05 V6 power potential

DanM · Mar 18, 2004

Pred8tor said:
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!

There's no difference in measurement. That's like me saying two feet measured one way is longer than two feet measured another way. Horsepower is horsepower.

The reason for the drop in power in the early 70s had nothing to do with changing the measurement system. The engines actually DID change and power output actually DID decrease significantly. Emissions are the culprit here. Ford HAD to 'detune' the 302 down to 140hp, because it wouldn't pass the government's emissions laws in the form in which it made 200hp.

If anything, horsepower ratings are MORE significant now than in the past. A 200hp modern car will almost certainly be faster than a 200hp car from 1965. Not because 200hp was different in 1965 than it is now (200hp at the flywheel is 200hp at the flywheel, regarless), but because the modern car would certainly have a better driveline, transmission, be lighter, etc.

200hp is virtually nothing if it's driving a 4000lb car through a 3-speed auto transmission. 200hp is much more effective at driving a 3000lb Mustang with a nice 6-speed manual.

DeckSetter · Mar 18, 2004

DanM said:
There's no difference in measurement. That's like me saying two feet measured one way is longer than two feet measured another way. Horsepower is horsepower.

The reason for the drop in power in the early 70s had nothing to do with changing the measurement system. The engines actually DID change and power output actually DID decrease significantly. Emissions are the culprit here. Ford HAD to 'detune' the 302 down to 140hp, because it wouldn't pass the government's emissions laws in the form in which it made 200hp.

If anything, horsepower ratings are MORE significant now than in the past. A 200hp modern car will almost certainly be faster than a 200hp car from 1965. Not because 200hp was different in 1965 than it is now (200hp at the flywheel is 200hp at the flywheel, regarless), but because the modern car would certainly have a better driveline, transmission, be lighter, etc.

200hp is virtually nothing if it's driving a 4000lb car through a 3-speed auto transmission. 200hp is much more effective at driving a 3000lb Mustang with a nice 6-speed manual.

In 1972 they changed the horsepower rating system. Before, advertised numbers were gross horsepower. That's the horsepower of the engine with no accessories hooked up to it. Now they advertise net horsepower, which is basically what you're really getting after all the accessories take their share of the power.

DanM · Mar 18, 2004

DeckSetter said:
In 1972 they changed the horsepower rating system. Before, advertised numbers were gross horsepower. That's the horsepower of the engine with no accessories hooked up to it. Now they advertise net horsepower, which is basically what you're really getting after all the accessories take their share of the power.

Granted, but that's not a significant difference. Accessories are maximum 20hp on a loaded car. Less on one without power steering and AC. More like 10hp.

The main difference in 'perceived' power in newer cars versus older cars has to do with the driveline and dynamics of the vehicle, as I suggested. An alternator, water pump, and AC compressor don't translate into a huge difference at all.

The reason for the 302's dramatic drop in rated power in the early 70s that the poster above mentioned was due to internal engine changes to meet emissions requirements, not a change in measurement technique.

had65want05 · Mar 18, 2004

At 300 HP, the V8 offers a lot of power, but the V6..

The V6 at 202 HP should be plenty enough for driving excitement. It is the over balance of a car that really make it, unless it is just for drag racing. It is possible that the V6 will have something closer to a 50/50 weight distribution, and will be lighter. If they made a beefier suspension, like the GT has, it should corner as good, if not better. The zero to speeding ticket time should be about right and not only saves on gas, but insurance and initial cost. As far as it being a chick car if a V6, I say what ever is reality to you, or makes you happy, call 'em what ya want. I don't become a cowboy when I drive a truck, and a race car driver if I bought a Saleen. I have a Miata, I am use to these labels. They say the 2005 V6 will have a more aggressive note coming out the pipes, so they are somewhat listening to the customer. The current V6 is not all that sluggish. Not sure I like the manual tranny on it, but Ford is dropping a new one in the 2005. If I could get use to the tranny, with the rather long reach, and throws, I would consider getting a V6 2004 right now. Currently starting as $14888 at the local dealerships, it looks to be a steal. You could add a lot more goodies and still be under $20k, if you wanted to. If the insurance doesn't get too crazy, I'd say the V8 2004 or 2005 may be a good deal. Since 2004 GT, I would imagine can be found well under $20,
it will make the spread over $6k between 2004 and 2005 models - won't it? As far as gas mileage on the v8 for 2005, I bet ya it comes in at 28 or better, and the V6 at least 31, but it could be around 33MPG. Well it should anyway, as GM V6 engines can achieve that.

LOREN

WaltA · Mar 19, 2004

DeckSetter said:
In 1972 they changed the horsepower rating system. Before, advertised numbers were gross horsepower. That's the horsepower of the engine with no accessories hooked up to it. Now they advertise net horsepower, which is basically what you're really getting after all the accessories take their share of the power.

Wasn't "no accessories", stuff like no water pumps, no alternators, and no muffers??? Basically, just the raw engine.

Today, it is more like "as installed".

mp67 · Mar 19, 2004

DanM said:
If anything, horsepower ratings are MORE significant now than in the past. A 200hp modern car will almost certainly be faster than a 200hp car from 1965. Not because 200hp was different in 1965 than it is now (200hp at the flywheel is 200hp at the flywheel, regarless), but because the modern car would certainly have a better driveline, transmission, be lighter, etc.

200hp is virtually nothing if it's driving a 4000lb car through a 3-speed auto transmission. 200hp is much more effective at driving a 3000lb Mustang with a nice 6-speed manual.

My 67 fastback weighs 2900 lbs. Thats what the GVW says. Where is there a 4000lb mustang from the 60's? And mustangs now are more than 3000lbs. And to get a 6 speed, you have to buy a cobra, and that puts the weight between 3600 to 3800lbs.

63_Fairlane · Mar 19, 2004

DanM said:
Granted, but that's not a significant difference. Accessories are maximum 20hp on a loaded car. Less on one without power steering and AC. More like 10hp.

The main difference in 'perceived' power in newer cars versus older cars has to do with the driveline and dynamics of the vehicle, as I suggested. An alternator, water pump, and AC compressor don't translate into a huge difference at all.

The reason for the 302's dramatic drop in rated power in the early 70s that the poster above mentioned was due to internal engine changes to meet emissions requirements, not a change in measurement technique.

The difference between net and gross horespower is typically 20%. Another 15% can be taken in driveline loss. Example a 271 horpower 289 actually puts about 184 HP to the ground on a chassis dyno. Please note these are "average" number. The actual losses will depend on the types of accessories installed.

GrossHP = 271
NetHP= 217
Rear WheeHP=184

Depending on how you measure horsepower, you get some very different numbers!!

The figures above match up pretty well when you consider the typical output of the 88-93 5.0 (302) is 225 netHP and about 190 to the rear wheels on a 5sp car. They also corespond to dynos of well maintained 289 powered cars.

As for the mid to late 1970's, those engines were strapped with poorly designed emmisions control systems, and low compression to deal with unleaded gas. Put a small (less than 500cfm) two barrel carb and restrictive exhaust on any 302/289 and it will fall on its face.

PlatinumDevil · Mar 19, 2004

Im sorry but the current V6's ARE sluggish. If you think they're "quick" drive any compareable V6. If we're talkin goin from a 2.3 mustang to a 3.8 mustang then yes, it will seem quick. If we go from a 3.1 Fiero, or a 3.4 Z34 to a 3.8 Mustang its slow as hell. In fact, my itty bitty 3.4 not only sounds beefier then the 3.8 (beefier then stock 5.0's too) it also produces the same hp as a 5.0. If you want a Mustang for the look, then fine V6's are great for ya, but if you want to race anything other then Civic Ex and Dx's buy another car. (Civic SiR and SiG sadly beat current V6 mustangs... on a side note, i beat a 2001 Civic SiG /w Vtech in a 1991 Dodge Colt non-turbo... see what i mean by sluggish)

Explain to me why a technologically advanced 2005 4.0L engine is putting out less hp and torque then a 1991 3.4 engine, having compareable mileage. Thats a difference of 14 years and 0.6L.
Ps: This is a stock detuned 3.4, they originally put out 280hp with ease before being downtuned.

PSS: Why are the V6s underpowered? Well its a car that is "made" for 300hp and it has 200. Take 79-93 Mustangs, the 2.3's were jokes, scars on the mustangs heritage. 88hp in a car built for 225? with a weight difference of what 300lbs?

351CJ · Mar 19, 2004

mp67 said:
My 67 fastback weighs 2900 lbs. Thats what the GVW says.

GVW = Gross vehicle weight.

It is essentially the maximum weight, passengers and cargo. I don't remember if a 67 Mustang was considered a 4 or a 5 passenger car, but assuming it is a 4 pass the GVW would include around 600 - 700 lb for pasengers and 150 lb for luggage. There is no way the curb weight (empty weight) of your 67 fastback was 2150 lb.

The only curb weight on a 60's Mustang that I could easily find was for a 1965 Shelby GT-350. It is listed @ 2800 lb. As we all know a 65 Shelby had an aluminum intake, alloy wheels and no back seat, which would make it lighter than a regulary V8 Mustang. The 67 Stang was bigger & heavier than a 65 too.

WaltA · Mar 19, 2004

PlatinumDevil said:
Explain to me why a technologically advanced 2005 4.0L engine is putting out less hp and torque then a 1991 3.4 engine, having compareable mileage.

OK, just what was the net torque rating of the 1991 3.4L engine???

StratGT · Mar 20, 2004

One of the reasons to get a 6 is insurance!! I've never owned a 6 Stang, just 3 GT's and insurance these days can be a real bitch.

Islander03GT · Mar 20, 2004

Do they rate HP different in Canada? Becuse I cant think of any GM cars with a 3.4 that put out that much power. What is an SiG? We don't have that either.

Lets compare it to engines in cars that people who buy V6 Mustangs will cross shop with... V6 Camaros/Firebirds and the V6 Accord coupe. The Accord has 240hp... and can almost keep up with the current GT.

GM, Ford, and Dodge are behind on the V6 game and need to catch up. They tried to keep pushrods iron block V6's around too long without major updates. Meanwhile overhead cammers and variable valve timing were commin out of Japan and gaining power every year.

Car makers can't rest on their laurels. The big 3 realize this now and are paying for it.

Great info on the gas mileage difference. Makes me feel better about buying the GT.

Jeffspeed24 · Mar 20, 2004

imports V6 vs Mustangs

its true that the 3.8 or maybe even the 4.0 V6 is a lil outdated and low tech comparing to some of these V6 imports, but the mustang is like 4k less then lets say a camery or an accord V6 and 6k less for the 350z at its base. but simple bolt-ons increases the H/P output on the mustang by atleast 2x more than bolt-ons on imports, simply b/c the imports are more fine tuned.
hope this makes sense, im a lil tired.

Z28x · Mar 20, 2004

Dodge has been leading the pack with their 253HP 3.5L DOHC V6 for like 8 years now. The Japs just finally caught up to them.

Most V6 buyers don't care about buzz words like "DOHC" & "VVT" & "VCT". The only specs they care about are price and gas mileage. The Honda Accord V6 cost more than an LS1 to build.

Silentst2000 · Mar 20, 2004

PlatinumDevil said:
If we go from a 3.1 Fiero,

Fiero's were 2.8 v6's with 130 hp if I remember.

PlatinumDevil · Mar 21, 2004

First of all i'd just like to say that the 4.0L DOES have more torque then the stock downtuned 3.4, i didn't realise the 4.0L was so torquey, Im not sure what the 3.4's torque originally was before being downtuned.

The 3.4 Im referring too is a Chevy/oldsmobile engine, an LQ1 found in Lumina Z34's, Grand Prix GTP's and a few other select cars. It was originally built to go into the Corvette (Hence the 280hp before being downtuned) however no one wanted a v6 corvette, so it found its home in some cool FWD cars.

Its the first american made 3.4 twinDOHC, rated at 210hp, 215ft/lbs (mine dyno'd at 212hp and 240ft/lbs stock). 91-94 Z34's and 91-94 GTP's (z34's especially) are supposedly extremely rare, there are 5 Z34's in my province (mines the only standard), but from what i hear they are even more uncommon in the states, perhaps the reason why you haven't heard of this engine?

The new and even more advanced version of this engine is found in the 2004 Cadillac CTS (3.6 VVT) which produces ~200-370hp and ~200-350Ft/Lbs torque. (also uses the same auto tranny as Z34s)

In all fairness these are Chevy's performance V6's in their performance cars, but are Mustangs not Fords performance car? I realise people want fuel economy and a cheap car, but why not make the V6 mustang put out decent HP numbers and get better mileage with better technology, then sell the "crappy" V6 Mustangs, only call them Mustang II's and make it very apparent they aren't their fast brothers/sisters.

PS: Fiero's had both 2.8's and 3.1's but they're the same block, just different bore and stroke.

Z28x · Mar 21, 2004

PlatinumDevil said:
Its the first american made 3.4 twinDOHC, rated at 210hp, 215ft/lbs (mine dyno'd at 212hp and 240ft/lbs stock). 91-94 Z34's and 91-94 GTP's (z34's especially) are supposedly extremely rare, there are 5 Z34's in my province (mines the only standard), but from what i hear they are even more uncommon in the states, perhaps the reason why you haven't heard of this engine?

The new and even more advanced version of this engine is found in the 2004 Cadillac CTS (3.6 VVT) which produces ~200-370hp and ~200-350Ft/Lbs torque. (also uses the same auto tranny as Z34s).

The CTS/SRX/STS uses a Brand new 3.6L DOHC V6 putting out 260HP, it is not the same as the old one used in the early 90's Z34/GTP, Neither is the Transmission, The CTS uses a Getrag manual 5-speed transmission and 5-speed 5L40-E Automatic transmission.

DanM · Mar 21, 2004

As usual, most people are completely missing the point.

The V6 Mustang is a CHEAP CAR!! Sure the 4.0L isn't a spectacular engine. Sure it has low specific output. Sure it's low-tech, pushrod, etc.. Yeah Honda's V6 is better. But the V6 Accord is a $25k car. The Cadillac 3.6 V6 is a very nice engine to be sure, but that car starts over $30k!! The Mustang V6 is a $20k car.

That's the point.

Ford hasn't "lagged behind". Ford hasn't "dropped the ball". Ford has chosen to keep the Mustang V6 a $20k car. I'm sorry, but 80hp/L DOHC V6 engines don't come in $20k cars. THAT'S the point.

Bottom line, for the price, A V6 stang is still one of the faster cars you can get. It can easily take a run-of-the-mill Civic, contrary to what people tell you. Might not run circles around an Si(R), but the Si(R) is a $20k car too, now isn't it?

Z28x · Mar 21, 2004

DanM said:
As usual, most people are completely missing the point.

The V6 Mustang is a CHEAP CAR!! Sure the 4.0L isn't a spectacular engine. Sure it has low specific output. Sure it's low-tech, pushrod, etc.. Yeah Honda's V6 is better. But the V6 Accord is a $25k car. The Cadillac 3.6 V6 is a very nice engine to be sure, but that car starts over $30k!! The Mustang V6 is a $20k car.

The 2005 Mustang 4.0L V6 isn't a pushrod engine, it is SOHC. Your right about cost, Ford could build a 280HP DOHC V6, but it would cost almost as much as the SOHC 4.6L V8, People that want a performance mustang want V8s, not high power V6s.

Another important thing to remember is the new 4.0L was built to be a truck engine which means high torque, lower HP. The Mustang has more torque than the Accord, Eclipes, & many other V6 cars

Joe 5.0 · Mar 21, 2004

Who cares how much hp your Lumina makes, what does it run and what does the torque curve look like? Post a dyno and we'll talk.

Mustang V6 buyers want the look, not the speed. Back in 1989 Ford came out with the SHO engine that made more hp than your Z34 and was nearly as fast as alot of the current V6's........15 years ago.

And btw the 4.0L is SOHC and makes 220hp in the Explorer, so its obviously got some power to be had with mods. The Duratec 3.5L DOHC will probably eventually be a optional engine in the V6 and will be comparable in hp & tq to the VQ35 that Nissan puts in everything.

05 V6 power potential

DanM

DeckSetter

New Member

DanM

had65want05

New Member

WaltA

mp67

63_Fairlane

PlatinumDevil

Member

351CJ

New Member

WaltA

StratGT

Islander03GT

New Member

Jeffspeed24

New Member

Z28x

New Member

Silentst2000

New Member

PlatinumDevil

Member

Z28x

New Member

DanM

Z28x

New Member

Joe 5.0

Similar threads

05 V6 power potential

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency