backtop


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


Mustang V6  (Source: allfordmustangs.com)
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

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
quote:
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).


"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














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki