Motors on Mustangs

[npoe1]

I was looking at the Ford Mustang 2008 and I notice that Ford uses some engines that to my understanding are inefficients and underpowered for a sport car. For example:
210-horsepower, 4.0-liter SOHC 6-cylinder engine. The V8 is 4.6L, 3 valves and 315 hp and 325 lb-ft which is good. But why a SOHC and 3 valves?

 

[Pacfanweb]

Emissions, mileage.

 

[Arkaign]

55hp/liter is pretty awful

 

[ElFenix]

the 6 is a truck motor, basically. been used on the explorer forever, and the ranger since 2001. it's torque peak of 240 torques isn't much lower than the 3.5's 249, and is achieved 1000 rpm lower, which is good. the highway mileage isn't that great but that may be a gearing thing. it wouldn't be shocking for the 3.5 to become the base engine in the mustang, though it's probably more expensive.

the 8 has appeared on ward's 10 best for the past few years. they have dohc and 4 valve heads, but the sohc 3 valve puts out nearly as much power and torque as the last dohc/4 version. they may use a dohc/4 for special editions later in this 'stang's life cycle.

Originally posted by: Arkaign
55hp/liter is pretty awful

:roll:

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the 6 is a truck motor, basically. been used on the explorer forever, and the ranger since 2001. it's torque peak of 240 torques isn't much lower than the 3.5's 249, and is achieved 1000 rpm lower, which is good. the highway mileage isn't that great but that may be a gearing thing. it wouldn't be shocking for the 3.5 to become the base engine in the mustang, though it's probably more expensive.

the 8 has appeared on ward's 10 best for the past few years. they have dohc and 4 valve heads, but the sohc 3 valve puts out nearly as much power and torque as the last dohc/4 version. they may use a dohc/4 for special editions later in this 'stang's life cycle.

Originally posted by: Arkaign
55hp/liter is pretty awful

:roll:

Hey, I'm not knocking the Mustang. But a 4.0L that gets about the same real-world fuel economy as their V8, while only pushing out 55hp/liter? That's pretty rough if you ask me. I know the people who buy the V6 Stang aren't looking for performance really, but still, that's piss-poor for a 'sports' car.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
55hp/liter is pretty awful

yeah, my little RC car kicks the shit out of that 4.0L V6 (not that i think it's a great V6 to begin with... GM's DI V6 >>> by light years)

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Arkaign
55hp/liter is pretty awful

yeah, my little RC car kicks the shit out of that 4.0L V6 (not that i think it's a great V6 to begin with... GM's DI V6 >>> by light years)

Well, to put it in perspective, the ancient GM 3800 was only a 3.8L that pushed more hp/liter, and was put in stuff like LeSabre, etc.

 

[LTC8K6]

Chrysler's 4.7L 235hp V8 has it beat... 50HP/L

The GM 3.8 was not better than 55HP/L unless it was boosted, IIRC.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Chrysler's 4.7L 235hp V8 has it beat... 50HP/L

The GM 3.8 was not better than 55HP/L unless it was boosted, IIRC./q]

Ah yeah, it's pretty close though, about 53.x hp/liter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_V6_engine#Series_II

 

[iamwiz82]

The 4.0 engine was cheap to manufacture, and therefore drove the cost of the Mustang down. This is what made the 2005+ V6 Mustang the fastest car under $20,000.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
The 4.0 engine was cheap to manufacture, and therefore drove the cost of the Mustang down. This is what made the 2005+ V6 Mustang the fastest car under $20,000.

Well that makes more sense to me then

 

[npoe1]

Then it was all about money.

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: npoe1
Then it was all about money.

Crazy how that happens with a business.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

If you own a Mustang V6, you're a douchebag

 

[Howard]

Some of you are forgetting that displacement-specific power output is, in itself, a useless value.

 

[angry hampster]

oh god delete this please

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: Howard
Some of you are forgetting that displacement-specific power output is, in itself, a useless value.

Not when you have taxes on higher displacement engines... Like for instance, Japan where all the high hp/l stuff comes from.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: mariok2006

Originally posted by: Howard
Some of you are forgetting that displacement-specific power output is, in itself, a useless value.

Not when you have taxes on higher displacement engines... Like for instance, Japan where all the high hp/l stuff comes from.

I'd hardly call that important, but I can concede that.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: Howard
Some of you are forgetting that displacement-specific power output is, in itself, a useless value.

almost all values are, when taken out of context.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: Howard
Some of you are forgetting that displacement-specific power output is, in itself, a useless value.

almost all values are, when taken out of context.

Yes, but some are more important than others.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: Howard
Some of you are forgetting that displacement-specific power output is, in itself, a useless value.

almost all values are, when taken out of context.

Yes, but some are more important than others.

none are more important than the value of your friendship. baaahahahaaha

 

[thedarkwolf]

They need to roll out their eco-boost line of engines quickly

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: npoe1
Then it was all about money.

It was about making a car cheaper and faster. What is wrong with that?

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
They need to roll out their eco-boost line of engines quickly

They should do something...less power and worse fuel mileage (not to mention half the displacement ) than my 17yo Toyota. :beer:

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: Howard
Some of you are forgetting that displacement-specific power output is, in itself, a useless value.

almost all values are, when taken out of context.

Yes, but some are more important than others.

Most people assume displacement determines the size of an engine but OHVs are inherently smaller, lighter and easier to manufacture than DOHC engines, all other things being equalvilent. I would not doubt that the 4.0L OHV V6 in the mustang is smaller than the 3.5/3.7L DOHC motors in the Fords/Mazdas or the 3.5L DISI GM motors. I would bet it is smaller than the 2.5/3.0L Duratec units in the older fords.

I'm sure the engine bay volume was not a issue with the mustang, but it's something to consider hen you look at hp/l alone. A well set up OHV engine can be entirely competitive with a lower displacement DOHC engine while fitting in the same space, costing less and offering just about all the same benefits(Variable timing). The only instance you don't want an OHV motor is if you need high rev applications due to the inherent valve train inertia limiting max revs(though 7k from the LS7 is nothing to sneeze at)

Back to the issue at hand though, yes the 4L V6 is a horrible engine, but the 2.5L I5 in the first year MK6 Golf/Rabbits(2006?) also only put out 150hp(60hp/l), but such is life. Beancounters ruin all the fun.