05 V6 power potential

PlatinumDevil said:

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)

Click to expand...

Your Z34 does not have the same transmission as the CTS. I think you know that your Z34 is front wheel drive and the CTS rear, so they cannot be the same. Same goes for the Porsche 944 theory in your sig, they're rear drive also. Might be the same company (Getrag) but it's not the same unit.

Those Z34/GTPs are cool though, there are a lot of them around here in Ontario.

PlatinumDevil said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are very confused. The 3.6L CTS V6 does NOT put out anything close to 370HP / 350 lb.ft. It puts out 260 HP. There is a 400 HP CTS, but it is the V series which uses essentially the same 5.7L V8 from the Corvette.

The information i have on hp for the 3.6VVT is basically copied and pasted from www.60degreev6.com. I basically just did a quick overview of the engine, i didn't really research it, sorry for any incorrect information that may have come from that site.

These are the two trannies in the Z34 :
Getrag 284 5-speed and the Hydra-Matic 4T60-E
(60degreeV6.com also provided the information stating it is the same transmission as the porsche 944, i am thinking they meant the transmission was designed/built by porsche, or just by the same company)

PS: ya i realise my car is FWD I assumed that the porsche 944 (which i know nothing about, or care to know) was a midengined car, im guessing MR cars use a fwd transmission, or modified version of one, i wouldn't know nor do i care. I was skeptical of 60degreeV6.com as well, but when i searched for my tranny porsche came up quite a few times.

--> I got myself confused in my last post, i got the monte carlo and CTS confused (monte carlo uses 4T60-E tranny, obviously fwd can't share the same tranny as rwd).

for the record 2004 CTS uses the 5L40-E Hydra-Matic and a "Heavy Duty 5 speed Getrag transmission" (i couldn't find the exact name)

As for showing you a dyno i dont have a scanner or digital camera at the moment, so ill just give you a general idea (the dyno graph is in front of me and im copying the numbers in):

2000RPM - 70hp, 180ft/lbs
3000RPM - 125hp, 205ft/lbs
4000RPM - 160hp, 235ft/lbs
5500RPM - 210hp, 220ft/lbs (where they crisscross)
6500RPM - 240HP, 190ft/lbs
7000RPM - 215hp, 160ft/lbs (redline)
(this is after i retarded my timing 13 degrees, its stock other then the timing change, i can't find the stock dyno right now)


I realise the Mustang is meant to be a cheap V6 i just dont feel as though they should be producing Mustangs that look so similiar with such low power engines, it just hurts to hear people bragging they beat a Mustang in their civic's. I think the slower mustangs should be called Mustang II's and then have a semi-performance V6 as the Mustang and the 4.6 as the Mustang GT.

2/3 HP of GT

Could it just be that 2/3 of the HP for the v6 is something which just works well from a marketing stand point? When the GT goes up in HP, or if the insurance costs really start limiting buying of the GT, they can quickly have a V6 producing much more HP. I hope they keep the V6 running on regular gas; likewise the V8. I am sure the nice and high torque V6 they are starting with as the new "stang v6 will be just fine. Low in cost, yet spunky enough. Now an inline 6 would be sweet! Do that for $20k or $21k car - even nicer. If the 2005 is a retail under $20k, and sells at under $18k, it will be a great deal. Currently, the ads in California now are showing a low price of $14888 for V6 manual stick Mustangs, which is a really tempting price indeed. You won't fine a Japanese car with a v6 for that low a price, and it way under the new 'Stangs v6 price. That said, the new 'Stang will be much improved in many a way, with a new tranny. I was not too impressed with the current 5 sp. stick, but I guess you get use to it after having the car for awhile - I guess??? The main thing is Mustang seems to have good style, adequate power in V6 and with more in V8 version, rear wheel drive, and is an American classic 2004 or 2005 version. I had a '65 and it was fun until I toasted the engine one day, by not maintaining the radiator and themostate properly. That was a foolish thing to do, many years ago as a kid, but no more foolish than buying 2.3 liter engine 'Stang in '85. That car WAS WAY under powered - now that was something to worry about, and not the current V6 at 193HP. The springing was so soft on that Mustang, it made for a great freeway cruiser, but not a sporty car. Oh well, live an learn.

Loren

0-60

This is what I found for 0-60 stats:
1996 Civic 9.5
1990 Civic Si 9.31
2000 Civic Si 7.27
1999 Mustang v6 7.3

I don't see Civics as blowing away 'Stangs, as indicated by some posts here. I am sure, some tricked out in any fashion could be a tick faster, but come on now, the V6 is not sluggish. If you need to go faster, as in race track, get a V8 and do mods if needed to get it up to race speed. The V8 is a nice engine and does sound great. If that is important, then get the V8. The new 'Stang is said to have better tone out the pipes for the V6. If insurance does not sky rocket, and the V8 gets great gas mileage with the 6 speed, and cost to by it is not too high, just go for the V8! Personally, the V6 is something I would equally consider, even if I had the extra bucks for the GT. I am interested in overall handling. This is something I like in my Miata, the Celica, though FWD, and in the newer Mustangs. The Eclipse is changing this year, so that will be interesting. One thing I wish that Ford would do is to change the rear on the 'Stang to IRS. We'll see how the handling is when reviews come out in the months ahead.
Loren

If you decide the V8 'Stang is too expensive, but you still want similar performance, then I'd suggest turbocharging the 4.0L V6 model. The beauty of a turbo is that under normal driving conditions it is hardly being used. It's a similar effect to power-on-demand. Therefore a turbo'd vehicle will have better gas mileage than a supercharged vehicle of the same caliber. And if you don't report to your insurance company that you've installed a turbo on your car, then you'll still get the benefit of lower insurance rates than the V8 model, as well as better gas mileage.

However, forced induction of any type is expensive. When it's all said and done, the overall cost of buying a V6 model and turbocharging it could set you back just as much as the initial cost of a GT model would have.

SWortham said:

If you decide the V8 'Stang is too expensive, but you still want similar performance, then I'd suggest turbocharging the 4.0L V6 model. The beauty of a turbo is that under normal driving conditions it is hardly being used. It's a similar effect to power-on-demand. Therefore a turbo'd vehicle will have better gas mileage than a supercharged vehicle of the same caliber. And if you don't report to your insurance company that you've installed a turbo on your car, then you'll still get the benefit of lower insurance rates than the V8 model, as well as better gas mileage.

However, forced induction of any type is expensive. When it's all said and done, the overall cost of buying a V6 model and turbocharging it could set you back just as much as the initial cost of a GT model would have.

Click to expand...

Turbo charging the V6 would cost more than getting the V8, plus the V6 tranny, brakes, rearend aren't designed for the extra turbo power. Then you have warranty and reliability issue. Plus the V8 will be easier to trade in.

Yeah, the tranny, brakes, and rear-end weren't designed for the extra power. But I bet they can still handle it. Personally, I'd probably upgrade the clutch and the brakes... but leave the rest. The tranny in my 4 cylinder Hyundai Elantra can support upwards of 400 whp, so it's hard for me to believe that the tranny in the V6 model Stang couldn't support 100 whp more than stock.

Honestly, it just doesn't make as much sense as getting the GT model though. Especially if you are going to want a lot of power.

If it were me, I'd either just get the V6 model if I couldn't afford anything better. And then I just wouldn't do anything major to the motor... but if I had the money, I'd get the V8 - no question.

In the end, shouldn't you consider the satifaction factor? What would you enjoy more, mashing the throttle of a v6 or a v8? What sounds better, an opened v6 or a throaty v8? Which would you take more pride in knowing you drive? Most important of all, if you did get say the v6, would you somewhere down the line kick yourself in the rear wishing you had gotten the v8 when you knew you had the opportunity but decided against it over a stupid little thing like ownership costs?

Mustangs were born to be fun cars, not econo-4 bangers (sorry, worst decision IMHO) that attempt to re-create what the v8 obviously has and has become known to be the backbone of this car's herritage! Unless of course money is a tight issue and the lesser is all you can afford. But with all things being equal and money isn't tight - consider the start of this post's questions, which would bring the MOST owner satisfaction years to come?

With that in mind, it is a laughable thing that the new 200hp v6 has more hp than many v8s of the older days. Any engine has potential regardless, given the right "tuning" that is, but in the end isn't all that modifying to that v6 just a work in progress at trying to catch up to where the v8 runs stock?

Every time I see a thread like this I just wait to see the post that brings everyone back to the reality of doing business to make money. Ford makes money building the V6... and the 2.3 through the Fox years. With Fox4 they had to bump to the 6 so there was enough torque to push the car around...

Without the 6 there would be NO Mustang. If they eliminated it, the GT would drop down to the base model. That means the price would have to drop and you loose a big market share… women. Most don’t/can’t - want/have a car that may make them eat a telephone pole, nor do they want the insurance costs associated with a V8.

Ford sells on average 20 to 40K GT's per year. The rest of the mustangs sold are V6's... that’s 100 to 200K cars. If they only sold GT's, the F body would have out lived the Mustang by 4 years, perhaps more. Read some stang history and you'll get a reality check on just how many times Ford came close to pulling the plug on the Mustang. For Ford the cost of doing business is building the Base V6 Mustang and for what the car is and what it’s priced at, it very competitive. I will concede it should have had 10 to 15 more HP to deal with the SRT in price/performance, but it is still cheaper.

Oh, and 20 Years ago Ford developed a car that was faster than the GT through the bends and matched it in the 1/4. It was also detuned for the street and published numbers were under rated. It was called an SVO and it uses that POS 2.3L engine, as some of you refer... yup - that same Lima that can handle 400 HP on the stock bottom end. If Ford wasn't so messed up in the 80's with the Mazda crap, the 2.3L would have been upgraded to a DOHC head in 87, putting out just as much HP and TQ as the early SN95 3.8. In turbo form is would have rivaled the Corvette and gnX, putting out 275HP and gawd knows what kind of torque.

Z.

There is the problem

87'GTstang said:

In the end, shouldn't you consider the satifaction factor? What would you enjoy more, mashing the throttle of a v6 or a v8? What sounds better, an opened v6 or a throaty v8? Which would you take more pride in knowing you drive? Most important of all, if you did get say the v6, would you somewhere down the line kick yourself in the rear wishing you had gotten the v8 when you knew you had the opportunity but decided against it over a stupid little thing like ownership costs?

Now there is the problem. Most people are driving faster and they believe themselves to be a race car driver once they lay down some money for extra HP. If you can not drive fast with 202HP, you will never be able to drive correctly with 300HP. And where will you use this extra HP, other than straight line off the green light? Sure, fun for the second or two difference to 60 MPH. Ford will have better sound coming out the pipe in the 2005 model, or you can just add a modifed muffler and....

Mustangs were born to be fun cars, not econo-4 bangers (sorry, worst decision IMHO) that attempt to re-create what the v8 obviously has and has become known to be the backbone of this car's herritage! Unless of course money is a tight issue and the lesser is all you can afford. But with all things being equal and money isn't tight - consider the start of this post's questions, which would bring the MOST owner satisfaction years to come?

The Mustang heritage includes the V6 and they are not econoboxes. There are i4 and i6 or v6 sports cars that don't look at all like econo boxes, and cost many times the price of a 'Stang. Actually, they should consider weight distribution, and an even ligher v6 would not hurt. The driver is going to make the difference when driving the twisties, and on the freeway, the v6 is gonna be just as fast as a v8 to a speeding ticket. For cheap HP, why not buy a used Camaro SS with the Corvette engine? They are fast and handle well. I think the Mustang V6 will work for just about everyone, including the back road warriors. From all the reports of roll over cars, it looks like the extra money saved from buying a v8 could go towards driving lessons.

With that in mind, it is a laughable thing that the new 200hp v6 has more hp than many v8s of the older days. Any engine has potential regardless, given the right "tuning" that is, but in the end isn't all that modifying to that v6 just a work in progress at trying to catch up to where the v8 runs stock?

Click to expand...

At 202 HP, as rated in modern terms, it looks like a better deal than the V8 of years past, at a third the gas cost. Well, at least I hope, Ford will get the V6 into the 31 to 33MPG range with the V6.

Well that's the way I see it. I am sure many will disagree, and that is a good thing too - makes the world go 'round

And if I have the extra money in pocket, the V8 is not too costly for insurance, and drinks regular gas in the new model, I would consider it. I just do NOT see it as the only good option.

Loren

PlatinumDevil said:

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.


I realise the Mustang is meant to be a cheap V6 i just dont feel as though they should be producing Mustangs that look so similiar with such low power engines, it just hurts to hear people bragging they beat a Mustang in their civic's. I think the slower mustangs should be called Mustang II's and then have a semi-performance V6 as the Mustang and the 4.6 as the Mustang GT.

Click to expand...

It's ignorant attitudes like this that keep the II's from getting the least bit of respect that they deserve. There are plenty of II's on this site that will prove they are anything but slow. The 70's were a bad time for every domestic carmaker, I would rather have my II than any 70's chevy failure or any of the 80's foxes(with the excpetion of maybe the SVO's )

Like someone else said Ford Sells more V6 Stangs than other models for a reason. COST Yes a small savings in gas prices, BIG savings in the insurance cost though more than makes up for that small difference. I would be buying a 6cyl Vert for a Daily driver to replace my POS Saturn- (it was cheap) Personally The 05's and up will be the best looking cars on the road, since I already have a 331 in my II I don't need another V8 that will just weigh me down in the cost of insurance, which is getting outragous anymore for anything other than a Honda Civic

78Mach1 said:

It's ignorant attitudes like this that keep the II's from getting the least bit of respect that they deserve. There are plenty of II's on this site that will prove they are anything but slow. The 70's were a bad time for every domestic carmaker, I would rather have my II than any 70's chevy failure or any of the 80's foxes(with the excpetion of maybe the SVO's )

Click to expand...

I think people forget that GM was putting 4 cylinders into the much larger and heavier Camaros and Firebirds of the time.

RESPECT ALL MUSTANGS

All mustangs must be respected and not looked down upon because of engine size or the year it was produced. If the mustang hobby is to keep going it must be a hobby about the mustang and not the hobby about mustangs with the biggest motors from x model year.
2005 is great addition to the mustang lineage.

I agree all mustangs should be respected. BUt this does not mean I have to like the mustangII. I respect the fact that it kept the mustang alive during some dark times. But I will never own. And it has nothing to do with the size of the engine. It has to due with the fact that I like other body styles more.

i dont mind my six too much, but i wish the engine wasnt so crappy. for its size we should be getting more hp. if they want the same hp it should be smaller, because its gas mileage is horrible

SVTdriver said:

I agree all mustangs should be respected. BUt this does not mean I have to like the mustangII. I respect the fact that it kept the mustang alive during some dark times. But I will never own. And it has nothing to do with the size of the engine. It has to due with the fact that I like other body styles more.

Click to expand...

Never said you had to like them, just that it is an ignorant attitude to put them down and make statments like that about them, kind of like the same thing goes about everyone that calls the 6's the "girlie car" It disrepects not only the owners of those cars, but the Mustang and the Hobby as a whole. Hell I don't like the body style of the 79-early 90's, and won't personally own one of them either, But at least I'll give a to one that's well done when I see it. Whether or not the Classic guys admit it the II looks alot more like them, AND the '05 than any of the 80's Foxes do

So for now I'll get off the soapbox lol and to the Mustang- ALL of them, and wait, and add more $ everyweek to 05 fund.

Have a with me, and check out some of the II's in our rides section, You might be surprised at some of them.

No doubt some of the II's are prety nice. And I agree they do look like smaller versions of the original 65 stangs.