Is there a current vehicle that uses the '05 V-6 4.0?

Nicks99GT · Feb 21, 2004

shatner saves said:
I have had the chance to drive a honda S2000 a few times. Great little car, over 100hp/litre. But the thing doesn't make enough torque below 6k RPM to pull the skin off a grape.

LOL..... Can't pull the skin off a grape. Haven't heard that one.

RedGTMitch · Feb 24, 2004

Nicks99GT said:
LOL..... Can't pull the skin off a grape. Haven't heard that one.

The Ranger has a 3.0 V6, The Explorer 4.0 moves it well enough, to move a Mustang better.

SadbutTrue · Feb 24, 2004

shatner saves said:
... 200,000 miles? Big deal. You don't get much wear in an engine that has 7:1 compression and a redline of 4000 rpm.

and as for "79-93 mustangs", the '93 4 cyl made 105 hp (net), was rated at 30 mpg (hwy) and probably generated 1/10000th the airborne pollutants your 88 hp (gross) jeep does.

So... with 50 years of advancement (over half the age of the automobile) it should be a lot farther ahead than that....

awalbert88 · Feb 24, 2004

Why should it be father ahead? What exactly are you expecting? You can make opinion statements all you like, but saying things like it should be further ahead because it's had 50 years to advance isn't really going to sway anybody.

And the '93 Mustang 4cyl. isn't even that great an example of what a modern technology 4cyl can do. The SVT Focus 4cyl gets 28mpg (hwy) and puts out 170hp. The Focus ZX3 gets 33mpg (hwy) with 130hp, and is also a PZEV motor. That means it produces less emissions than you do when you breath every day. Still think things haven't advanced? Take a look at Ford's UK offerings, where fuel economy is even more critical.

66Satellite · Feb 24, 2004

It's all about torque, cheap parts, ease of maintenance and durability in a nice package. When gas prices get to European levels, maybe some of us will start looking at these fancy,complex high revving four bangers, but until then low tech V8s all the way...

By the way, we have come a long way. Aren't you guys getting low 20s MPG in your V8 GTs? I'm getting 8-10 MPG in my 66 Satellite. Also, in the now infamous Hot Rod WRX vs. Cobra test they got better gas mileage in the Cobra...

351CJ · Feb 24, 2004

66Satellite said:
, but until then low tech V8s all the way...

By the way, we have come a long way. Aren't you guys getting low 20s MPG in your V8 GTs? I'm getting 8-10 MPG in my 66 Satellite. Also, in the now infamous Hot Rod WRX vs. Cobra test they got better gas mileage in the Cobra...

I average 20 MPG in my normal driving on my '01 GT, 5 speed with minor mods. I have gotten 26.5 MPG on a 370 mile trip - 90% interstate. And that's on 87 octance not the 91 octane that most of these 4 banger turbo wonders require. Since around here 91 averages 20 cents more a gallon than 87 octane, 26.5 MPG on 87 costs me the same as getting 30 mpg on a car that uses 91. (& 22.5 MPG around town).

I'll give up my V8 cars - Mustang GT & Lincoln LS when everyone who drives a V8 Pickup or SUV gives up their gas hogs and buys a small 4 banger.

JAZ 5.0 · Feb 29, 2004

PlatinumDevil said:
My 91 3.4 V6 is putting out 210hp and originally put out 280hp before being downtuned, so no i dont think technology has improved. In fact i dont think technology has made any jumps since the invention of fuel injection.

Example? Ok, how about the current CTS Cadillac uses the same transmission as my 91 Z34 and the engine is based on mine.
not enough? Ok, how about cars are still using disk/drum brakes, haven't those been around since the 50's? (sure they're better.. not much)
not convinced? Ok, what do they use in NASCARs? Carbureators
in drag cars? simple supercharger/carbureator set ups
Reliability? Has my 300,000km 91 car seen the shop? no. has the 2001 Expedition seen the shop? this year, o at least 5 times.
Pushrods, cams, Lifters, valves, have those changed since the 50s? nope
If you want more proof, just compare some old cars to new ones.
im too tired/lazy to continue.

everythings gone towards emissions and fuel economy, which im sorry to say wasn't the hardest thing ever achieved by man kind.

The 1948 Jeep engine im rebuilding has 88hp@3200rpm(think 79-93 mustang) and 155ft/lbs@2000rpm. this is a 4 cylinder engine, made what, 60 years ago? its got well over 200,000 miles and its being rebuilt now, in 2004.

Since most/hopefully all of you are mustang owners im sure you think that V8's are the most powerful things on the planet. (dont get me wrong, there is nothing better in the world then the sound of a V8). But a V6 and even the evil 4 cylinder engine can easily put out just as much horsepower and nearly the same torque as a V8. Now of course a V8 is CAPABLE of more power for less money, but practicallity wise its much smarter to make a 240hp V6/4 cylinder, it would be most likely cheaper and lighter, not to mention the relief on insurance costs. Of course hardcore racers aren't going to want these engines for REAL racing, unless their favorite food is rice, and thats where the big simple V8's come in, lots of power for cheap.

My point?

The BRAND NEW mustang platform isn't new, its old crap in a new combo. Once again everyone on the planet is sucked into mass media bull'Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me'.
I can't stand all the magazines/public talking about how advanced cars are, and how far they've come. First of all, all the car companies need to stop being chicken 'Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me's and try to invent a new type of engine, that runs on something other then gas, its possible we just have to discover it. A small block ford engine is nearly identical to a small block chevy/dodge/american small block. Walking through the motormech shop of ~20 engines the only two engines that can be recognized after quick glance? 1948 jeep, and a 3 cylinder Suzuki.
Sure car companies are making money and it is a risk, but its a risk worth taking. First of all, if your company invents an engine that runs on air, the only people dumb enough not to buy it dont deserve it anyways and are probably brushing their teeth with sugar. the other companies would be forced to come out with air powered engines if they wanted to stay in business. All of society benefits, and that is the first REAL technological jump since the invention of the car.

You know why the CTS uses the same tranny, cheap and easy to make and to sell.

Cars are still using disc/drum brakes because a 4-wheel disc set up isn't much more better, they both work easily and it's cheap.

Why does NASCAR use Carbs? Because they are for sell for road use, why would you even compare. But they use carbs because it is easier to get a air/fuel ratio.

Pushrods, cams, Lifters, valves, have those changed since the 50s? Why should they change. They work, but the OHC has now been adopted by every car company.

The fact of the matter is that techonology has changed the car industry drastically. Computers controling the engine, various sensors to tell the computer what the engine is doing, safety measures, tires, and better emissions with better fuel economy. Not everyone who buys a car says, "lets get this car because it is rated at 130hp and the other car is at 110". Most people shop for cars within their price range. Just because things haven't changed since the "50's" as you put it doesn't mean technology hasn't helped the car industry.

And you contridicted yourself, but saying techonology hasn't improved and then you turn around say V6's are making V8 hp. Do you think techonolgy had anything to do with that?

My point

Is that technology has improved and is apparent in everyones life wether we're talking about cars or computers. Mags talk about how far cars have come because your Jeep 4-banger in 2004 is making 147 horsepower at 5,200 with 165 pounds-feet of torque at 4,000 RPM. So basically it's making more then 50% of hp than your 88hp. And you know what else it has, a/c, c/d player with 4-speakers, air bags, map lamps, compass, alternator (vs. generator), fog lamps, tilt steering wheel, skid plates, and much more. So please tell me how technology hasn't "come a long way". "Old crap in new combo", tell some one else that becuse just look at how much the Jeep's have changed? Not very much. The fact remains that the new Mustnag will have more hp/torque, better suspension, VCT TECHNOLOGY, and is priced reasonable. Ignorant people get under my skin.

Z28x · Feb 29, 2004

PlatinumDevil said:
Example? Ok, how about the current CTS Cadillac uses the same transmission as my 91 Z34 and the engine is based on mine.

No it doesn't, The CTS uses a RWD 5 speed auto, 5 speed manual, and the T-56. The engines in the CTS are an Opel based 3.2L 54° V6 and a BRAND NEW 3.6L DOHC V6 that is not based of the old 3.4L you have.

Pushrod engines have advanded huge amounts in 40 years. Was titanium used it the 50's? how about DoD? or 3 valve heads, or VVT?

Flexia · Feb 29, 2004

I think ford should have put some more power into the v-6. I was thinking about it today and the 98 svt contor is putting out 195hp on a 2.0 v-6. Come on. If you think about a 4.0 putting out close to the same as the 2.0 thats not right. They should need to have at least around 270 hp. And what is all they hype about the 300hp v-8 gt mustang. That needs to have some more power too. I can go down to my ford dealer and get a 04 gt vert for around 22k that is putitng out 290hp. Thats is why I am spectical about getting a 05. I would love to have the v-8 but I get drop 28k in for it. I am only 16 and I don't want to be paying something off for my life time, let alone the insureance. And the v-6 doesn't really seem mustang worthy with 200hp. It smells like rice to me. But we will have to wait and see. Test drive them and see what it feels like, rice or a mustang.

added - oh yeah, whats up with the sohc, mustangs need to be double.

Z28x · Feb 29, 2004

Flexia said:
I think ford should have put some more power into the v-6. I was thinking about it today and the 98 svt contor is putting out 195hp on a 2.0 v-6. Come on. If you think about a 4.0 putting out close to the same as the 2.0 thats not right. They should need to have at least around 270 hp. And what is all they hype about the 300hp v-8 gt mustang. That needs to have some more power too. I can go down to my ford dealer and get a 04 gt vert for around 22k that is putitng out 290hp. Thats is why I am spectical about getting a 05. I would love to have the v-8 but I get drop 28k in for it. I am only 16 and I don't want to be paying something off for my life time, let alone the insureance. And the v-6 doesn't really seem mustang worthy with 200hp. It smells like rice to me. But we will have to wait and see. Test drive them and see what it feels like, rice or a mustang.

added - oh yeah, whats up with the sohc, mustangs need to be double.

It is the most powerfull V6 Stang to date. I agree though, it should get a little more power, 220HP would be good, it should have as much power as a Mazda 6 at least.

had65want05 · Mar 1, 2004

Maybe they need to start lower

History show us that you have to save a little for next years next best thing, and then the next year to follow, and then.... Well you start at around 200HP for the 6 and the 300HP for V8, you have room to add say 20 HP every other year to follow, until the next style, or next best thing. My guess is that 260HP for the 6 and 350HP V8 may be a goal for the next five to six years to follow, but that is just my imagination at work. An inline 6 would sure be fine!
Loren

mustangt93 · Mar 1, 2004

the reason they dont make a more powerful v8 or v6 is because of cost of production and once again my favorite friend, emmissions, it could cost ford a few more thousand dollars to make a mustang gt with 350-400hp, but you would be paying upwards of 30-35 grand, for a GT....its all about finding a happy medium, supply and demand guys.

351CJ · Mar 1, 2004

Flexia said:
I think ford should have put some more power into the v-6. I was thinking about it today and the 98 svt contor is putting out 195hp on a 2.0 v-6. Come on. If you think about a 4.0 putting out close to the same as the 2.0 thats not right. They should need to have at least around 270 hp. And what is all they hype about the 300hp v-8 gt mustang. That needs to have some more power too. I can go down to my ford dealer and get a 04 gt vert for around 22k that is putitng out 290hp. Thats is why I am spectical about getting a 05. .

added - oh yeah, whats up with the sohc, mustangs need to be double.

1. Compare the toreque #'s. The 4.0 SOHC engine has 40 - 50 lb. ft more torque and at a lower RPM than the SVT Contour V6, which was 2.5L not 2.0L.

2. The 04 Mustang GT has 260 HP NOT 290 HP.

3. SOHC provides a good performance vs. cost vs. weight trade-off, especially with the 3V heads.

4. Since you are 16 you obviously don't remember the 1970's or 1980's. I can't belive that anyone would complain about a 300+ HP, 315+ lb. ft. V8 engine in a car that will start @ under $25K. Enjoy it while you can because just like in 1972 the party will come to an end someday whether insurance, government regulations or $5.00 / gal gasoline prices will be the reason.

Flexia · Mar 1, 2004

351CJ said:
4. Since you are 16 you obviously don't remember the 1970's or 1980's. I can't belive that anyone would complain about a 300+ HP, 315+ lb. ft. V8 engine in a car that will start @ under $25K. Enjoy it while you can because just like in 1972 the party will come to an end someday whether insurance, government regulations or $5.00 / gal gasoline prices will be the reason.

the thing is I do drive a lot of older cars so I do know what the 70's rides were like. Right now I have a 75 maverick and for a straight six that has some torque. And as for the gt starting at 25k I was told by 3 different people that worked for ford that the base gt will be 27k base.

spanky442 · Mar 1, 2004

Someone make a supercharger for that engine. I don't know the name of the company that does it, but if you look throught Summit, you will find one for the 4.0 V-6. I think it adds 70HP.

351CJ · Mar 1, 2004

Flexia said:
Right now I have a 75 maverick and for a straight six that has some torque.

Then you should be happy with the torque that the 4.0 V6 makes.

sleeper89 · Mar 1, 2004

please guys, can we stop quoting peak hp/tq numbers? they mean nothing...well, not much anyhow. it's all well and good to say that 2.2L 4cyl car "x" makes 240hp while 4.6 8cyl "y" makes only 20hp more at 260hp, but let's talk tq OR avg hp/tq and the 4cyl is out of it's league. put them in the same car which performs better? heck, for that matter compare the 2.2L 4cyl's 240hp to the '93 5.0L HO at 215hp the '93 still has far more avg hp/tq.

peak hp is for bench racing and bragging rights. avg hp wins races.

-steve

svtnupe · Mar 4, 2004

I own both a 98 Contour SVT and an '03 Explorer Sport Trac and let me tell you that 4L V6 will move that truck (and it's damn heavy). Just imagine what it will be like in a car that weighs significantly less. The 4L V6 has 76 lbft more of torque than the 2.5L (164 lbft) V6 in the SVT. Believe me, you can feel the difference (even with an auto tranny).

Explorer Express has developed a supercharger for the 4L V6.

Is there a current vehicle that uses the '05 V-6 4.0?

Nicks99GT

Member

RedGTMitch

New Member

SadbutTrue

awalbert88

66Satellite

Banned

351CJ

New Member

JAZ 5.0

Member

Z28x

New Member

Flexia

New Member

Z28x

New Member

had65want05

New Member

mustangt93

New Member

351CJ

New Member

Flexia

New Member

spanky442

New Member

351CJ

New Member

sleeper89

New Member

svtnupe

New Member

Similar threads

Is there a current vehicle that uses the '05 V-6 4.0?

Member

New Member

Banned

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency