2010-2014 Mustang Information on The S197 {GenII}

New 305-HP Engine, 6-Speed Transmission Expected to Deliver 30MPG Highway

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 08:38 PM
  #121  
jsaylor's Avatar
Team Mustang Source
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Boomer
It was a joke...
Pete, you can't catch a break today.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 08:41 PM
  #122  
Boomer's Avatar
I Have No Life
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 12
From: Canada
I know..tough crowd...
I pull a number outta my *** just cause, and people calculate it as if were a truth or something.

Last edited by Boomer; Nov 30, 2009 at 08:45 PM.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 08:51 PM
  #123  
ManEHawke's Avatar
Shelby GT500 Member
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 2,917
Likes: 0
From: Riverside, CA
Keeping the diesel option a secret eh?
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 08:55 PM
  #124  
MARZ's Avatar
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
 
Joined: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by metroplex
Well to be honest, Ford's a dollar short and a day late with the 305 hp V6. GM and Nissan beat Ford to the punch with 300+ hp N/A V6's years ago. Ford took their time getting the 3.5/3.7 out to more of its cars. Ford's just doing a decent job with the marketing/PR to make people believe this 305 hp V6 is revolutionary. It also shows how pitifully underpowered the modular V8 engines are. My 4.6L 2V V8 made only 285 ft-lb of torque at 3500-4000 RPM from the factory, yet this N/A 3.7L V6 makes 280 ft-lb of torque.
I don't think Ford is touting the 3.7L V6 as anything "revolutionary;" their PR team is just doing its job, talking up their product. What did you expect them to do? And, really, does it matter that Ford is a bit late to the party with their "current" V6 offering? Just be happy they're offering it at all.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 08:57 PM
  #125  
MARZ's Avatar
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
 
Joined: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by metroplex
The Ford 6.2L Boss V8 will make only 411 hp. It's unlikely Ford will make the 5.0L Coyote produce more power than a 6.2L truck engine. I'm guessing 340-360 hp is the target for the production Coyote.
That doesn't make any sense, to me at least. I see Ford offering a 300+ horsepower V6 (which they are), a 400+ horsepower GT and, of course, the 540+ horsepower Shelby GT500.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 08:57 PM
  #126  
slowjoe24's Avatar
Shelby GT350 Member
 
Joined: October 20, 2004
Posts: 2,494
Likes: 0
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 09:02 PM
  #127  
jsaylor's Avatar
Team Mustang Source
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by MARZ
I don't think Ford is touting the 3.7L V6 as anything "revolutionary;" their PR team is just doing its job, talking up their product. What did you expect them to do? And, really, does it matter that Ford is a bit late to the party with their "current" V6 offering? Just be happy they're offering it at all.
I think Ford is simply touting the new 3.7L as class leading, and it is very arguably exactly that for the moment.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 09:07 PM
  #128  
eci's Avatar
eci
Banned
 
Joined: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by jsaylor
I think Ford is simply touting the new 3.7L as class leading, and it is very arguably exactly that for the moment.
I'd say the Camaro is equal to it. The Camaro has a smaller engine yet makes virtually the same power and suffers a 1MPG loss with 350 lbs more weight.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 09:10 PM
  #129  
Moosetang's Avatar
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
 
Joined: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by metroplex
Well to be honest, Ford's a dollar short and a day late with the 305 hp V6. GM and Nissan beat Ford to the punch with 300+ hp N/A V6's years ago.
So, they have superior Horsepower, Torque, and (projected) EPA numbers in the 3.7 (and in a lighter, less expensive vehicle) but that's still a dollar short? News for you, Bucko, GM's 300+hp LLT didn't bow until the 2008 model year. In a low-volume car, the CTS. The LY7, and the FWD LLTs were/are below 300hp, and LLT came out a year after the Cyclone. Also find it kinda hilarious that you're arguing Ford is playing technological catch-up, given the EcoBoost line, the Scorpion Diesel, and GM's continued infatuation with pushrod motors.

Last edited by Moosetang; Nov 30, 2009 at 09:22 PM.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 09:14 PM
  #130  
jsaylor's Avatar
Team Mustang Source
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by eci
I'd say the Camaro is equal to it. The Camaro has a smaller engine yet makes virtually the same power and suffers a 1MPG loss with 350 lbs more weight.
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.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 09:14 PM
  #131  
eci's Avatar
eci
Banned
 
Joined: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Moosetang
So, they have superior Horsepower, Torque, and (projected) EPA numbers in the 3.7 (and in a lighter, less expensive vehicle) but that's still a dollar short? Also find it kinda hilarious that you're arguing Ford is playing technological catch-up, given the EcoBoost line, the Scorpion Diesel, and GM's continued infatuation with pushrod motors.
Nothing wrong with pushrods. I think the ZR-1, Z06, CTS-V, C6, C6GS, and anything else with an LS series engine are doing just fine.

Is the 3.7 with 30MPG highway less expensive than the Camaro? Source? The 6 speed transmission is an option, not standard.

