Print 109 comment(s) - last by Noya.. on Dec 11 at 2:46 PM

Mustang V6  (Source:
Ford's Mustang V6 finally gets some balls

When it comes to increasing the fuel economy of vehicles to meet more strict CAFE regulations, automakers are looking at a variety of possible scenarios. Many like Toyota and Honda are pushing hybrid powertrains with vehicles like the Prius and Insight. Others, like VW and Audi, are heavily invested in diesel technology.

Ford is no stranger to relatively expensive hybrid powertrains or turbocharging, but it is using an off-the-shelf, normally aspirated V6 to boost fuel economy in its 2011 Mustang. Base Mustangs have long been the laughing stock of the sporty coupe market with drivers limping along with a "whopping" 210 hp (240 lb-ft of torque) from a 4.0-liter V6 engine. That engine is rated at 18 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway with a 5-speed manual transmission (16 mpg/24 mpg with a 5-speed automatic transmission).

Ford's base 2011 Mustang, however, should be able to give a little more dignity to those who choose not to go the GT route. The 2011 Mustang is now powered by a smaller, all-aluminum 3.7-liter V6 which pumps out an impressive 305 hp and 280 lb-ft of torque (at 6500 rpm and 4250 rpm respectively). The new engine is also 40 pounds lighter than the outgoing unit.

For the eco-conscious folks out there, fuel economy is up as well despite the 31 percent improvement in power. This time around, it's the automatic transmission (6-speed) that gets the best fuel economy at 19 mpg city/30 mpg highway. The 6-speed manual transmission is not far behind at 18 mpg city/29 mpg highway.

With the V6 Mustang now within 10 hp of its more expensive GT brother, Ford is expected to announce a new V8 engine for the vehicle that will be rated at around 400/400 (hp/lb-ft).

For comparison, the Mustang V6's arch enemy -- the Camaro V6 -- is rated at 17 mpg city/29 mpg highway. Considering that the new Mustang V6 now offers relatively the same punch as the Camaro V6 while weighing around 400 pounds less means that a whole new round of pony car wars is likely to begin.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By bradmshannon on 11/30/2009 9:20:25 AM , Rating: 4
I miss my 66 Mustang :( Those were the good days of the "Pony Wars"

RE: Sad...
By Iaiken on 11/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Sad...
By 306maxi on 11/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Sad...
By Chaser on 11/30/2009 10:38:39 AM , Rating: 5
I'll take digital fuel injection, solid state ignition systems, Electronic Control Units that adapt to weather, air pressure and speed, automatic adjusting values, synthetic oil for longevity and performance and not to mention folding energy absorbing crush zones, front and side air bags and ABS brakes.

The key word here is "maintaining."

RE: Sad...
By FITCamaro on 11/30/2009 10:50:24 AM , Rating: 3
I'll take the ability to work on my freakin car, the ability to smash through your car, and less weight so I can stop BEFORE I hit something.

Don't get me wrong I love the power and efficiency of modern engines. But nothing beats the simplicity of old cars.

RE: Sad...
By xti on 11/30/2009 11:14:44 AM , Rating: 5
i guess you could copy kenny loggins - danger zone to a tape.

RE: Sad...
By B166ER on 11/30/2009 10:40:47 PM , Rating: 1
+ fuckin 6, man.

RE: Sad...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/30/2009 11:35:08 AM , Rating: 5
I suppose you haven't seen the front offset crash test of a modern Chevy Malibu versus a 59 Impala. The Impala was creamed. Dead. The Malibu passengers would have walked away.

I was around for the tail end of the old muscle car days and I worked in car dealerships in the 1970's. I keep thinking about getting one of those old cars, but I can't justify the purchase given the safety issues (drum / disc combos, no passenger protection, lap belts, no steering, no suspension, solid rear axles, no stops on the front seats, bad tires back then but better now, etc, etc). Even given maintainability (gas, oil, points, plugs) I wouldn't own one on a bet. I would by a 2010 Camaro SS in a second, or even this V6 Mustang before I would consider ANY pre-1990 vehicle.

I owned a 1966 327 SS Impala that I really enjoyed back then, but I wouldn't put myself or especially a family member in one of those death traps without significant modification.

RE: Sad...
By Jeffk464 on 11/30/2009 2:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
This sounds like good judgement to me. There is no doubt about it modern engineering is most excellent.

RE: Sad...
By 306maxi on 11/30/2009 3:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to get downrated for this but anyway.......

American cars of the 60's and 70's were apallingly bad creations BUT European cars of that age are far better. Ditto for lots of Japanese cars.

This is my old 1977 Peugeot 504, a car which was in production from the late 60's onwards

4 wheel disc brakes, independent rear suspension all 3 point seatbelts.

Sure it's not a modern car in terms of tech but it's far better than American cars of a similar age and certainly something you can run as a daily driver and I did until I moved from Australia to the UK.

RE: Sad...
By Iaiken on 11/30/2009 1:23:05 PM , Rating: 5
I'll take the ability to work on my freakin car, the ability to smash through your car, and less weight so I can stop BEFORE I hit something.


Recently a driver in my car club was hit head on by an 1971 Impala in a 2002 Mini Cooper when it's driver hydroplaned into oncoming traffic. Both cars were traveling at ~70kph at the time of the impact. He walked away with nothing more than some cuts and bruises. The driver of the Impala was killed instantly and the remaining two passengers had to be air ambulanced to St Joseph Hospital where they died from their injuries.

