New 305-HP Engine, 6-Speed Transmission Expected to Deliver 30MPG Highway
11/30/09, 08:41 PM
#122
I Have No Life
I know..tough crowd...
I pull a number outta my *** just cause, and people calculate it as if were a truth or something.
I pull a number outta my *** just cause, and people calculate it as if were a truth or something.
Last edited by Boomer; 11/30/09 at 08:45 PM.
11/30/09, 08:55 PM
#124
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
Join Date: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
11/30/09, 08:57 PM
#125
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
Join Date: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
11/30/09, 09:02 PM
#127
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.
11/30/09, 09:07 PM
#128
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11/30/09, 09:10 PM
#129
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Join Date: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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; 11/30/09 at 09:22 PM.
11/30/09, 09:14 PM
#130
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.
11/30/09, 09:14 PM
#131
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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; 11/30/09 at 09:15 PM.
11/30/09, 09:24 PM
#132
Shelby GT500 Member
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.
Just keep in mind, GM has made some pretty "pittiful" engines as well. The 305 and 5.3 jump right out at me.
11/30/09, 09:27 PM
#133
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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; 11/30/09 at 09:28 PM.
11/30/09, 09:36 PM
#134
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
11/30/09, 09:45 PM
#136
V6 Member
Join Date: October 18, 2009
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Correct me if I am wrong, though.
11/30/09, 09:52 PM
#137
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 30, 2004
Location: Romeoville, Illinois
Posts: 282
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Correct me if I am wrong, though.
11/30/09, 10:00 PM
#138
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Dave
11/30/09, 10:01 PM
#139
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave
11/30/09, 10:04 PM
#140
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
Dave