Last edited by eci; Nov 30, 2009 at 09:15 PM.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 09:24 PM
  #132  
97svtgoin05gt's Avatar
Shelby GT500 Member
 
Joined: July 21, 2004
Posts: 2,924
Likes: 1
From: New Jersey
Originally Posted by metroplex
Well to be honest, Ford's a dollar short and a day late with the 305 hp V6. GM and Nissan beat Ford to the punch with 300+ hp N/A V6's years ago. Ford took their time getting the 3.5/3.7 out to more of its cars. Ford's just doing a decent job with the marketing/PR to make people believe this 305 hp V6 is revolutionary. It also shows how pitifully underpowered the modular V8 engines are. My 4.6L 2V V8 made only 285 ft-lb of torque at 3500-4000 RPM from the factory, yet this N/A 3.7L V6 makes 280 ft-lb of torque.
What does this say for the Camaro SS? Considering the 4.6 runs quite admirably with their 6.2, I don't think the latest versions of the 4.6 is that bad. If you're talking about a '96 2v motor, yea, they were bad but they've come a long way from that.

Just keep in mind, GM has made some pretty "pittiful" engines as well. The 305 and 5.3 jump right out at me.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 09:27 PM
  #133  
eci's Avatar
eci
Banned
 
Joined: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by 97svtgoin05gt
What does this say for the Camaro SS? Considering the 4.6 runs quite admirably with their 6.2,
It does? The 4.6 gets killed by the 6.2. The 6.2 is more in line with a GT500 than a GT. I've seen SS's run 12.9 showroom stock including tires. A 2010 GT can't get anywhere near that and weighs 350 lbs less. Point is, the 4.6 sucks.

Last edited by eci; Nov 30, 2009 at 09:28 PM.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 09:36 PM
  #134  
max2000jp's Avatar
Shelby GT500 Member
 
Joined: September 2, 2004
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Originally Posted by Moosetang
So, they have superior Horsepower, Torque, and (projected) EPA numbers in the 3.7 (and in a lighter, less expensive vehicle) but that's still a dollar short? News for you, Bucko, GM's 300+hp LLT didn't bow until the 2008 model year. In a low-volume car, the CTS. The LY7, and the FWD LLTs were/are below 300hp, and LLT came out a year after the Cyclone. Also find it kinda hilarious that you're arguing Ford is playing technological catch-up, given the EcoBoost line, the Scorpion Diesel, and GM's continued infatuation with pushrod motors.
I would assume he is comparing to the imports. For example, Nissan's 3.7 VQ puts out 332hp in the Z.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 09:39 PM
  #135  
Captain Spadaro's Avatar
Bullitt Member
 
Joined: October 30, 2004
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: Romeoville, Illinois
I must say I'm a little surprised to not see any mention of a SelectShift function for this new 6-speed auto.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 09:45 PM
  #136  
SpOnkey21's Avatar
V6 Member
 
Joined: October 18, 2009
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
I don't think the 6 speed transmission is optional. The only option is whether it is an auto or manual, that is why it says "available 6 speed transmission" on the release provided by Ford. It would be dumb to have 4 different transmission options, just not cost effective. It would be cheaper for Ford to have 2 transmissions, and they are trying to make a big deal about efficiency and have stated that their entire lineup would have 6 speeds top to bottom within the coming few years.
Correct me if I am wrong, though.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 09:52 PM
  #137  
Captain Spadaro's Avatar
Bullitt Member
 
Joined: October 30, 2004
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: Romeoville, Illinois
Originally Posted by SpOnkey21
I don't think the 6 speed transmission is optional. The only option is whether it is an auto or manual, that is why it says "available 6 speed transmission" on the release provided by Ford. It would be dumb to have 4 different transmission options, just not cost effective. It would be cheaper for Ford to have 2 transmissions, and they are trying to make a big deal about efficiency and have stated that their entire lineup would have 6 speeds top to bottom within the coming few years.
Correct me if I am wrong, though.
The 6-speed manual is standard, the 6-speed auto is optional.
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 10:00 PM
  #138  
Dave07997S's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: September 23, 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by eci
426HP Camaro SS @ 3850 lbs: 9.03 lbs/hp

400HP Mustang GT @ 3600 lbs: 9.00 lbs/hp

I think the GT will weigh around there. 6 speed trannies are not light. Looks to be an even match. Camaro's are a hell of a lot easier to launch too thanks to launch control. Haven't heard if Ford is adding this.
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
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 10:01 PM
  #139  
Dave07997S's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: September 23, 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by max2000jp
I would assume he is comparing to the imports. For example, Nissan's 3.7 VQ puts out 332hp in the Z.
Yes on premium 91 octane. The 305 rating from my understanding is on pump 87 for the Mustang. Also the Z's 3.7 revs to 7300 rpm although it sounds ragged at this rpm.

Dave
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2009 | 10:04 PM
  #140  
jsaylor's Avatar
Team Mustang Source
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Dave07997S
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
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.
Reply



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:39 AM.