Interesting items of note:

- The mini had zero deformation of the passenger compartment
- The the engine of the impala was pushed INTO its passenger compartment.
- The fuel tank of the impala had become disconnected by the impact and was leaking fuel.
- The impact sheared the lugs off both cars front wheels.
- Mini had no broken glass
- All of the impala's glass was broken or dislodged.
- The impala's rear windscreen had dislodged and struck the rear passengers before breaking.

Pretty crazy considering that the Impala had a 1300lb weight advantage going into the fight.

So yeah, I call BS.

RE: Sad...
By inperfectdarkness on 11/30/2009 2:05:16 PM , Rating: 1
nostalgia must be a bitch.

guess what? an engine's still an engine. pistons, rods, cams, lifters, etc. same stuff we've been using in IC engines for 50+ years. unless you drive a hybrid--your logic is the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

never mind the fact that technology has progressed 40 years since pony-car inception. never mind that practically any SEDAN today will out-corner, out-brake, out-survive, out-protect, and in many cases out-ACCELERATE those cars of old.

each generation loves the cars pertaining to it's youthful days. that's fine; but let's call it for what it is--nostalgia. climb into any new sports car (g37, c6 vette, camaro, etc) and compare it to driving any 60's muscle-car. the only thing a muscle-car can win on is asthetics.


RE: Sad...
By Iaiken on 11/30/2009 2:49:55 PM , Rating: 1
Not to side with FIT on this one, but you are incorrect:

New Engines:
- Fuel Injection (direct injection is gaining a lot of ground)
- Solid state ignition coils
- Variable valve timing
- Electronically actuated throttle bodies
- Twin spool turbochargers
- Electronically actuated thermostats

- Programmable ECU which provides:
- Idle speed control
- Electronic rev limiters
- Temperature control
- Pressure compensation & compression control
- Wastegate control
- Throttle control
- Variable intake/exhaust
- Gear control (blips the throttle during a down shift)
- Multiple performance profiles
- traction control
- active stability control

So while the basic principle is the same... they are NOTHING like the much 'simpler' engines of old. The biggest problem with modern engines is that they are extremely difficult to tune and toy with.

So difficult in fact that when I swapped out my supercharger pulley, intake, injectors, headers & exhaust, the car ran like shit on the OEM ECU. I had to have it reprogrammed by a technician from Janspeed. Traditionally, these would have all been bolt on power upgrades.

Interestingly enough, the tech from Janspeed didn't go to school for anything to do with cars. He had a bachelors degree in mathematics and statistics.

RE: Sad...
By inperfectdarkness on 11/30/2009 3:42:08 PM , Rating: 1
i take it you've never flashed an ECU?

EPROM ECU's are one of the best things to ever happen to automobiles. proven tune + flash drive + 20 min in the home depot parking lot = higher performance.

you may have "enjoyed" being able to tune your car yourself with a timing gun, dyno & several hours of spare time; but what about being able to tune it for multiple scenarios in the span of just a few minutes...without copious amounts of tools/equipment.

then again, maybe i'm jaded. my '95 only has fuel injection & ignition coils--none of the other bells and whistles. the reason your car ran like shit is because you don't have a carb. in years gone by--you'd simply turn a screw on the carb to compensate for the mods. if you did nothing to the ecu--it's like leaving the default setting on the carb.

seriously, i don't know who these heathens are that live in the dark ages. tuning an ecu isn't witchcraft. even on a non-EPROM ecu, it's as simple as hooking up an SAFC & tweaking. tweaking...not in a dis-similar manner to how the carbeurator was tweaked.


RE: Sad...
By Iaiken on 11/30/2009 5:03:12 PM , Rating: 1
Mini computers are a little too complex for that as the OEM ECU will start doing weird things if you have a Unichip, Shark, Blufin, or Evotech remap and over time it will retard things to near stock parameters.

We wound up having to run it on a dyno with a linked fan assembly and reprogram all of the fuel/air curves for each and every gear from idle to 7000rpm. After that, the my Cooper S was up to 265hp and 229ftlbs at the wheel. Best of all, we were able to bring up low end torque by 59lbs starting at idle. This allowed us to tweak the idle speed control and bring idle down to 1100 rpm from 1500. We were also able to diagnose a problem with the thermostat valve not being able to open up all the way.

I figure the biggest reason for this is that BMW doesn't want you fucking with their cars.

RE: Sad...
By Spuke on 11/30/2009 2:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
each generation loves the cars pertaining to it's youthful days. that's fine; but let's call it for what it is--nostalgia.
I used to be a classic car hater but after 10 years of watching Barrett Jackson and other shows about old cars I began to appreciate them for what they are. Hopefully, someday I'll be able to afford a '55 or '56 Porsche 356 or maybe an early 70's 911. But it won't be a daily driver, it'll be a weekend toy.

I like the simplicity and the differing mentality that went into building those cars. They were more interested in the drive back then. Generally, you have to spend a ton of money to get that same feel nowadays.

RE: Sad...
By jjmcubed on 11/30/2009 7:54:55 PM , Rating: 2
You think the old drum/drum disk/drum cars stopped shorter than the modern cars? Okay. Handle even close to how the newer models handle? You might want to take a quick trip back to the 1970s to remember how bad they were STOCK. And stock I'm talking about a Boss 302 not a lesser model.

I'm not a modern pony car fan, but what your stating isn't true.

RE: Sad...
By FITCamaro on 11/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Sad...
By zerocool84 on 11/30/2009 10:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
Can't put ABS on an old car. You will just lock your wheels and slide all over the place. Modern cars are infinitely better than an older car in a crash. Sure the car will be all steel but it won't do well in a crash like a newer car will do. I have various old cars that I have restored and keep but only drive those to cruise on the weekends. I drive my modern car every day cus it's safer, gets better mpg, easier to drive, and much more comfortable.

