New Mustang V6 Engine Listed for 2010???
5/8/07, 06:21 PM
#41
Administrator, Shop Manual PDF Poster, Parts Locator & Spam Bot Eliminator!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: November 27, 2004
Location: Visalia Ca.
Posts: 10,157
Received 2,569 Likes
on
1,900 Posts
I would Guess a More Sophisticated Tranny Hopefully by then in both Standard and Auto Forms! 6spds?
KC
Here is a Parts Pic of the 3.5L Of Course the Stang would have a Different Intake.
KC
Here is a Parts Pic of the 3.5L Of Course the Stang would have a Different Intake.
5/8/07, 10:05 PM
#43
That would be a fun coloring sheet ! Hows about a contest for the kids of us all ?
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/attach...5&d=1178670517
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/attach...5&d=1178670517
5/8/07, 10:40 PM
#44
Administrator, Shop Manual PDF Poster, Parts Locator & Spam Bot Eliminator!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: November 27, 2004
Location: Visalia Ca.
Posts: 10,157
Received 2,569 Likes
on
1,900 Posts
9R3T14B060AA 09/N>07-Apr-2008 9R3Z-14300-AA
Motorcraft(WC96076)
4.0L V6 12V SOHC EFI (ENNE0P)
4.0 Still Listed in 09! This is a Battery Cable FYI
Motorcraft(WC96076)
4.0L V6 12V SOHC EFI (ENNE0P)
4.0 Still Listed in 09! This is a Battery Cable FYI
5/9/07, 06:14 PM
#45
9/20/07, 10:56 AM
#46
Administrator, Shop Manual PDF Poster, Parts Locator & Spam Bot Eliminator!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: November 27, 2004
Location: Visalia Ca.
Posts: 10,157
Received 2,569 Likes
on
1,900 Posts
bump
9/20/07, 08:56 PM
#49
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 5, 2006
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well all i know is that ford racing is bringing a new big block motor, at least it says on thier site...so im guessing that going to be the next truck motor, a darivative of the next get motors...*prays for 375HP gt*
9/21/07, 09:44 AM
#51
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: April 30, 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9/21/07, 10:21 AM
#52
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My guess is the 3.7 would be a Lincoln exclusive for maybe the first year, then start fanning out to other divisions/models, especially those in need of a bit more power/cache than the "pedestrian" 3.5 version. The Mustang, ostensibly being a "performance" model, even in V6 guise, would likely fall under this. Power would probably be in the 275-285 realm or, if they get rid of the silly 87 octane swill staightjacket, into the 300hp realm. Might be even more if Ford starts introducing direct injection (Infiniti's getting 330 hp out of their 3.7 for example which, I believe, in addition to some other neato features has direct injection).
This much power would, quite interestingly, really start to make the "base" V6 Stang a viable performance car rather than a flashy but somnulent secretary's special. Add some GT chassis bits and a six speed to better slice the 3.7's peakier power band and voila, a very well balanced sports coupe. Whether Ford could do this with the dynamic finesse required of a car of this type, rather than the cruder broad-axe approach of the current GT/Shelby GT/GT 500 is another question. SVT in Coletti's day seemed to understand this quite well but has since seemed to regress a bit. But the S197 chassis does look fully capable of being an excellent overall dynamic exercise if Ford would only devote some quality chassis tuning tiime to it (send the development team to Nurburgring for a few weeks for example), especially if the oh'10 version finally gets a 21st century Control Blade IRS rather than the 19th century lively axle.
This much power would, quite interestingly, really start to make the "base" V6 Stang a viable performance car rather than a flashy but somnulent secretary's special. Add some GT chassis bits and a six speed to better slice the 3.7's peakier power band and voila, a very well balanced sports coupe. Whether Ford could do this with the dynamic finesse required of a car of this type, rather than the cruder broad-axe approach of the current GT/Shelby GT/GT 500 is another question. SVT in Coletti's day seemed to understand this quite well but has since seemed to regress a bit. But the S197 chassis does look fully capable of being an excellent overall dynamic exercise if Ford would only devote some quality chassis tuning tiime to it (send the development team to Nurburgring for a few weeks for example), especially if the oh'10 version finally gets a 21st century Control Blade IRS rather than the 19th century lively axle.
