3.5 V6 Twin Turbo coming to the Mustang
#41
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#42
Seems to me that the heart of the anti turbo V6 sentiment is miss placed V8 machismo. It seems some people don't want anyone else to have a V6 Mustang with more HP, that accelerates faster, handles better and gets better gas mileage than their V8 Mustang GTs.
Although I still prefer a NA V8, it is foolish to not want Ford to sell a factory turbo V6 Mustang. The Mustang cannot survive on V8 sales alone. A turbo V6, especially with IRS would increase Mustang sales by attracting new customers and help keep the Mustang alive for many more years.
Although I still prefer a NA V8, it is foolish to not want Ford to sell a factory turbo V6 Mustang. The Mustang cannot survive on V8 sales alone. A turbo V6, especially with IRS would increase Mustang sales by attracting new customers and help keep the Mustang alive for many more years.
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.
#43
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
-Dan
#44
Team Mustang Source
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
Join Date: September 3, 2004
Location: Beautiful New Hampshire!!!
Posts: 840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#45
Mach 1 Member
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
Join Date: February 17, 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
![Banana](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/smilies/banana.gif)
#46
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!!!!!!!!!
#47
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.
#48
Closet American
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
#50
Legacy TMS Member
Join Date: September 11, 2004
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Survey from Ford hints at the future
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.
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.
#52
Legacy TMS Member
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
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.
#53
Team Mustang Source
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 30, 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
#54
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
Join Date: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#55
FR500 Member
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
Join Date: August 15, 2005
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Comparing the fuel economy of the G35/350Z VQ's to the Mustang's V8 is kind of...
![Dunno](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/smilies/dunno.gif)
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.
#56
Closet American
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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
![Icon Mrgreen](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
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.
![Biggrinjester](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrinjester.gif)
#57
Legacy TMS Member
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
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).
#59
Legacy TMS Member
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
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!
#60
FR500 Member
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
![](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/rank.gif)
Join Date: August 15, 2005
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Thumb](https://themustangsource.com/forums/images/smilies/thumb.gif)
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.