RE: Sad...
By jjmcubed on 11/30/2009 11:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
Are you talking about stock cars, or cars that we buy then put 5k of mods on. I understand you can make an old car handle/brake/acc better than new with major money spent, but not stock. RestoMod is great, but your talking about putting 5-10k on one before you put in the price of the car.

RE: Sad...
By mikeyD95125 on 12/1/2009 3:14:12 AM , Rating: 2
Well ABS will help you stop before you it something. One other thing that helps is called "paying attention". A simple technique that appears to be slipping away in the age of cars with in dash media consoles and Mercedes' that stop themselves in case you forgot you were driving.

RE: Sad...
By Calin on 12/1/2009 5:02:19 AM , Rating: 2
ABS will help you stop before you hit something only if you are on treacherous conditions. ABS will allow you to steer the car while braking "pedal to the metal" - without ABS you will only start sliding away

RE: Sad...
By Samus on 12/1/2009 5:43:48 AM , Rating: 2
i have an 82 mercury capri r/s (basically a mustang gt from that era) that origimally had a carburated 302 with a 4 speed manual. over the years ive put a few motors, trannys and rear ends through it.

these days it runs a 5.4l italian-built cobra motor with a tremec t56 6 speed transmission, hydrolic clutch and a modern independant rear subframe. i have driven it daily for years and put over 60,000 miles on the motor...the frame has nearly 200,000 miles on it. torn down and repainted in 2004 before this motor went in, you wouldnt know it, though :)

old cars can be reliable, but will never be as safe. in an era where windshields were designed to eject in a crash so your head wouldnt hit them and crumple zones were unheard of, you will always be safer in a modern kia over anything from the 60s or 70s.

RE: Sad...
By jonmcc33 on 11/30/2009 10:37:33 AM , Rating: 1
Lack of airbags anywhere, lack of anti-lock brakes, lack of any electronic stability control, lack of better transmissions for better fuel economy and lack of minimum 3-point seat belts.

I agree. Drive it at a parade but only a fool would use one for daily driving. You'd be driving in your own coffin.

RE: Sad...
By mtcoder on 11/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Sad...
By FITCamaro on 11/30/2009 10:52:22 AM , Rating: 2
My first three cars lacked ABS, air bags, and stability control. And the last of the 3 had more horsepower than most cars today. Did I need any of those three things to daily drive my car? No. Even in pouring rain I was fine. Properly inflated tires, properly maintained brakes, and knowing how to drive your car are far more valuable than a bunch of computers.

RE: Sad...
By The0ne on 11/30/2009 11:32:00 AM , Rating: 2
going to have to agree with knowing how to drive your car. Compare to most drivers I see I'm pretty good, but in my own opinion I could do with some track lessons sometime soon. To this day I still follow the 3sec rule of the old days. And it's saved me many many many times from stupid drivers.

But while I do appreciate the classics I'm a techie and I love electronics! What EE doesn't! :) But if I had enough time, I would definitely consider a classic as my main cruiser and probably save the rally cars for a bit more thrilling mountain driving :D

RE: Sad...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/30/2009 11:42:59 AM , Rating: 3
That 3 second rule is actually 1 second for every 10 miles per hour. If it has changed to 3 seconds, its only because of anti-lock brakes.

So you are good at avoiding collisions, but once you are in one, I would rather be in a modern car than one of those old ones any day. I used to manage a body shop, and I saw the damage that you could do to those old cars - even in normal commuting collisions. The passengers used to really take a beating. And its true that most collisions are rear-enders that you are taking special pains to avoid, but the low probability incidents have high catastrophe risk, which those old cars won't protect you from. Why risk it when you can get the same engine and better performance, safety and fuel mileage with a car that costs less (let's say showroom quality 1969 Camaro SS versus showroom quality 2009 Camaro SS)?

RE: Sad...
By The0ne on 11/30/2009 11:57:19 AM , Rating: 2
The 3sec rule was the start of checking your mirrors with the first being the rear and then the sides. It's been over 25 years now that I do it unconsciously. Just last week I avoided a 55+MPH crash to my car's behind because as soon as I caught the driver in the rearview not slowing I turned, moved forward and to the side and avoided the dumbass.

It must have taken his aging little car a good 20 yards or so to stop. I was surprise the car didn't turn and slide, very surprise. All other cars behind him also turned sideways to avoid crashing into the dumbass.

As for getting into one, I've avoided all since now and am thankful. With preference to which cars, I think luck has something to do with how the crash would happen than just the type of car. But as I said, I would use the classic for a cruiser and the newer cars, since they are rally cars, for DD or more exciting drives out in the country and mountains.

RE: Sad...
By invidious on 11/30/2009 12:42:00 PM , Rating: 3
You seem like a safe driver, but driving while unconscious sounds dangerous.

RE: Sad...
By LordanSS on 12/1/2009 2:47:45 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, sometimes things just happen and there's nothing you can do about it.

Years ago, I was stopped at a red light, when a speeding truck couldn't break in time and got the back of my car. I wasn't doing anything wrong, but still someone managed to hit me.

Knowing how to drive, and doing everything 100% right, goes a long way on preventing an accident. But even then, sometimes there's nothing you can do about it. Still, better safe than sorry.

RE: Sad...
By Noya on 12/11/2009 2:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
Why risk it when you can get the same engine and better performance, safety and fuel mileage with a car that costs less (let's say showroom quality 1969 Camaro SS versus showroom quality 2009 Camaro SS)?

