Here's the Ford media link:
http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_dis...m?release=23109

55 more HP and 10 more lb ft is nothing to sneeze at, although both occur at much higher RPM.

4.0L
210 HP @ 5300 RPM
240 TQ @ 3500 RPM

3.5L
265 HP @ 6250 RPM
250 TQ @ 4500 RPM

Since most dealer lots seem to be over flowing with V6 Mustangs Ford needs to do something to bump up the V6 specs. to attract more V6 buyers.

 

I think the 3.5 apears to be a considerable improvement over the 3.0. Whether the new motor proves to be a considerable improvement over the 4.0 remains to be seen.

V10 observed:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>4.0L
210 HP @ 5300 RPM
240 TQ @ 3500 RPM

3.5L
265 HP @ 6250 RPM
250 TQ @ 4500 RPM
[/b][/quote]

But the new Explorer has a version of the 4.0 rated at 210-HP and 254-TQ, meaning the current 4.0 actually produces more TQ than the 3.5, as tested. Trading HP at the high-end but losing TQ on the low-end doesn't really seem to be a quantum leap forward, IMO, particularly since the 4.0 delivers early in game (at lower rpm, as V10 pointed out).

I saw the press release on the motor and it sound promising, but I didn't see weight listed. Does anyone have the weight for the two motors (4.0 vs 3.5)?

Yes, the 4.0 has been around a long, long time. The fact that it has been around a long number of years would seem to indicate something must be right with the motor. It has proved, if nothing else, it has a reliability factor.

The new 3.5 should be a giant step forward, given almost 40 years of engineering advances, but its reliability is something yet to be proven.

I'm optimistic about the new motor, and I am willing to grant that it would seem to be a clear improvement over the 3.0 it's replacing.

Is the new 3.5 the V6 the Mustang has to have to replace the 4.0? I'm willing to be persuaded, but I'm not convinced.

 

IMHO the D35 would be a better engine. Raw TQ is not the most important factor. What is important is the RPM range over which TQ is available (the famous area under the curve).

While I don't have HP & TQ graphs for both engines, running a couple #s from the available specs says the D35 has more area under the curve. Due to that area under the curve, higher RPM range, most likely better fuel economy, probably lighter weight and most likely better refinement, the D35 would be better suited to a performance car like the Mustang.

Of course if Ford were to do something bold like come out with 3V heads for the 4.0 that would greatly improve its high RPM performance, that would change the equation.

 

I'm pretty sure a Mustang with this new engine would beat a 4.0L in the quarter. I'm saying 5 car lengths. Around town or in first gear, there is probably no difference betwen the engines. A far as torque comparisons, torque is heavily dependent on diplacement. The fact that the 3.5L is close to or better than the old 4.0L is impressive. The 3.5L could be punched out to 4.0L. At 4.0L, the new engine would make over 280 TQ. I expect the new engine to weigh the same or slight less than the old 4.0L. The new engine has an aluminum block which might save 60 pounds. This should cover any increases do to head design. I love the high redline. It reminds me of the Boss 302. I think with 4.10s, t-lok, and basic tuning, the 3.5L could be a high 13 second car.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(1trickpony @ April 14, 2006, 6:34 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
The 3.5L could be punched out to 4.0L. At 4.0L, the new engine would make over 280 TQ. I expect the new engine to weigh the same or slight less than the old 4.0L. The new engine has an aluminum block which might save 60 pounds. This should cover any increases do to head design. I love the high redline. It reminds me of the Boss 302. I think with 4.10s, t-lok, and basic tuning, the 3.5L could be a high 13 second car.
[/b][/quote]

IIRC the early info. Ford had on the D35 said that is could be made in versions from 3.0L all the way up to 4.2L. Also, IIRC, the D35 is about physically the same size as the D30. I haven't been able to find good weight info. The only thing I found so far is that the D30 weighs 360 lb with accessories (starter, alternator, etc. and the 4.0 SOHC weighs 365 lb without accessories. I agree, the 6750 RPM redline is awesome. If Ford were to put a 6 speed wide ratio automatic tranny & the D35 in the Mustang that combo would really rock and boost V6 sales.

 

anyone who doesn't think that the new D35 is a bajillion times better then the current 4L is crazy.

 

I like this engine.
If it were going into a mustang it'd be nice to use a higher displacement version. Maybe the 4.2 version
Ford did go from a 3.8 to a 3.9 late in the SN95 life, only to go with the 4.0 for this S197. I can't see them go with a 3.5 if they were to continue their pattern.
I don't see the need for conventional forged internals on this engine either unless you are using the car for competition, keeping it under load for long periods of time. (if that's the case this isn't a car for you)
I don't know what they mean by 'cracked' powdered metal, but pm rods are forged contrary to popular belief.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>anyone who doesn't think that the new D35 is a bajillion times better then the current 4L is crazy[/b][/quote]


Such strong opinions...

Anyway,

A "D42" version would generate more power than the GT's V8. It would be sweet to see it a good looking, rwd, 2800-3000 pound, two seat, $25k-30k. Sort of a Ford version of the BMW M-roadster.


Oh wait, I forgot. Ford can't afford to build anything cool.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnotherMustangMan @ April 16, 2006, 10:07 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Such strong opinions...

A "D42" version would generate more power than the GT's V8. It would be sweet to see it a good looking, rwd, 2800-3000 pound, two seat, $25k-30k. Sort of a Ford version of the BMW M-roadster.
Oh wait, I forgot. Ford can't afford to build anything cool.
[/b][/quote]


As displacement of the D35 is increased I doubt that HP would proportionally scale. Larger versions would probably be airflow limited. In addition, if the addisional displacement came from a longer stroke the red line may be lower, meaning less HP.

While I'd expect a D42 to match the 4.6L 3V's 300 HP, it would have only around 285 lb ft of TQ vs. the 4.6L 3V's 320 lb ft.

 

Thats true, i suppose it would sit right around 300hp, but I still think a power inclined (as opposed to torque) would be a great engine for a lightweight two seater--especially since the D42 would still be a very compact/light engine.

 

I think V-10 is right about the HP droppping off as displacement increases. The 5.4 has the same heads as a 4.6 and has about the same HP, just a lot more TQ. A 4.2 V-6 would make around 300 HP but less than 300 TQ so the 4.6 would still clean up in the 1/4. The problem is marketing. Ford probably doesn't want a V-6 this close to a V-8 in power terms and would dumb it down or underrate it. Even if the car is a different model, some bean counter or marketing guy would complain. I hope the 4.6 finds some HP in the near future so the base engine has more room to grow. I like the idea of a V-6 with 260-270 HP. This would hopefully move some more base models. I hear the mix, V-6 versus V-8, isn't right and Ford wants to sale more V-6s. The next SRT-4 has 300 HP and the Cobalt SS will probably have 260 HP soon. The base V-6 needs this HP to compete with the low $20 grand competition. Just my take.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(1trickpony @ April 17, 2006, 9:53 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
The 5.4 has the same heads as a 4.6 and has about the same HP, just a lot more TQ. [/b][/quote]
Its not like the 5.4 3v in the truck is the exact same everything as the mustangs 4.6 3v. If you take a 5.4 bottom end and hooked it to a mustangs heads intake exhaust i guarantee you it would produce a lot more then 300hp.

you'd get around 40-50 hp gain.

 

I hate to tell you this Knight but the 5.4 3V truck engine uses the same heads, including valves and cams as the 4.6L Mustang. There are differences in intake manifolds and computer tuning, obviously truck engines are more tuned for low end TQ than HP.

But the core problem is when you increase the stroke but not the bore (as is the case from the 4.6 to 5.4) you still get only the same air flow. The larger displacement and longer stroke gives more TQ and at lower RPS (good) but HP gains are minimal and high RPM performance is weak (bad).

In spite of all the clamoring for a 5.4L N/A Mustang I'm sure Ford hasn't rushed to put the 5.4L in the Mustang for exactly the reasons described above - that is the customers and the press will be dissappointed with the HP#s.

I haven't found conclusive info. but I belive the D35 already uses the maximum bore size of that new engine. So 4.0L or 4.2L versions would be strokers more suitable for trucks than a Mustang.

 

The 4.6 in the Explorer makes 292/300 HP/TQ, the F-150 has 300/365. They both have the same heads, cams, and throttle bodies. Except fo the intake, it looks like the 5.4 has longer runners, they look about the same. I think another example of this are the 5.0 and 5.7 V-8s from Chevy in the 80s. If a remember right, the 5.0 had 230/300 HP/TQ and the 5.7 had 240/335 HP/TQ. The 5.7 was just a stroked 5.0. You'll make a little more HP with displacement, but TQ will go up much faster with the same heads.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>So 4.0L or 4.2L versions would be strokers more suitable for trucks than a Mustang.[/b][/quote]

How do you figure? People aren't expecting to rev their Mustangs up to 6200rpm in order to find torque and power, a 5200rpm torque/power max would sit just fine with most folks. Concerning undersquare for the bigger motors, youre probably right, there is likely more room for a growth in stroke than there is for an increase in bore, but even the moderate increase in stroke length required to meet 4.2 liters wouldn't decrease the redline to unacceptable levels. Displacement is displacement, and since the motor is already high-rev power biased, a longer stroke would bring it into a happier medium complete with low and mid-range torque. Bump compression/give it a 93 octane tune and you'll have one helluva V6.

 

The downsides of a longer stroke are higher piston speeds and more side loading on the cylinder walls. Both of which are bad for engine longevity.

With the current gas prices (and probably even higher prices in the future) the # of people who would want a 93 octane V6 would be very small. Also 93 is not available nationwide. Some places have 92 and some 91 is the max, to it is rare for a factory engine to require more than 91 octane.

 

I'm familiar with the traditional cons of increasing stroke length, but given modern low-friction materials and refinement of engine balancing techniques, I'm confident Ford would more than make up for them.

Btw, my 93 octane and C/R comment was more of a theoretical mod suggestion to would-be enthusiast owners than something I thought Ford should pursue.

Semi-off topic. Does anyone know how much the D35 will cost to manufacture? I've got to believe it'll be more expensive than the 3v 4.6.

 

Talking about stroke length, if you go forged internals, even a 5.4 can turn 6500 rpm. Without, the 5.4 has a 5400 rpm redline. The only problem is cost, forged parts cost more.

About engine costs, I not sure the D35 will cost more than a 3V 4.6. Except for the heads, the D35 should be cheaper to manufacture. Ford should crank out 100,000+ D35 variants so there's plenty of volume.

This is a much better arguement versus the 4.0. I can see the D35 easily costing over $1,000 more than the 4.0. This could be a problem with a $20,000 car.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Ford should crank out 100,000+ D35 variants so there's plenty of volume.[/b][/quote]

[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/banghead.gif[/img] I can be so stupid sometimes. I forgot how many vehicles will use this engine. Youre right, economics of scale will help a bunch to bring down costs.

 

Ford's latest press release on the D35 talked about how the design was simpler and less costly to manufacture than competitors DOHC V6s.