9/21/07, 03:36 PM
#54
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, the dimes saved might make sense in a penny-pinching V6 model, but for the performance oriented GTs where owners will drop several grand on performance mods without blinking an eye (including chip kits necessitating higher octane anyways), yet, suddenly when it comes to paying another two or three bucks at fillup time, they get all parsimonious and stingy.
Given modern knock sensor and computer engine controls, I think better to tune the motor, Compression ratio and all, to run best on 93 octane and then have the ECU dial things back for the cheap stuff. Would it that Ford put out a 350hp 4.6 with a crackling 11:1 cr and a broad, sharp torque curve to match, I'd gladly pony up the extra 20 cents/gal. at fillup time.
9/21/07, 05:01 PM
#55
Never could quite figure out the degree of want for the ability to run on 87 octane swill. Sure, it is of course cheaper by maybe 10 cents/gal. over 91 octane or 20 cents over 93. But at the cost to what amount of performance? My guess might be easily 10-15hp from 91 octane and maybe 20-30hp lost to a motor tuned for 93 octane with equal drops in torque. And this power loss would be a broad percentage loss across the board, not just in peak power.
Sure, the dimes saved might make sense in a penny-pinching V6 model, but for the performance oriented GTs where owners will drop several grand on performance mods without blinking an eye (including chip kits necessitating higher octane anyways), yet, suddenly when it comes to paying another two or three bucks at fillup time, they get all parsimonious and stingy.
Given modern knock sensor and computer engine controls, I think better to tune the motor, Compression ratio and all, to run best on 93 octane and then have the ECU dial things back for the cheap stuff. Would it that Ford put out a 350hp 4.6 with a crackling 11:1 cr and a broad, sharp torque curve to match, I'd gladly pony up the extra 20 cents/gal. at fillup time.
Sure, the dimes saved might make sense in a penny-pinching V6 model, but for the performance oriented GTs where owners will drop several grand on performance mods without blinking an eye (including chip kits necessitating higher octane anyways), yet, suddenly when it comes to paying another two or three bucks at fillup time, they get all parsimonious and stingy.
Given modern knock sensor and computer engine controls, I think better to tune the motor, Compression ratio and all, to run best on 93 octane and then have the ECU dial things back for the cheap stuff. Would it that Ford put out a 350hp 4.6 with a crackling 11:1 cr and a broad, sharp torque curve to match, I'd gladly pony up the extra 20 cents/gal. at fillup time.
9/22/07, 07:05 AM
#57
Cobra Member
9/22/07, 08:24 AM
#58
I Have No Life
IF..and this is a big IF... the V6 had a 300hp V6, I very highly doubt the 3v 4.6L would share the HP number...
It would be higher by then.
I can see it hovering lower on the HP side (250-270)
and the V8 being 350
Until the BOSS engine(s) are ready to go into the stang.
Which ever configuration they plan on using and size they will be.
It would be higher by then.
I can see it hovering lower on the HP side (250-270)
and the V8 being 350
Until the BOSS engine(s) are ready to go into the stang.
Which ever configuration they plan on using and size they will be.
9/22/07, 07:45 PM
#59
Needs to be more Astony
premium in chicago area is 30 cents higher then normal. 87 is one price, 89 is 15 cents more and then 93 is 15 cents on top of that.
I'm fine with the GT running on premium but a lot of v6s are bought because people want a sporty looking coupe but don't care about performance and a lot of those will not wanna pay 20-30 cents higher a gallon for cruiseing around at speed limit speeds.
9/22/07, 11:10 PM
#60
premium in chicago area is 30 cents higher then normal. 87 is one price, 89 is 15 cents more and then 93 is 15 cents on top of that.
I'm fine with the GT running on premium but a lot of v6s are bought because people want a sporty looking coupe but don't care about performance and a lot of those will not wanna pay 20-30 cents higher a gallon for cruiseing around at speed limit speeds.
I'm fine with the GT running on premium but a lot of v6s are bought because people want a sporty looking coupe but don't care about performance and a lot of those will not wanna pay 20-30 cents higher a gallon for cruiseing around at speed limit speeds.