Well, if it's not a daily drive and just a weekend toy the 1969 SS will only go up in value (investment). The 2009 SS will be worth jack in a few years, just like the last GTO and G8.

RE: Sad...
By Jeffk464 on 11/30/2009 2:08:25 PM , Rating: 2
Most people get away with riding a motorcycle, whats your point. Some of it is good driving, and some of it is not being in the wrong place at the wrong time(luck).

RE: Sad...
By FPP on 12/1/2009 11:07:50 PM , Rating: 2
Hogwash. These new cars are better in every way, from power (actual at-the-wheels power) quality, handling, amenities and most of all, safety than your 70's rattle traps. Honestly, I suspect that you do not really own 70's cars.

RE: Sad...
By iFX on 11/30/2009 10:06:52 AM , Rating: 2
Classic cars are nice to drive in a parade or around a car show, but modern cars are just more capable in every way.

Surprise Surprise. I'm sure no one has thought of that until just now.

RE: Sad...
By mtcoder on 11/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Sad...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/30/2009 11:49:12 AM , Rating: 3
Well jing blang and con sarn, pardner, I would say you make a convincin' argument, darn tootin' *spit*. Care to take that Olds (don't make those anymore, do they?) around a curve in that mountain road?

RE: Sad...
By robertisaar on 11/30/2009 1:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
interestingly enough: my father's 1970 Monte Carlo with the factory 350 is getting around 20MPG highway as well. as long as you can check timing, adjust the carb and not be a complete dumbass, it's amazing what almost 40 year old vehicles can do compared to how far we've come today.

RE: Sad...
By Jeffk464 on 11/30/2009 2:13:36 PM , Rating: 2
Probably has to do with it being a high compression engine. Leaded fuel was high octane so you could run higher compression without the dreaded pre-detination. If they start putting more ethenal in our fuel we might be able to go back to higher compressions as ethenol is higher octane that gasoline.

RE: Sad...
By robertisaar on 11/30/2009 2:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
according to GM documents, it is a 9.5:1 motor, which wasn't anything special back then considering what the BBCs were running, but it is respectable considering the ancient iron heads. he runs premium with some occasional lead substitute due to it having the original valve seats.

as a comparison: 95 Monte Carlo with the 3100 engine is also running 9.5:1 compression, but with aluminum heads. mileage is about 20 in the city, around 31-35 on the highway. but with about 1/2 of the torque and horsepower of the 350, it's a fair trade in my world.

RE: Sad...
By amanojaku on 11/30/2009 10:50:23 AM , Rating: 2
Why for the love of beer why?
You, sir, are a poet! Bravo!
Classic cars are nice to drive in a parade or around a car show, but modern cars are just more capable in every way.
Unfortunately, that's not always true. The first Mustang was 3,000-3,300lbs and had as much as 375HP. The current generation (fifth) of Mustangs weigh up to 4040lbs and have up to 540hp. The typical first generation Mustang had quarter-mile times of 13 seconds, while the typical current generation does that in 13.5 seconds. The current Mustang does 0-60 in about 4.9-5.1 seconds, while the first generation Fastback did that as fast as 4.8 seconds (GT500), but generally 7 seconds (GT350). Considering it's been 40+ years the current Mustang doesn't perform that much better than its predecessor.

On the other hand, the handling is better, and I would argue that the fuel economy is, as well.

I've read similar statements about certain Le Mans race cars, where the '60s model beat out '70s-'90s models and narrowly lost to 2000s.

RE: Sad...
By FITCamaro on 11/30/2009 10:54:47 AM , Rating: 2
The 1964 Mustang weighed 2556-2600 pounds. You're a bit off.

RE: Sad...
By amanojaku on 11/30/2009 11:09:32 AM , Rating: 2
True. The 3,000lb version was the V8, and those are the performance numbers I was using. The 2,600lb I6 only had 101-120hp, and couldn't possibly make those numbers.

RE: Sad...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/30/2009 11:51:57 AM , Rating: 2
1960's Mustangs also had exploding gas tanks, don't forget those. And if you had a fastback, you had the added treat of the fuel splashing across the headliner and over the passengers when struck in the rear. Those were the days. You don't see many immolations like that anymore. *sniff*

RE: Sad...
By The0ne on 11/30/2009 11:58:15 AM , Rating: 2
Man, sure sounds like a movie the way you put it :)

RE: Sad...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/30/2009 12:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure you can find a youtube video of the rear crash tests showing the fuel tank coming into the passenger compartment. Ford designed the fuel tank so that it could be dropped into the trunk and bolted down from the top to reduce production costs - um, like the Pinto, and the Exploder, etc. So when it becomes detached, it goes up. And up in the fastback, up is into the back seat. Lovely.

RE: Sad...
By The0ne on 11/30/2009 12:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
yes, I'm aware of the the gas tanks placements. Just sounds exciting when you said it initially that it reminded me a movie explosions :D

RE: Sad...
By 67STANG on 11/30/2009 12:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
If you're so concerned with the fuel tanks, they've been selling "Tank Armor" systems for classic mustangs for at least a decade now...

GM 1-upped Ford anyhow with their horrible fuel tank explosions-- which would have cost less than $9.00 to fix at the factory.

RE: Sad...
By Leper Messiah on 11/30/2009 12:42:58 PM , Rating: 5
The thing none of you are considering is safety. How many people died back in the 60's running lemans because their cars turned into airfoils at 250MPH on the straightaways? Same thing applies for production vehicles.

Not to mention, the horsepower ratings you're quoting from the 60's are from leaded fuel, non catalytic engines with SAE gross HP ratings instead of the SAE net ratings. Look at the horsepower ratings from the 'stangs back in the 70's and early 80s. The 5L V8 was making barely 185HP because they had to lower the compression ratio to deal with unleaded fuel and detune it so that it didn't pollute like a motherfucker. The fact that cars these days get similar performance to the cars of 40 years ago while polluting 80% less and being 3 or 4 times safer is where all that engineering went.

RE: Sad...
By AlexWade on 11/30/2009 11:45:19 AM , Rating: 2
My dad had a 1968 maroon red Mustang with the 289 engine. It had no power steering, no power brakes, no AC, one speaker, and it used so much gas that you could see the needle dropping slowly. Oh how I miss driving that car. It was my dad's toy, but I drove it to school. He eventually sold my favorite car. It was the joy in driving a classic that thrilled me.

RE: Sad...
By Jeffk464 on 11/30/2009 11:55:25 AM , Rating: 2
Cool, I was thinking with the new specs of the camaro v6 ford was going to get its ass wooped in sales. Looks like ford came up with a quick and impressive answer to gm's v6.

well done ford
By rika13 on 11/30/2009 11:35:49 AM , Rating: 3
while Government Motors is worrying about existing, Ford is kicking their asses

btw, i think the ultimate safety feature would be a shotgun mounted in the steering wheel that blows your head off if you so much as change lanes without signaling or roll a stop sign

RE: well done ford
By Jeffk464 on 11/30/2009 11:59:57 AM , Rating: 2
uhm, I wouldn't say the mustang kicks the ass of the camaro yet. Ford still needs to get rid of the solid rear axle.

RE: well done ford
By 67STANG on 11/30/2009 12:36:21 PM , Rating: 3
Why get rid of the SRA when it outhandles the Camaro's and Challenger's IRS?

They experimented with IRS in 03 and 04 on the Cobras. Mustang owners took off the IRS and replaced it with SRA's.

RE: well done ford
By Manch on 11/30/2009 12:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
The IRS vs solid axle arguement has already been proven BS. Ford was able to make the car handle extremely well and some mags say it handles better than the Camaro. Plus for the core buyers, the solid axle is better. Drag racers knows a solid axle is the way to go. They're cheap durable and light compared to an IRS.

RE: well done ford
By Brandon Hill on 11/30/2009 12:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
I think that part of the reason why the Mustang handles better than the Camaro is because the latter is a fat pig of a car :)

But that is to be expected when the vehicle is based on a sedan platform.

RE: well done ford
By theapparition on 11/30/2009 1:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, can't engineer around an extra 400lbs of mass.

Even so, the Camaro V6 is only 2mpg/1mpg worst in fuel economy compared to the Mustang.

RE: well done ford
By Jeffk464 on 11/30/2009 2:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure Ford already had a 400lbs advantage over the Camaro. The 400lbs drop in engine weight should give the Mustang a nice performance and mileage edge.

RE: well done ford
By theapparition on 12/1/2009 7:52:40 AM , Rating: 2
Wow did you misread the article. Engine only dropped 40lbs, primarily due to it's all aluminum construction.

It's still only 400lbs less, not 800lbs.

RE: well done ford
By chrnochime on 11/30/2009 1:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
IIRC They dropped the SRA back in because the IRS breaks so easily from all the power boost and hard launches, due largely in part to the rubber used in differential mounts, control arms and subframe mount. I guess it's easier to just swap the whole thing out instead of addressing the shortcomings.

Have a look at this:

RE: well done ford
By The0ne on 11/30/2009 12:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
Add crossing between fast/carpool lanes to it as well. Fcking CA drivers are a-holes on this. If anything it has double, continuous yellow lines until the proper merge spot. That means you can't go in and out at will!!!

For some reason this gets me piss like no other and I relish the though of just speeding up to their side as they begin to cross over. Yea, I take the hit but at least I can control my car. The other driver...I hope they slide and die. Yes, my thoughts are evil at times :D I'll even stop by the crash, tell them they're a dumbass, laugh whole-heartily and drive away. If they ask for help, DON'T...because you know you can get sue for now knowing how to handle the situation :P

RE: well done ford
By The0ne on 11/30/2009 12:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
urgh, need new glasses...spelling mistakes galore in my posts. :/

RE: well done ford
By Jeffk464 on 11/30/2009 12:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'm the biggest GM sceptic on the planet but have been pretty impressed with their new products. Look up some info on the new buick regal, it looks like another outstanding product from GM. I can't believe GM has 4 cars that are tempting me to give up my Toyota Tacoma prerunner. It looks to me like GM saw the writing on the wall and really hit the drawing board but was to late to hold off bankrupcy.


By KingConker on 11/30/2009 11:35:29 AM , Rating: 1
3.7L - should really be aiming for at least 100BHP/Litre

Now that's more like it.

Come on get with the times!

By 67STANG on 11/30/2009 12:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
What other NA car of equal or lesser cost has 100BHP?

By inperfectdarkness on 11/30/2009 2:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
honda s2000 > 100BHP/liter
rx8 = same

the g37 has more hp/liter than the mustang too.

By ChuckDriver on 11/30/2009 4:43:56 PM , Rating: 2
You missed 67STANG's caveat that it be of equal or lesser cost (all prices base MSRP from

2010 RX-8 - $32,660
2009 S2000 - $34,995

Don't know the price on the 2011 Mustang w/ the 3.7L V-6, but the 2010 base Mustang coupe is $20,995, so the gap between it and the RX-8 is more than $11k. The base convertible is $25,995, a $9k discount over the S2000. I doubt that Ford will raise the prices on either of these by anywhere near that amount when the Cologne V-6 is replaced next year. I agree that RX-8 and S2000 are unique cars with great performance and good value, but you do pay a premium for them. I think that the G37 coupe at $35,900 is still compelling even if it falls short of the 100BHP/liter mark. If I had to spend a day driving through typical metropolitan traffic in one of these cars, I'd choose the G37.

