|
Originally Posted by jsaylor
(Post 5771560)
Might be some bias showing through here, but given the fact that the Ford seems to have an appreciably if not hugely fatter and flatter power curve and manages that and slightly superior fuel economy without DI I think the Ford has a case. Still, it's more than close enough to debate.
|
Originally Posted by jedikd
(Post 5771524)
Just playing around with some numbers.
Past GTs have typically had about 43% more HP than the V6s: 1994-1998 V6 = 150HP 1994-1998 GT = 215HP 150HP + 43% = 214.5 HP 1999-2004 V6 = 190HP 1999-2004 GT = 260HP 190HP + 43% = 271HP 2005-2009 V6 = 210HP 2005-2009 GT = 300HP 210HP + 43% = 300HP so if we follow that for the new car: 2011 V6 305HP + 43% = 436HP for the 5.0 Just playing with some numbers. Certainly makes the idea of a 360HP 5.0 (which would only be 18% higher than the V6) seem pretty far-fetched. I also realize that peak HP is just a small part of what makes a car fast/fun to drive, but at the same time it is crucial from a marketing perspective. |
Originally Posted by Dave07997S
(Post 5771590)
Power to weight is very important but its not everything. A new E92 M3 has similar power to weight ratios and it runs mid 12s in the 1/4 mile while the Camaro runs high 12's to low 13s. A lot of it is the ability to put the power to the ground and gearing. The Mustang with its higher revving powerplant ala 4V per cylinder I feel should out run the Camaro...we will see shortly.
Dave |
Originally Posted by eci
(Post 5771617)
Well, Ford definitely knows nothing about power to ground. I should know! 540HP car on 285's? Gee thanks Ford. :(
So true...and whats funny is they had to fight to get the 285's, they originally were going to go with 255's on all 4 corners. Ford needs a 10.5" wheel with the right offset and fit some 305's at a minimum back there. Dave |
Originally Posted by jsaylor
(Post 5771593)
Boomer alluded to it earlier but it is worth repeating IMO, what I really appreciate about Ford's new approach to engines is the focus on driveability and usable power. Peak power numbers are great, but look at the points in the power band where the 3.7L makes peak torque and horspower, and we begin to see a clear picture of a very flexible powerband. That is a sign of a great engine, and one of the ingredients in a great performance car.
Dave |
Originally Posted by 1trickpony
(Post 5771601)
If you're talking just technology, I'd say GM 3.6 is a leader. I'd also say Ford is getting more out of what they have in comparison. The extra displacement is only worth about 8HP/TQ so Ford is getting a lot out of an engine without DI.
Dave |
Originally Posted by Dave07997S
(Post 5771650)
Direct Injection only shows so much for a normally aspirated motor, although the difference for Porsche with the 3.8L H6 was 30hp, but there were other changes in addition to the DFI. Its the turbos that seem to really benefit from this.
Dave |
2011 Mustang is one of the top searches on Yahoo this morning. Everybody is talking about it. Camaro glory was short lived.
|
Originally Posted by Dave07997S
(Post 5771650)
Direct Injection only shows so much for a normally aspirated motor, although the difference for Porsche with the 3.8L H6 was 30hp, but there were other changes in addition to the DFI. Its the turbos that seem to really benefit from this.
Dave Either way you look at it, direct injection is worthwhile to add, along with variable cam timing, and cylinder deactivation. |
this almost makes me want a V6, but if the GT has 436 hp I'm all over that. looks like the Camaro will be disappearing once again.
|
Originally Posted by metroplex
(Post 5771698)
Direct injection produces better results with forced induction, but it is still beneficial for N/A engines. You get better fuel metering and you can run higher compression for much more power.
Either way you look at it, direct injection is worthwhile to add, along with variable cam timing, and cylinder deactivation. |
Originally Posted by laserred38
(Post 5771750)
HELL no. Have you ever heard a Charger with cylinder deactivation? That technology belongs on econo/family cars. NOT performance cars. My buddy had straight pipes put on his Charger R/T and ohhh my godddd is it horrible on the freeway when half the engine shuts down. You can keep that crap away from Mustangs thank you very much. It might get you 1-2mpg, but um no. I'd rather pay an extra $10 a tank than have that crap on my car!!
|
Originally Posted by metroplex
(Post 5771698)
Direct injection produces better results with forced induction, but it is still beneficial for N/A engines. You get better fuel metering and you can run higher compression for much more power.
Either way you look at it, direct injection is worthwhile to add, along with variable cam timing, and cylinder deactivation. What they didn't mention in the press release is the 6 spd. auto going to have a select shift function? Dave |
Originally Posted by metroplex
(Post 5771698)
Direct injection produces better results with forced induction, but it is still beneficial for N/A engines. You get better fuel metering and you can run higher compression for much more power.
Either way you look at it, direct injection is worthwhile to add, along with variable cam timing, and cylinder deactivation. |
Originally Posted by DarkCandy08GT
(Post 5771689)
2011 Mustang is one of the top searches on Yahoo this morning. Everybody is talking about it. Camaro glory was short lived.
And I'm wondering how much it would cost to drop the 3.7 and 6-speed into my 2009 V6... |
Originally Posted by 1chocophile
(Post 5771834)
We're all talking about it as well. 65 people viewing the 2010 forum, vs. 37 viewing the 2005-2009 forum.
And I'm wondering how much it would cost to drop the 3.7 and 6-speed into my 2009 V6... |
Originally Posted by Dave07997S
(Post 5771773)
I realize this, but forced induction really sees a major benefit with DFI. I would love to have DFI as well in the motors. According to Ford though, they probably won't add DFI for now and will wait with later models.
What they didn't mention in the press release is the 6 spd. auto going to have a select shift function? Dave One downside that's been the case with DI turbos (Mazdaspeed3,6,CX-7, Cobalt SS/TC) is that they seem to fall on their face without secondary fueling at around 400hp. I don't know if the same holds true with the EB engines, but I'm sure we'll know soon enough. More companies are starting to address the fueling issues, and some solutions are in the works, but right now it's about the limit. I'm only pushing 343hp, 378tq on my stock turbo with a re-tune, intake, and some other mods, but don't feel like swapping to a bigger turbo, injectors, or forging the motor. With that said, the DI is coming, and you can expect a power bump. I don't think the EB's will be in the Mustang until they can ring out all the power from the DI and other technologies first. |
Insurance companies are NOT going to like the hike in horsepower for the V6 model...Ford has always prided itself in offering a non-performance model Mustang for those on tighter on budgets...the insurance companies will now see the 305HP V6 as a "performance" model akin to the GT...and the rates will go up accordingly...
|
Are the rate differences even that much? I went from a 2007 GT to a 2010 GT500 and my YEARLY premium only went up $225. $1200/year in SoCal for full coverage with 250k/500k/500k coverage and $100 deductible.
|
Meh. Insurance, schminsurance.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:38 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands