A better v6 eventually?

There were rumors about a Duratec 3.5 in the Mustang eventually, but I don't know if its true. I read elsewhere that the 3.5 won't even start production until early 2006, so it couldn't go in cars until an '06 1/2 or '07.

I'm hoping to buy a V6 this fall (its what I can afford on my budget, and I want an '05), so a better 6 might have put the car out of my low price range.

From what I understand keeping the power down reduces the insurance costs. And to alot of people car buying decisions are based off of monthly insurance rates. That is why V6 cammaros only had 200 Hp. 4L is more than enough displacement to provide power. I am sure the power is mainly being retarded by restrictive air intakes and and timing. Probably with a few after market bolt-ons and the Timing reprogrammed I am sure you could bring the power up easy enough.

I had a 68 Jag E-type with 4.2 I6 that had 255 Hp.

You can't just compare engines straight across, HP to HP, Cyl to Cyl. The NSX is a V6 I believe, but would you categorize it with the base Mustang or an Accord? Anyone have torque numbers? I would be curious.

The V6 should be a noticable improvement over the current one. It fills its own purpose well. If you really want more power, you should be looking at a GT and up. Either way, more power is still gonna cost you.

Look at the torque curve and peak torque #'s and you will see the Ford V6 out powers the Honda engines at any given RPM under its redline.

As already mentioned, the V6 is supposed to be a cheap alternative to sell more units.

Remember, the Mustang is a muscle car. It is designed to be heavy, seat four adults, go straight, and be fun to tear up the streets. That is why torque is so important. It is much better for daily driving, as you don't have to keep the engine near the redline to get anywhere (not to mention bunrnouts ).

Too many bench racers are concerned that a different V6s get better HP numbers than the Ford. Just ignore the numbers and drive the cars. Then see which one you like better.

That being said, I think Ford could definitely make the 4L stronger and more fuel efficient. But I would rather they keep it under $20k myself. It allows them to sell enough cars and make enough money to make the V8 that much better.

I never drove a V8, that is why i am happy just getting a V6, well, that, inshurance, and roughly 5-6 grand less. I had a 03 V6 stang and loved it but traded it in saving for a 05. pending on my budget (just got a $2.50 hr raise ) i probally will get a GT. but il be happy with a V6 with p/p intake and heads, cam, and w/IHE bolt ons.

the v6 should be alot better. the base models for many other cars are about as fast as it is, and they sell for like 12-15

They figure, and rightly so, that people who want a performance stang will buy the V8. Ford sees mustang owners as 2 groups. People who want the performance and will order the V8 and people who want stylish affordability who order the V6.

If you get a V6 at 250 horsepower it will raise the base price and ford will sell far less mustangs. With the sub-$20,000 V6 making up a large portion of mustang sales ford can not lose that market. I would never own a v6 stang that defeats the point to me and ford knows most mustang performace people are like me.

To get a high powered 6 ford would have to spend countless $ devloping it, and it would be more expensive to manufacture. Thus pricing the V6 out of its market. The v6 is targeted at Ladies and teens who want the style but dont care/cant afford the performance. Ford must be doing something right they sell the v6's like hotcakes. They have a market covered in both directions and dont see themselves as losing customers.

You have to take into consideration by upping the horsepower ford also has to up the brakes and other components thus adding costs. They will have to do this not for performance but for safety in this sue happy time. I can see it now "Ford sold me a 250 horsepower car will small brakes and cheesy suspension, I got in a wreck so I sued them" . In a time when people sue fast food for making them fat, whats stopping them for sueing ford for making a car that doesnt have suspension and brakes to match the engine?

the 4.0L has 240ftlbs of torque which will be just fine in the stang

the 4.0L is a decendant of the 2600 and 2800 pinto and capri v6 from the 70`s originally made in Cologne Germany
it is a 60 degree block which sucks but i`ve driven a couple of explorers with this engine and it is a really surprising performer

cobra232 said:

it is a 60 degree block which sucks

Click to expand...

Why does a 60 degree block suck?

A 60 degree block on a V6 gives you an even firing order without having to resort to split rod journals which weaken the crank.

HP is actually almost meaningless on a street car. The only thing that counts is torque and at how low an RPM you get that torque. I bet that the new 4.0 V6 is a huge improvement over the old 3.8 V6.

poor intake manifolding because of the narrow block
and yes the rod pins don`t need to be splayed on the 60 degree bent six giving a strong single throw rod pin crank. air flow into the engine has always been an issue on 60 degree six`s but the 4.0L SOHC in my opinion is a great engine and equal to the 3.8 but not better for modding in any sense.

the 4.0 block is stretched to it`s limits so more displacement is out of the question and reliability on higher than stock power may be an issue

240 Lbs is alot of tourque comming out of a 6 cylinder like this. That should be more than enough power to give you a low end grunt for a baseline model. Tourque is after all the force that translates the wheel rotation into foward accelerration.

the prob is top end, if ya step on it on the hw almost nothing happens. it sucks

Remember, the Mustang is a muscle car. It is designed to be heavy, seat four adults, go straight, and be fun to tear up the streets. That is why torque is so important.

Click to expand...

I might disagree with this assertion, that the Mustang is a muscle car, especially such a caricatured description of one above ("designed to be heavy???? It's a car, not a tank). Ironically, the Mustang was originally designed much in contrast to the muscle cars of the day, emphasizing a smaller trimmer size, smaller displacement hi-po motors and a far more balanced approach to performance than some crude, stop light, straight-line beheamoth. This quite distinctive approach to performance might better be called a Pony Car. Granted some later big-block Mustangs did more closely approach the muscle car idiom of a big car with a bigger motor, the 390/428 Mach Is being a good example example. Most Mustangs have been much closer in character to the original Pony car idiom.

That all said, the 4.0, a fairly old design now, makes decent if not overly impressive power. Yes, the size will give nice off the line oomph by dint of low rpm torque, but it will likely peter out rather quickly, especially as compared to the more advanced motors now out. Ultimately performance does depend on horsepower, which is the measure of the actual energy output of a motor. I'm not sure how much satisfaction a V6 Mustang (202hp / 235 lb-ft) owner might get when a 3.5 Nissan Altima (250hp @ 5,800 / 246 lb-ft @ 4,400) goes ripping past his/her doors.

I do suspect that the Duratec 3.5 will find its way into the Stang in one to two years and will likely mirror the power outputs of other modern V6 designs such as Nissan's and Honda's, with a commensurate increase in performance, both quantitative (faster numbers) and qualitative (much broader spread of power that will sustain even at high rpms). It may even be a touch lighted due to its all AL construction, lending additional benefits in terms of improved handling, where lighter is better.

As for 60 vs 90 degrees, the former is generally a much better layout in terms of balance and NVH. The reason for the latter is generally a cost saving motive in that such a block is adapted from an existing V8 design and can use much of the same tooling during the manufacturing process. NVH can be controlled by dint of split journals on the crankshaft and the addition of balance shafts to counteract remaining imbalances, but that's a lot of extra, non-power-producing weight.

cobra232 said:

poor intake manifolding because of the narrow block

Click to expand...

That may have been a problem with old pushrod 60 deg V6's with low intake ports, but today's OHC engines have the intake ports high and at a steep angle so the intake sits on top of the engine. Since there are 60 deg V6's like Nissan's 3.5 that makes up to 287 HP (82 HP / L) I don't think that the intake manifold is much of a problem.

Recently there is more talk about a 270 HP version of the new Duratec 35, so I fail to see any problem with OHC 60 deg V6's.

60 degree V6's are most certainly superior. And yes I do have one OHC V6 that the intake ports practically point straight up; manifold size is only limited to the allowable height of the engine.

The new motors are supposed to get what 225 hp? That's a respectable amount for a six-cylinder! If you want more power... That's what the V8 is for... I don't understand the point of this thread.

60° engines are more compact and lighter than 90° engines.

Ford should abandon OHC and OHV and use DOHC exclusively. So 3.5 is coming out in 2006. Honda already has 3.2L 270HP engine, and Fords 24V engine is currently at 200HP. So no doubt that Honda / Nissan will have even stronger engine by time Duratec 3.5 is out.

Postmortem said:

Ford should abandon OHC and OHV and use DOHC exclusively. So 3.5 is coming out in 2006. Honda already has 3.2L 270HP engine, and Fords 24V engine is currently at 200HP. So no doubt that Honda / Nissan will have even stronger engine by time Duratec 3.5 is out.

Click to expand...

DOHC is OHC

DOHC engines are a lot more expensive to build the SOHC and OHV. A 200HP DOHC Honda V6 cost more to build than a 350HP LS1 V8.

Ford is on the right track with there 3 valve SOHC V8s.