By Jeffk464 on 11/30/2009 7:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
My brother has the G35 coupe and I have to say it is a great sport/touring type car. The refinement is pretty unbelievable, sporty handling without harshness, great acceleration while engine stays smooth and fairly silent, its a perfectly balanced sporty car for everyday driving. I know that the mustang and camaro will never match that level of refinement but they are under $25,000. Refinement was never really the point of muscle cars anyways.

By 67STANG on 11/30/2009 4:45:45 PM , Rating: 2
Fail. Ever car you listed costs much more ...

Mustang (3.7l) = 305hp / 280lb.ft. - $21,000
G37 (3.7l) = 330hp / 270lb.ft. - $36,000
S2000 (2.2l) = 237hp / 162lb.ft. - $36,000
RX8 (1.3l) = 232hp / 159lb.ft. - $27,000

By Runiteshark on 11/30/2009 8:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
And none of them other then the RX8 and s2000 have 100/l.

I love that ricer argument though.

Did You know that the RX8 sucks gas down like crazy too?

By 67STANG on 12/1/2009 12:09:57 AM , Rating: 2
And you'll notice they give up ALL of their torque in favor of horsepower too.

Short stroke + Big bore = High HP, Low Torque (and vise versa)

Also, the RX8 uses a rotary engine that while a rev-monster, has a notoriously BAD track record of reliability-- and oil consumption. They were recalling them as recently as 3 years ago and replacing the ENTIRE engine due to oil leaks as well.

By Runiteshark on 12/1/2009 12:29:01 AM , Rating: 2
I know, but I didn't want to mention it.

Almost all very high HP engines to displacement have a very short stroke and very high revlimiter.

The guy also mentioned the VQ35DE and VQ37HR in the Infiniti G35 (and g37) which neither are 100hp/l either, but are pretty good.

The penalty for getting engines like that, is you can't add a whole lot of power with boltons, whereas the v8 mustangs respond very well.

By ChuckDriver on 11/30/2009 2:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
What other NA car of equal or lesser cost has 100BHP?

I can't think of any others off hand.

When I first saw the horsepower figure, I thought that they were using the ecoboost engine. I'm really impressed that they're getting that amount of power out of a normally aspirated engine; especially if they're not using direct injection.

I think that it is also about time that the Mustang got a six-speed too, more than 15 years after one was included in the Camaro. Granted the 6th gear in that case is an extra overdrive instead of hemming in the ratios on the other gears. I hope that the GT gets it too. In my opinion, they should have been at least offering it as an option with the V-8 since '99. I couldn't believe that they didn't add one for the 2005 redesign. Things probably would have been different if the GM F-bodies where in production at that time. Just like the Crown Victoria, I believe that is evidence that Ford is content to sit on its laurels in the absence of competition.

By 67STANG on 11/30/2009 4:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Tip of the hat to GM for lighting a fire under Ford. Ford had 6spd. manuals in their performance cars (ie, Cobras and Shelby GT500's) starting in 2003, but they are just now going into their base models.

BTW: All mustangs will get 6spd. manuals or 6spd. automatics for 2011.

Current 4.6L V8 is capable of 30 mpg highway.
By iFX on 11/30/2009 10:01:50 AM , Rating: 2
This isn't news to anyone who actually owns a Ford 4.6L V8 (in a car, not a truck). With a mild degree of restraint the Mustangs since 1996 as well as Crown Vics, Town Cars, Mark 8, etc. have been capable of 30 mpg highway.

By Brandon Hill on 11/30/2009 10:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
The 4.6 in the Mustang is rated at 24 on the highway. The jump to 30 mpg is a pretty big one unless you drive like grandma, but I'll take your word for it.

That being said, it's not like the 30 mpg EPA rating for the new V6 is a stationary rating -- I'm sure others will get higher numbers.

RE: Current 4.6L V8 is capable of 30 mpg highway.
By iFX on 11/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Current 4.6L V8 is capable of 30 mpg highway.
By donxvi on 11/30/2009 1:28:49 PM , Rating: 3
Perhaps we'll just have you drive every car in the world to get us your fuel economy rating. Start building a database and we can all start quoting your highway fuel economy numbers, tested your way.
Until then, there are only a handful of agencies worldwide that set conditions to measure fuel economy of passenger cars in a controlled environment on a consistent cycle. Anecdotal fuel economy data is worth less than the gas burned deriving the numbers.

RE: Current 4.6L V8 is capable of 30 mpg highway.
By iFX on 11/30/09, Rating: -1
By donxvi on 11/30/2009 10:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
Let me fill you in on how EPA fuel economy ratings are derived. The EPA never sees the car, manufacturers "self certify" which means that the EPA has agreed that the tests run at that OEM are acceptable. Some facility/test methodology cross-check was performed in the past (before I arrived). But this part is a minor detail.

The EPA city/highway numbers are derived from driving a specified cycle on a chassis dyno. The highway number isn't what you'll get if you fill up and hit the highway then get off when the tank is empty and refill. You can google the EPA cycle if you're actually interested. Every car is tested on the same drive cycle under similar conditions. No tailwinds, no traffic, no hills.

Give your car to one of these hypermiling champions and he'll smoke your best fuel economy. Do you really want Ford advertising 81.5 MPG because they were able to squeeze that out of one in a publicity stunt ? That's why a standardized cycle exists.

RE: Current 4.6L V8 is capable of 30 mpg highway.
By JediJeb on 11/30/2009 2:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
Definately not a stretch to believe 30+ from the Mustang V8. The 99 T/A that I owned with the LS-6 could easily get 27mpg on the interstate on long trips.

I never understood why you couldn't drop something like that into some small car, gear it up and knock down 30-35mpg easily. Most small cars lose milage because they are underpowered. The 79 mustang I had with a 2.3L 4 cylinder got worse milage than my friends with a 5.0L V8 by about 3mpg, mainly because it was so underpowered. Same with trucks, I know plenty of old F150s that get better milage with the 400cid V8 then with the 300cid I6.

RE: Current 4.6L V8 is capable of 30 mpg highway.
By Jeffk464 on 11/30/2009 7:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think I buy into your theory because of engine friction. The larger the displacement the more gas gets wasted to engine friction/idleing. Smaller displacement with more gears should give better mileage all other things being equal. The new Honda Accord V6 "shuts down" cylinders when driving conditions require less HP, but the 4 cylinder still gets significantly better mileage.

By Runiteshark on 12/1/2009 12:34:59 AM , Rating: 2
You are seriously comparing idling consumption between engines? I'll agree larger displacement will equal a bit more friction, but you're delusional to think that punching out a block or stroking it will make you use more fuel if you don't throw on any breathing mods.

I think you're misunderstanding whats trying to be said. Getting a midsize car with a small engine will mean you'll be taking that engine to around 4krpm or so constantly to accelerate into traffic. Putting a larger v6 in with significantly more torque will mean you'll barely tap 3k usually if you aren't beating on it.

Most v8's can drive around below 2000rpm comfortably.

Adding shorter gears to the first 3 has been done for quite some time, and does indeed help with fuel economy, however most cars are set up for just basic driving in mind, not custom turned to each enviroment.

By donxvi on 12/1/2009 7:56:10 AM , Rating: 2
One should compare idle fuel consumption characteristics. Manufacturers sure do. You'd be shocked at how much effort goes into getting idle speeds down a couple dozen RPM to improve fuel economy.
Go back to the controlled testing. To say that your friend with the small engine gets worse fuel economy than you with a bigger one brings an infinite amount of uncontrolled variability.

By Konenavi on 12/1/2009 5:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
True most inline seem to be a little more peppy, the 2.5L I5 in the Jetta wasn't a screamer but you didn't need to "push" it to keep up with traffic, plus when my Dad owned it, he got about 32. Same goes for the 4.0L inline six that Chrysler axed in the Jeeps. The 2010 Liberty 2WD gets about the same mileage as my 1991 Cherokee with 31" BFG All-terrains, a 3.5" lift, and a full 4x4 system. I bet it works much harder to stay in traffic too. Quite sad really. It is nice to see the Mustang with a decent V6 engine though.

Bring on the new V8
By bribud on 11/30/2009 9:31:09 AM , Rating: 2
I can't wait to see more about the new V8 that will be in the updated Mustang GT. I have been looking to get a new mustang, but have been patiently waiting until this happens. Long live the pony wars!

RE: Bring on the new V8
By Jeffk464 on 11/30/2009 11:58:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, hopefully 32 vavle, veriable valve timing, and direct injection. Come on ford please do it.

RE: Bring on the new V8
By theapparition on 11/30/2009 1:19:21 PM , Rating: 2

Latest info is that it will be an updated OHV engine, similar to the LS series of GM engines. Partial VVT and DI are possible, but no way will it have 4valves per cylinder.

For as much maligned as "old" pushrod engines are, they still reliably make incredible power and are resonably fuel effient (for 400hp engines).

RE: Bring on the new V8
By theapparition on 11/30/2009 1:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently, I'm incorrect. Ford was developing an OHV engine, but it look likes they will use a OHC version with is an extension of their modular engine. Hope they figured out how to stop them from spitting plugs out.

RE: Bring on the new V8
By 67STANG on 11/30/2009 12:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
400-425hp 5.0 for the GT.

GT500 will have the blown 5.4 still, but with an aluminum block-- and better tires.

Final Gear
By robertisaar on 11/30/2009 1:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
"The standard 2.73 rear axle"

did someone forget to mention this? tall rear gears are awesome for fuel economy, not so great for getting pinned back in the seat from a standstill though.

RE: Final Gear
By Jeffk464 on 11/30/2009 2:25:28 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't having a 6 spd transmission pretty much solve the problem of awkward gear ratios? With a 6 spd the only thing the manufacturer can really screw up is how they program in the shift points or by putting in a mushy torque converter. Mushy torque converters are great for 50 year old + women who test drive the car and say boy does this thing shift smooth. :(

RE: Final Gear
By robertisaar on 11/30/2009 2:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
considering most corvettes made since ~1997 have had 3.54:1 rear gears and regularly achieve this kind of fuel economy with the 5.7 LS1 and a T56 6 speed, i'm somewhat surprised the mustang can't do any better.

2.xx ratios were for the 70s and 80s, we finally started getting back into decent gears in the 90s/early 2000s until the fuel crunch. at least this time around, we'll know what's going to happen.

RE: Final Gear
By Spuke on 11/30/2009 3:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
regularly achieve this kind of fuel economy with the 5.7 LS1 and a T56 6 speed, i'm somewhat surprised the mustang can't do any better.
The Corvette is NOT rated by the EPA to get 30 mpg. There are WAY too many variables to use personal experiences as a comparison for gas mileage. It'll work for you but it won't work for anyone else. At least with the EPA ratings, you can compare different cars because the same test methods and conditions were used. If YOU drove a 2011 Mustang, you could probably do better than the 30 mpg rating but the next guy might only see 28. Driving style, environmental conditions, fuel quality and a host of other variables determine your actual mileage.

My car is rated at 19/28. I get 28 mpg on commutes, 30 mpg on longer drives, and when the planets line up I can get 33 mpg. Some drivers can't get past 25 mpg. And others can't get past 19 mpg. Different drivers, different conditions.

Nothing to shout about
By Sooticus on 12/1/2009 12:37:09 AM , Rating: 2
I don't get it.
300hp and 17-30 Mpg means that this 2011 sports car is now as powerful and efficient as a 1996 BMW M3
or my 1997 Nissan Station Wagon...

Woo Hoo...

Get with the times Ford. I know they are capable of coming up with something special. The only thing I have against the company is that they continue to keep the US motor industry in the dark ages.

RE: Nothing to shout about
By donxvi on 12/1/2009 8:09:18 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, it looks like the M3 made 240 hp from what I see on wikipedia and got 18/26 based on That is a bit less that the 305 hp and 19/30 we're talking about.

I've got places to go, I won't worry about the 97 Nissan wagon.

RE: Nothing to shout about
By vapore0n on 12/1/2009 8:14:53 AM , Rating: 2
sorry but none of those cars you so praise dont achieve 30mpg with 300hp.

for example

the wagon must be the non turbo version (153hp NA engine) to achieve those numbers

RE: Nothing to shout about
By Sooticus on 12/1/2009 5:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, the M3 I was wrong about - I appologise.

But I drive the Nissan Wagon (yes it is a turbo version)

I get 15-7.5 L/100Km (15-31 Mpg) city-highway in the 260RS twin turbo - mostly stock with 130000kms on it. It has approximately 230Kw at the fly / 200Kw at the wheels. Unless my calculator is wrong thats 308hp.

"Coyote" V8
By Chris Peredun on 11/30/2009 9:33:46 AM , Rating: 3
With the V6 Mustang now within 10 hp of its more expensive GT brother, Ford is expected to announce a new V8 engine for the vehicle that will be rated at around 400/400 (hp/lb-ft).

That would be the "Coyote" V8 - more than just a bump in displacement to 5.0L, the big rumour is that it's going to be DOHC instead of OHV, thus the significant increase in power.

That aside, I'm just pleased to see that Ford finally put that extra cog on the gearbox. I was starting to wonder if all of their engineers had lost a hand and couldn't count to six.

RE: "Coyote" V8
By iFX on 11/30/2009 10:04:39 AM , Rating: 1
The new engine will be OHC - just like all the other Mustang V8s dating back to 1996. This is not a Windsor small block 302, it's a continuation of the Modual V8.

FYI, Ford is the largest producer of OHC V8s on the planet and has been since the early 90s.

RE: "Coyote" V8
By GWD5318 on 11/30/2009 10:15:31 AM , Rating: 2
...the big rumour is that it's going to be DOHC instead of OHV...

The Mustang has not had a OHV V8 under the hood since they dropped the old 5.0L for the current 4.6L back in 1995 for the 1996 model year. (Special models like the Cobra R excluded, of course)

Ford is so far behind
By Rob94hawk on 12/1/2009 8:01:01 AM , Rating: 2
It took Ford this long to get 300hp out of a v6? The Acura NSX had 300hp from it's v6 back in the 90's.

And not for nothing but if anyone knows anything about cars 300 hp out of a v6 is no big achievement. All you really have to do is up the compression ratio or increase displacement or use a cam that would use the upper rpms for greater horsepower.

RE: Ford is so far behind
By donxvi on 12/1/2009 8:23:44 AM , Rating: 2
The NSX was Hondas top of the line halo pseudo-supercar. This is the entry level secretary-spec Mustang that costs less now than the NSX did then. I hope you're enjoying your apple, I'm loving my bacon.

And anyone that knows anything about engineering and building cars knows that... you're grossly oversimplifying. Just because you can hotrod a motor to do it doesn't mean it can be done for production. Earlier in the thread, we've already had the discussion about comparable engines. If all of this is so old hat, why doesn't everyone have a 300hp V6 in their driveway ?

RE: Ford is so far behind
By hypocrisyforever on 12/2/2009 5:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well said.

old car
By BuddyHolly on 11/30/2009 3:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
I drive a 1971 454 Chevelle...daily. 16,000 miles last year. It is mostly modernized with fuel injection, electronic 4 speed overdrive, massive Corvette brakes all around. Bucket seats with 3 point belts and a bunch of other mods. Love the car, only one I will EVER own...but it is still a long way from a full modern car. No antilock brakes, no traction control.
Never a worry for me but a consideration...

RE: old car
By jjmcubed on 11/30/2009 8:14:50 PM , Rating: 2
BTW, I hate you. You drive my dream car....



210 HP out of a 4 liter engine?
By Calin on 12/1/2009 4:55:11 AM , Rating: 2
My 1992 VW Passat gets 90 HP out of a 1.8 liter engine. I would have guessed a sport car almost 20 years newer would have reached a much higher power.
Oh, and the torque on that engine is 125 Nm at 2400 rpm (92 foot lbs)

RE: 210 HP out of a 4 liter engine?
By donxvi on 12/1/2009 8:00:49 AM , Rating: 2
That Cologne 4 liter is an ancient engine, tracing it's heritage all the way back to 1968. Time to send it out to pasture.

No Direct Injection!
By Spuke on 11/30/2009 9:54:14 AM , Rating: 3
And they were able to achieve the fuel economy and power numbers without DI! Impressive!

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki