Motors on Mustangs

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: 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.

Best post in this thread

 

[bananapeel42]

The choice with that engine was a no brainer. And it doesn't suck like most people think. Remember, the car is the fastest car under 20k, so that means it sucks as a sports car?

You people are so stupid sometimes. The V-6 mustang you can get with several options easily under 20k and is the fastest car for the money.

Yes, the interior isn't great, but the car looks nice, get's pretty good mileage, 18 city low 20's on the highway and is faster than the civic Si which is more expensive and FWD.

Ford isn't going to be putting a 265hp V-6 in the fucking car and be able to keep it under 20k and it'll be too close power wise to the current V8. Maybe if they actually come out with a 5.0L V-8 that makes 350-400hp the higher output V-6 would be more feasible.

Also, the car is reliable as it gets as that motor is rock solid and you can get parts all day long, not to mention you can pick up a used Mustang for cheap and get great performance for the money.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: bananapeel42
The choice with that engine was a no brainer. And it doesn't suck like most people think. Remember, the car is the fastest new car under 20k, so that means it sucks as a sports car?

There are a host of other vehicles I would consider before a V6 Mustang.

But hey, that's just me.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: 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?

I would never consider buying a 6 cylinder Mustang. It would be the GT or some other car.

BTW-I've owned 2 Mustang GT's in my lifetime. Both were the 5.0l pushrod engines, both were 5spd manual transmissions, the later one I owned was mildly modded too.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: 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?

I would never consider buying a 6 cylinder Mustang. It would be the GT or some other car.

BTW-I've owned 2 Mustang GT's in my lifetime. Both were the 5.0l pushrod engines, both were 5spd manual transmissions, the later one I owned was mildly modded too.

I seriously considered buying a 5.0 Mustang a few years ago...I've driven my uncle's before (modded 92 LX) and it was a blast..

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: 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?

I would never consider buying a 6 cylinder Mustang. It would be the GT or some other car.

BTW-I've owned 2 Mustang GT's in my lifetime. Both were the 5.0l pushrod engines, both were 5spd manual transmissions, the later one I owned was mildly modded too.

I seriously considered buying a 5.0 Mustang a few years ago...I've driven my uncle's before (modded 92 LX) and it was a blast..

Yeah, at stock the 5.0 wasn't all that hot, but it could be taken to pretty awesome levels cheaply.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: 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?

I would never consider buying a 6 cylinder Mustang. It would be the GT or some other car.

BTW-I've owned 2 Mustang GT's in my lifetime. Both were the 5.0l pushrod engines, both were 5spd manual transmissions, the later one I owned was mildly modded too.

I seriously considered buying a 5.0 Mustang a few years ago...I've driven my uncle's before (modded 92 LX) and it was a blast..

Yeah, at stock the 5.0 wasn't all that hot, but it could be taken to pretty awesome levels cheaply.

IIRC the current generation 4.0L V6 Mustang is considerably faster than the 5.0, stock for stock.

 

[joesmoke]

210 hp n 240 tq in a heavy car is considerably faster than 225 hp n 300 tq in a notoriously light car?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: 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?

I would never consider buying a 6 cylinder Mustang. It would be the GT or some other car.

BTW-I've owned 2 Mustang GT's in my lifetime. Both were the 5.0l pushrod engines, both were 5spd manual transmissions, the later one I owned was mildly modded too.

I seriously considered buying a 5.0 Mustang a few years ago...I've driven my uncle's before (modded 92 LX) and it was a blast..

Yeah, at stock the 5.0 wasn't all that hot, but it could be taken to pretty awesome levels cheaply.

IIRC the current generation 4.0L V6 Mustang is considerably faster than the 5.0, stock for stock.

IDK bout that. The 5.0 Stangs varied pretty widely in performance over the long period of time they were offered. By the early 90s, this was what was offered :

http://www.mustangspecs.com/years/94.shtml

0-60 in 6.7, 1/4 in 15.1

And the current Mustang V6 with manual :

http://www.caranddriver.com/re...6_short_take_road_test

0-60 in 6.9, 1/4 in 15.3

Pretty close really.

The real story comes with the dirt-cheap mods that can take the 5.0 to 300+HP, whereas on the 4.0 V6, adding power is a lot more difficult, and basically requires forced induction for any notable increase.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
If you own a Mustang V6, you're a douchebag

Or a woman.

 

[exdeath]

Low power output of the V6 is for insurance, fuel economy, and market segmentation. Can't have the V6 be too close to the V8 after all.

And the V8, well lets just say you don't buy a V8 mustang to keep stock; it's severely nerfed in factory form.

SOHC 3V is a comprimise with having the air flow and performance close to that of 4V heads, while using a cheaper simpler single cam design. It's quite effective from what I've seen, though for extreme power DOHC 4v still rocks it (Mach/Cobra)

Though it is embarrassing that cars with 3.5L V6 these days are matching the performance of the V8 Mustang. Get a Cobra if you want to avoid that embarrassment. It's a whole 'nother league. The V6 is for getting groceries in style, nothing more, which after all, was the point of the pony car concept in the first place.

 

[BassBomb]

my 2000 I30 had a better V6?! woah