BlackHorse Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 The things a dinosaur and is on its way out the door. Ford isn't going to pour money into it. I understand that but man they stuck with the 5.0 from what 65 until 95? GM used the 3.8 V6 for over 30 years as well. It was a really great engine. I don't know how long the 4.0 has been around, but I'm just making the point that it could easily have been tuned to 250 hp even back in 2005. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I really don't agree with that all. It's not that hard to be unbiased. But of all the things to be biased about, a car company? Really, that's a good thing to be biased about? LOL It's just a means of transportation. Either it's good or not good. Either you like it or you don't. It's just a car. There's no reason to get all worked up and start acting like the company that made the car you drive is the single best by far, bar none, case close and blah blah blah. I drive a Jeep Wrangler, but there's no way in hell I'd drive a Compass. I think it's one of the biggest pieces of junk Jeep has ever made. I make no excuses for it. I'm sure there are plenty of people that don't like Jeep Wranglers. I haven't had a single problem with mine. It runs great and it's what I wanted. Like you said, it doesn't really matter what you think. Oh, and I don't think very highly at all of the company that built the car I drive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Like you said, it doesn't really matter what you think. Oh, and I don't think very highly at all of the company that built the car I drive. No, I said it doesn't matter what "we" think. And quit lying. You're one of the biggest Ford flag wavers around here suv. It's me you're talking to remember? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 No, I said it doesn't matter what "we" think. And quit lying. You're one of the biggest Ford flag wavers around here suv. It's me you're talking to remember? Hello, did we forget I drive a 300? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Hello, did we forget I drive a 300? LMAO, Oh yeah. See I told you to get the Jeep. You never learn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I understand that but man they stuck with the 5.0 from what 65 until 95? GM used the 3.8 V6 for over 30 years as well. It was a really great engine. I don't know how long the 4.0 has been around, but I'm just making the point that it could easily have been tuned to 250 hp even back in 2005. Its roots go way back to 1964 as a pushrod 2.0L. The current SOHC variant was introduced in 1997 for the Explorer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I think the 210 hp 4.0 V6 was pretty much a joke to begin with given that Ford was getting 220 hp out of a 3.0 V6 in the SHO Taurus way back in the 80's. Well it serve its purpose. I've never driven one, so I can't comment.....but if I were to get a Mustang it sure as shit wouldn't have the basic engine in it. BTW, the manual gets 17/26. The point behind the initial statements (including mine), were aimed at those that pissed and whined about the Flex not getting 1,000 CTY/2,000,000 HWY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falconman13 Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I understand that but man they stuck with the 5.0 from what 65 until 95? There was no 5.0 in 1965. At least not that I am aware of. 260, 289 yes, but no 302. Certainly no roller HO 302 like in 95 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I do believe he meant the "SBF" engine family starting with the 260/289 and going up from there. As for the 4.0L SOHC cologne engine, in its hottest PRODUCTION tune, it was making just under 220 hp and ~260 lbs of torque (I believe that was in an Explorer for a while). It doesn't spin that fast and doesn't breath well enough to get much more in the way of HP. (with a premium tune and lots of breathing mods, it can make about 250 hp, but, there again, that's not production trim). As engines go, its not a bad basic truck engine, but it certainly didn't belong in the Mustang. The only reason that it is there was Ford's desire to kill the Essex 3.8/3.9 and 4.2L v6s. With those gone, what engine could fill the void in the v6 mustang lineup? The Vulcan 3.0L was scheduled to be taken out back and shot. So, nothing was left but the duratec 3.0L and the cologne 4.0L. The D30 was somewhat capacity constrained as well as not having enough torque to really do the base stang justice. That leaves the 4.0L cologne. It was chosen by default. One of my co-workers has a 4.0L mustang with the pony car package, upgraded exhaust, intake, and a premium tune. Its quite a fun car. He also swapped out the gears in the back for a slightly higher ratio and limited slip. Having ridden with him to lunch a few times, I know he doesn't have to worry about any of the traditional foes on the road (350Zs, eclipse 3.8, some older camaros). So, if you are really interested in performance, but don't have a budget (especially insurance costs), the 4.0L stang does well enough. I can't wait to see how it does with the D35/D37 under the hood. Better gas mileage, lighter weight, more performance, its win win win all around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 considering the Mustang V6 is rated at the same EPA esitmaes.... Its not all bad. Too bad for Dodge the Mustang V6 is probably still faster. with a shitty rough antiquated 4.0 V6 being REPLACED......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 with a shitty rough antiquated 4.0 V6 being REPLACED......... Amen. Basic Mustangs are craptacular! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Amen. Basic Mustangs are craptacular! That they are...but they still effectively serve the purpose of making other less craptacular Mustangs affordable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I do believe he meant the "SBF" engine family starting with the 221/260 in 1962... Fixed it for you :beerchug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I do believe he meant the "SBF" engine family starting with the 260/289 and going up from there. That is precisely what I meant, the small block windsor line which I believe actually started in 63. I should have been more clear and just didn't feel like starting a fight over it because it wasn't important. Quite frankly the only difference between a 65 289 engine and a 68 302 was the length of the piston rods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I've driven a couple and the 4.0 in 2005 was a good step up from what the Mustang 3.8 V6 had before. It has decent torque. Only a few years before the 5.0 GT was only kicking out 210 HP. I expected the 3.5 to be phased in along the way but that obviously hasn't happened yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Back to the Challenger..........history seems to be repeating itself. In 1970 it was the wrong car at the wrong time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
351cid Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 My thoughts as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
351cid Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 The 221/260 was introduced in 1962 in the Falcon line. The first small block Cobras (pre-production) had 221's in them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisH Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Quite frankly the only difference between a 65 289 engine and a 68 302 was the length of the piston rods. The stroke was also different, 2.87 inches for the 289 and 3.00 inches for the 302. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Back to the Challenger..........history seems to be repeating itself. In 1970 it was the wrong car at the wrong time. Yeah, that's exactly what I thought when I saw the concept and then learned how long it was going to take before it went into production. And this time around the Camaro will be the same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.