying the power down anyway.

 

Me too. What's this TT Duratec V6 supposed to kick out HP-wise, anyway? And I don't mean "potential" concept figures, I mean real world production figures?

All things being equal, a V8 will likely make more torque per HP than even a turbo'd V6. Turbochargers are a poor replacement for cylinders, especially when it comes to torque. Then there's the extra maintenance to be considered...along with the annoying warm up and warm down procedures before and after driving.

And as to fuel economy? Well, just take a look at what real drivers are getting out of their VQs in the Infiniti G35 coupe; the MPGs are no better on average than our Mustang GTs.

Don't get me wrong, the TT Duratec V6 sounds like a great engine for a new state-of-the-art sedan to compete with the best from Europe and Asia, but I'm not convinced it fits in the Mustang lineup, though the current V6 in the Stang could use a more refined replacement. But a TT wouldn't be the right match for the entry-level Stang - and upper level Stangs should all be V8 cars, IMO. Finese can be improved with IRS.

 

Agreed.

I also agree that power is useless unless it can be applied.

 

I just received an e-mail from Ford asking me to complete a survey for their next generation Mustang.

The survey hints strongly at their desire to place a twin turbo V6 generating 370 hp made from either Land Rover, Jaguar, Volvo or Mazda. It would be a $1000 option. The survey asks what I would think about the engine not being built in America.

Going hand in hand with the engine question, the survey asked my feedback on a quieter vs. throaty exhaust system.

The only other engine option mentioned in leiu of the standard 4.6 300 hp V8 was a 5.0 V8 generating 370 hp for an additional $1,000.

In addition, IRS would be a $200 option.

Finally, the survey asked my opinion about the following options:

1.) Paddle shift on steering wheel.
2.) Back up sensor.
3.) Heated windshield washer fluid.

 

There are several threads already started with over 100 replies on this very survey. Seems that most of the members here got one too.

 

Some turbo set-ups do quite well on torque production - small, twin turbos can be effective down low. The new BMW 3 Series coupe with 300hp is a great example.

Since many turbo set-up run with water-cooled bearings that are stronger than those back 15 years ago, this is probably less of a concern today. Keeping the oil changed every 3000 miles and not ripping on the engine immediately after start-up are probably the biggest things to deal with on turbo engines.

Most likely people will only see better fuel economy when they do highway driving. Around town with a heavy foot, it will suck gas similar to a larger displacement engine.

 

The biggest issue with Turbo motors is the oil "coking" in the bearings of the Turbo due to the high heat they develop. Using an synthetic oil normally helps eliminate that problem

 

Mmm, I don't see that. By that logic everyone should buy the base V6 'Stang and drop in evey option and upgrade themselves. Turbos can be pretty tricky for the weekend mechanic, let alone those not used to working on autos, and getting a professional garage to do the instal isn't going to save you wany money versus orderign it from the factory. This is just another option, and it doesn't affect the car's potential to be customized/individualized any more than a 5.0L option.

 

Don't tell GN/T-Type owners about torque/HP output of V8's vs their turbo 6's (235hp/330tq). Wasn't true for Mustangs then or now. As for the torque curve, that is a different story.

Comparing the fuel economy of the G35/350Z VQ's to the Mustang's V8 is kind of... because those V6's are in a different state of tune as far as hp/liter output with the attendant sacrifice of low-end torque and increased octane requirement.

Besides, Ford's performance estimates for a TTV6 powered Mustang vs. a 5.0 version option listed in the survey indicates the 6 is quite potent and a lot of people would go the "Tim the Toolman" route and add "more power!" by turning up the boost. Personally, I'd rather see a 5.0 V8 return under the hood of the Mustang, but a TTV6 instead wouldn't be a deal-breaker IMO.

 

Sure, there are always exceptions. But go back and check where max torque arrives in the RPM band in a turbo'd V6 vs. a H.O. V8.

Then you have the added plumbing along with attendant maintenance and reliability issues.

Sorry, I've owned turbos in the past - gimmie a good old fashioned (well, not TOO old fashioned ) V8 any day.

I'm only interested in the bottom line here. And the bottom line is that G35 coupes are no more fuel efficient than the S197 4.6L V8. And our Stangs offer better acceleration and torque.

I've also grown really tired of the constant "moooo" sound those things make. You can always tell a G35 coupe or a 350Z coming from 500 yards. Now the Mustang exhaust, on the other hand, that's ALWAYS music to my ears.

 

That sound is the biggest reason why I voted "5.0L V8" in the survey. That is part of the Mustang character I really like (no offense to those owners of Mustangs with other engines, of course).

 

Wasn't that on the survey too? The sound... how important is it to you?

VERY!

 

Thank you - I should have said "some turbo motors had the water-cooled bearings".

When I had my first-generation Mitsubishi Eclipse Turbo, that potential for coking was something the service department often reminded me of when bringing it in for oil changes!

 

I hear you on that! LOL. Actually it was from the 1st time I heard one under sustained accel. Short revs are okay, the rest, well... Yes, IMO there's really nothing better-sounding than a "American" V8 - though other engines with 4 more cylinders along with other engines from certain Italian supercar manufacturers' do come to mind.

Quite a number of Mustang enthusiasts add forced induction to their rides anyway and those same issues of plumbing, maintenance, and long-term reliability/durability will come up. But, given Ford's reputation for penny-pinching, along with your past experience with FI, your concerns are understandable.