05 V6 power potential

skywarp

New Member

Nov 28, 2003

379

0

0

Mar 16, 2004

#1

• Mar 16, 2004

• #1

Since there's a thread about gas costs, figured start a thread about the 6. If gas goes and stays that high the six might be a better choice. What bolt ons are available now for this motor. Also what power potential with a blower.

 

351CJ

New Member

Dec 11, 2002

1,732

1

0

Mar 16, 2004

#2

• Mar 16, 2004

• #2

You plan does not pass a test in logic.

The V6 will at best get about 15% better gas mileage than the V8 and it may only be 10% better.

Let's assume that in overall driving over the life of the car you average 18 MPG with a V8 and 20.7 MPG with a V6 (15% higher).

Let's also assume that gasoline prices go crazy and average $2.50 / gal for regular over the next 5 years.

Finally, we'll assume you drive 15,000 miles / year or 75,000 miles over 5 years.

On the V8 you'll use 4,167 gals of gas which will cost you $10,417
On the V6 you'll use 3,623 gals of gas which will cost you $9,058

Therefore you're savings in gas over 5 years will be $1,359 or $271 / year.

This means that you will never pay back the cost of your blower expecially considering that once you add the blower your V6 mileage will drop which will close the difference in gasoline costs. Of couse if gas prices back down to $1.60 a gal over the next 5 years your savings would be only $822 or $164 / year.

 

notched86

Founding Member

Aug 7, 2002

305

1

0

Ruckersville, VA

Mar 16, 2004

#3

• Mar 16, 2004

• #3

I would like to hope the new V-6 gets better than 21 mpg...wouldn't it? Also remember that with the V-6 you'll save quite a bit of money on insurence premiums over the V-8.

But the V-6 engine in the new Mustang is brand new I think. Nobody has really tested this engine or it's potential for making power yet.

 

Z

Z28x

New Member

Sep 19, 2003

644

0

0

Albany NY

Mar 16, 2004

#4

• Mar 16, 2004

• #4

notched86 said:

I would like to hope the new V-6 gets better than 21 mpg...wouldn't it? Also remember that with the V-6 you'll save quite a bit of money on insurence premiums over the V-8.

But the V-6 engine in the new Mustang is brand new I think. Nobody has really tested this engine or it's potential for making power yet.

Click to expand...

That V6 has been in the Explorer and Ranger for a little while.

V6 Mustang = Girls car

 

351CJ

New Member

Dec 11, 2002

1,732

1

0

Mar 16, 2004

#5

• Mar 16, 2004

• #5

I agree that the V6 will have a lower total cost of ownership over the life of the car.

The point I was making was that the decision whether to get a V6 or a V8 should not be made on the basis of the cost of gasoline. The difference in gas cost (V6 to V8) is not a significant amount when you look at the total cost of ownership. The higest part of ownership cost (for new vehicles) is depreciation.

As a comparison the 04 Mustang has the following EPA ratings;

V6 20 / 29
V8 17 / 25

The difference us about 15%, which is what I used in my calculations. However I have read many posts by people who say that their GT gets almost as good gas mileage as a V6 Mustang.

 

skywarp

New Member

Nov 28, 2003

379

0

0

Mar 16, 2004

#6

• Mar 16, 2004

• #6

Z28x said:

That V6 has been in the Explorer and Ranger for a little while.

V6 Mustang = Girls car

Click to expand...

So you mean that a GN might qualify as a girls car, because it doesn't have an eight.

 

oogtdude

Banned

Jun 9, 2002

1,626

0

0

Mar 16, 2004

#7

• Mar 16, 2004

• #7

the v6 could never be the better choice

 

ryanrule

impotent

Founding Member

Feb 11, 2002

1,355

0

0

Madison, WI

Mar 16, 2004

#8

• Mar 16, 2004

• #8

the gas mileage sucks in the current six, and the new one is way underpowered, so its a no go

 

Estrato

New Member

Feb 11, 2003

347

0

0

Detroit

Mar 16, 2004

#9

• Mar 16, 2004

• #9

When (well if) the 06 or 07 models get the 3.5 duratech it will be a totally different story.

 

N

Ned

New Member

Apr 30, 2003

80

0

0

s'land

Mar 16, 2004

#10

• Mar 16, 2004

• #10

The way I see it, if you are going to be modding your car for performance, then gas mileage should not be the top priority. Not to say that it isn't important, but you might as well go for it and get a V8. Buying/modding a 6 is like drinking lite beer, beer isnt exactly supposed to be good for you, so why pay for something that isnt up to par just because it might have some tiny benefit..in the end the overall product just isnt what you really wanted

 

SVTdriver

Founding Member

Sep 2, 2001

3,319

0

0

Seattle Wa

Mar 17, 2004

#11

• Mar 17, 2004

• #11

You have to realize gas mileage all depends on the driver. I get 20 mpg or so in my Cobra. But my friend's 98 manages 27-28 mpg

 

H

had65want05

New Member

Feb 27, 2004

25

0

0

Mar 17, 2004

#12

• Mar 17, 2004

• #12

HP 202

OK, so the HP is going to be 202 for the V6. The 289 V8 in a 1965 had 200HP, so what's the big deal about HP? As far as gas mileage, I see no reason that the V8 with a 6 sp. could not get 28MPG rating and the V6 with a 5 sp 31 MPG. Figure in that you normally get about 10% better than government avg. figures in real life freeway driving, it does not look all that bad for both engines. Insurance and like others said, just overall cost of ownership makes the difference. They are said to have worked in a better sounding V6, with a little more agressive note to it. If cost is no object, I would say, yeap V8 is great !


Loren

 

T

TrueBlueCajun

Founding Member

Jun 4, 2002

208

0

0

Tampa, FL.

Mar 17, 2004

#13

• Mar 17, 2004

• #13

Also, the 4.0 is rumored to only be there for a year or two until the Duratec 3.5L is available. When that happens, you will definitely see a jump in hp and probably gas mileage on the V6s.

 

Z

Z28x

New Member

Sep 19, 2003

644

0

0

Albany NY

Mar 17, 2004

#14

• Mar 17, 2004

• #14

skywarp said:

So you mean that a GN might qualify as a girls car, because it doesn't have an eight.

Click to expand...

But that was a Turbo V6 not N/A and there was no V8 option.

Back to the 4.0L V6, I think this engine was a better choice than the 3.0L Duratec. Everyone is looking at HP but forgeting about torque, the DOHC 3.0L puts out 193tq and the SOHC 4.0L puts out 235tq (correct me if wrong). Thats over 20% more torque, that makes a big difference. I'd like to see the 4.0L get VVT and have the HP bumped up to around 225HP. The V6 Stang really doesn't need more than that. Remember most of these V6 buyers are buying for the Mustang look, not Mustang HP, those people will buy the GT or above.

 

SuperStang83

Founding Member

Mar 21, 2001

1,693

0

49

Boyertown, Pa

Mar 17, 2004

#15

• Mar 17, 2004

• #15

I think it's pointless if you would get a V6 for gas mileage then throw a blower on it! Why wouldn't you just start off with the V8 then?? Better torque, better sound, better resale!!

Jakob

 

GelatiCruiser

Founding Member

Jun 7, 2002

1,054

0

0

1 Mile South of Somewhere.

Mar 17, 2004

#16

• Mar 17, 2004

• #16

V6 Stang is a chic ride.....not V6's in general.

 

L

lutador83

Founding Member

Jan 15, 2002

144

0

16

Rockville, MD

Mar 17, 2004

#17

• Mar 17, 2004

• #17

I still don't understand why people say the v6 is such an underpowered car. What other car out there will you buy BRAND NEW that gives you the power a v6 mustang does for about $13,000 (one without any options)? I bought mine at 17 and think it was and is a great first car. No doubt the v8 is better, there's nothing like driving a 2004 cobra (driven my bro's a few times, car is like a bat outta hell).

Personally, I think that for the amount of $ you pay for a brand new v6, it's a bang for the buck car.

As far as the GT resale goes, it ain't all that good. I remember before my brother bought his 04 cobra, he had a 2002 GT that he bought in august 2002 for $23,000. Sold the car a month and a half ago for the cobra and barely got $14,000 for it. The car didn't even have 10,000 miles. Looking for resale value, then get a snake or a corvette.

Gas consumption...I gotta give it to you all. The gas mileage on the v6 is pathetic. It's about the same as the GT.

 

new22003

New Member

Jun 22, 2003

657

0

0

Missouri

Mar 17, 2004

#18

• Mar 17, 2004

• #18

I think the new 4.0 6 should be a decent performer with mods. There are a few 3.8 cars running in the 12's now. The 4.0 has more horsepower and torque than the current 3.8, its a bit higher tech, and of course its a bigger engine. It might take the aftermarket a while to respond but it will happen. There are whole sites devoted to the 3.8 stangs.

http://www.3.8mustang.com

I still would not buy one. I own a mustang for the v8 and if I need economy that badly I will buy a smaller daily driver.

 

WaltA

Founding Member

Aug 30, 2001

230

0

17

Mar 18, 2004

#19

• Mar 18, 2004

• #19

had65want05 said:

OK, so the HP is going to be 202 for the V6. The 289 V8 in a 1965 had 200HP, so what's the big deal about HP?

Click to expand...

Are those HP ratings using two different methods? I mean, the way manufacturers rated HP back in the 1960's resulted in unrealistic numbers which were way too high when compared to the way HP is rated today.

No?

 

P

Pred8tor

New Member

Feb 6, 2004

17

0

0

Greensboro, North Carolina

Mar 18, 2004

#20

• Mar 18, 2004

• #20

WaltA said:

Are those HP ratings using two different methods? I mean, the way manufacturers rated HP back in the 1960's resulted in unrealistic numbers which were way too high when compared to the way HP is rated today.

No?

Click to expand...

Yes, that's true. Not so much unrealistic, but just measured differently. In the early '70s the 302 dropped from 210hp to 140hp... with no engine changes. Since the 302 only had a 10hp difference, that puts the 289 around 130hp - 135hp... compared to 202hp for a modern V6 - not bad for the V6! Things have vastly improved, if you ask me!