It sounds like it was a well thought out engine, with a lot of technology possible right from the beginning...



You know that can only mean good things for the BOSS motors

 

What about the 4.0L DOHC I6 turbo in the Ford Australia Falcon? Not a pipe dream or a rumor, it's already available. Linkage:

http://www.ford.com.au/range/falcon/...turbosedan.asp

translates to 328 HP, 354 lb.-ft.

It's only 20 HP less than the 5.4 DOHC V8 in the XR8 Falcon. For some reason, Ford AU never stopped making RWD cars.

 

A v6 TT would be great to challenge evo's,350z's....etc ( the v6 jap cars and the Turboed v4's ) since if were racing evo's and 350z'z with our s-197 and won they just say ohh u have a v8 .. so having fords TT v6 kicking thier ***...

I vote for a 3.5 turboed V6 and a hurricane powered v8 mustangs... and hurricane size ? i mean the 6.2 v8... yes it will be more wieghted ... but the power will be doubled..

 

I would be curious as to what the motive would be for this. MPG? If they can do a TT 3.5 and get 28 MPG, then that would definitely allow them to compete better against the STI's and other imports. If gas prices keep going up, the feasability of us having our stangs as daily drivers is going to go out the window. I don't want my car to become a weekend warrior, I enjoy it too much.

I don't think it's a bad thing. I'm all for the hurricane stang too, I hear its a possiblility in the new Boss which I plan on purchasing.

 

Good point about MPG. That is the great thing about Turbos. At Highway cruising they are mute, my 3000 GT actually ran vacuum while cruising on the highway, but drop the hammer and the full spooled turbo shot you into your seat. You get the MPG of a N/A V6 while cruising and a rush of adreniline when you stomp it.

 

Blasphemy! The great things about the mustang V8's are the torque, exhaust note, and raw potential. If you've already got a force fed v6 in there it's going to run a lot more money to get +100-150hp out of it since you can't just slap on a s/c.

The v6 is for the market segment who wants the car based on all the other merits, and are interested in better mileage, lower cost, and an engine that'll keep you out of trouble.

 

The only thing I miss from a V8 is the exhaust note. The note I have now sounds pretty mean, definitely not like an import, but its not an odd firing sequence so I don't get the nice burble of a V8 (should have kept my 5.0 LOL).

Ever hear of the SVO? Getting the extra HP you mention is easy, as it was an over-engineered engine that could take 400RWHP before messing with the bottom end. I've gotten spanked by one at the track, guy hardly did anything to it but up the boost and put some suspension on it. And don't give me that Blasphemy crap!!! Stangs started out as 6 bangers. As for TQ, turbos are very TQ'y! I get 347rwtq on a Mustang Dyno, so at the flywheel I am over 400 foot lbs of tq.

If the engine is engineered well, this is a nice high MPG option to a V8, not a replacement.

I had V8 mustangs and V6 mustangs, but I'm sorry to say with gas prices soaring and those of us that want DD stangs to commute in, this is a nice alternative. I know because its what I have now, but had to build myself.

 

Personally I'd rather have a V8 with variable displacement/cylinder deactivation in order to get higher mileage. In a little pocket rocket 2+2 or a lightweight sedan a TT V6 is a fantastic option, but in my big, Detroit Iron horse of a Mustang I don't see it. You shouldn't have to rev the hell out of a Mustang to tap its power well, it should be there whenever you plant your foot. Hence the GT-500's SC/V8 being my Fav high-end 'Stang: always plenty of torque, always plenty of legs.

On the other hand that's me, a meathead Muscle Car nut. More than half of Mustangs sold don't go to guys like me, and my demo doesn't exactly ensure Ford's long-term survival. But a V6 TT might pull in import buyers and the like. So, if Ford can do it (and hopefully reduce the car's curb weight a bit to help out). and they want to do it, I say let them do it.

 

Exceptional point, and I would prefer something like this as well. I keep forgetting other car companies have this technology in thier V8 platforms.

As for high revving, not sure ont he 3.5, but on the 4.0 you do not have to rev to get the HP out of the motor, power is available pretty down low. I don't know about the 3.5, need to go back and re-read the specs. But I can get where you are comming from.

 

The high-rev comment is based on many/most performance-oriented Turbos need to be spun up by running the engine, so you tend to get rev-happy in order to keep the Turbo in the game. It's not universal, and there are ways around it, but that's where I see a problem vs. a step-on-it-and-GO V8.

 

If Ford can pull it off, then by all means go for it. However, the V8 output should rise in order to keep its premier engine status in the Mustang line. (Twin) Turbo V8 for future Shelby/Cobra.

Maybe a system similar to Porsche's variable vane turbo (?) would be a nice way to help minimize lag. Only problems would be cost and complexity - not exactly Ford's strongest areas.

 

That's the reason for using for twin turbos. 2 small turbos lets them spool up much faster than a single large turbo greatly reducing turbo lag. If you look at the physics of it 2 small turbos with the same capacity as a single large turbo should reduce any turbo lag by 75%.

I'm not a big fan of turbos, but the info leaking about the D35 DI TT engine sound almost too good to be true. From what I've heard the TT engine is being developed for use in the F150 to greatly improve fuel economy.

 

Unlikely it will fit in the Mustang & meet US crash requirements without major rework of the Mustang's stucture.

Give me some data on the overall length of that I6 vs the Mod Motor V8.

Again the Direct Inject D35 TT engine is an active development project. It looks almost certain that it will go into production and be used in other vehicles. The engine is going to exist, it's just question as to which vehicles it will be used in.

 

Here's an old lurker's opinion on this. With gas prices the way they are, I say get as much hp out the V6 using 87 octane. Throwing turbos on a car will minimize your choice of gas to only 91+ octane which is 20 cents per gallon higher than 87. Grant it you'll get much more hp, but if you have to pay $300.00 a year more for gas is it worth it to the avg. Joe? If they can get the duratec to push out 265hp with 87 octane, that would be a great choice for the base model. The dynoes I'm seeing from the GT is that the avg hp is around 265rwhp/315bhp now so bumping up the hp to 350 using 87 octane would be a good move too for the GT. Anything higher can be used on the SE versions using superchargers/Turboes. Now, if Ford wants to have a SE V6 with a single larger turbo that would be sweet. I just feel it's easier to produce supercharged models instead of turboed models due to all the piping that needs to be done to a turbo setup compared to a slap on S/C.

 

yea! why doesnt ford do a:
4.0 with 250 hp and 300 TQ
a 4.6 with 300/300
a 5.0 with 325/325
another 5.o with 375/375
then the GT500! soiory im at school...i'll type details later

 

There is no reason in the world why a turbo charged engine cannot be made to run on 87 Octane.

We do not yet know what the fuel requirements for the D35 TT/DI engine will be, but from recent moves by Ford odds are it will be designed to run on 87 octane. Again, the first application for the engine will be the F150. I really doubt that 91+ octane would fly with F150 customers.

Besides, 91 octane is recommended for Ford's S/C engines (04-05 Cobra, 07+ GT500) to you're contradicting yourself.

 

the tt V6 will definatly require premium gas... forced induction engines are more prone to detonation.

 

I agree with that statement.

Part of owning a Mustang and the Mustang tradition is the V8. Nothing against V6's but Mustangs should always have the V8 power and sound.

Now as for this TT V6, IMO it would be a great engine to put in a performance edition of the Fusion(especially with Ford making a 2 door version soon as stated in a recent Motor Trend), I don't know about the rest of you but i think the Fusion is a nice looking car and has even more potrntial if Ford would invest some High Performance into them. Be a great way to bring back SVT.

 

Swapping the turbos out for larger ones will be much more affordable then adding an entire S/C system to a non turbo.
Turbos are actually very easy to mod and respond great. Boost controllers, BOVs, Larger I/C, porting, clipping, larger impellers, frankenstiens (mix of two turbos), downpipes, wastegates, all can be changed rather inexpensively when compared to adding a s/c kit.

Spool up on turbos is getting shorter and shorter. My old 97 Eclipse GSX would spool 18PSI by 2700 RPM, giving me max torque from 3000- 6600 when the turbo could no longer keep up. thats a 2.0 4 cylinder, so there is no reason why each bank on a 3.5 why each bank can't spool 10-14 PSI in the same RPM rang. There are a lot of physics involved in actually proving that statement, but it is a reasonable summation.
Keep the V8, but add the 6TT.

 

Tell me one turbo/supercharged car that runs on 87 octane and I'll retract my statement. Every supercharged Mustang/F150 Truck is a SE model that requires 91+ octane that the avg. Joe will NOT purchase. Where am I contradicting myself?