Blue II Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Mustang will have the 3.7 Cyclone for 2011 MY. 6.7 Scorpion SD's are testing in Dearborn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLaudioF150 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Mustang will have the 3.7 Cyclone for 2011 MY. 6.7 Scorpion SD's are testing in Dearborn. Says who? You? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keoni Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Says who? You? I thought that Blue II had the inside scoop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Says who? You? When Blue II speaks, you should listen. 6.7 SD are testing...are we going to see this engine early in 2010 calendar year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Mustang will have the 3.7 Cyclone for 2011 MY. 6.7 Scorpion SD's are testing in Dearborn. Being that the current diesel engine supply dries up at the end of next (minus stockpiled production), I hope the testing in Dearborn is just routine ongoing testing and the bread and butter testing was completed succesfully awhile ago. Will the F150 also get the 3.7? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Will the F150 also get the 3.7? Prob Not, just the EB 3.5L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Prob Not, just the EB 3.5L I'm betting it will also get either the standard issue 3.5 or the 3.7 for a base engine. The 4.6 is going away, so they will need something to replace it for the cost-conscious buyers looking for a low-dollar truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calypsocoral Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Mustang will have the 3.7 Cyclone for 2011 MY. 6.7 Scorpion SD's are testing in Dearborn. :happy feet: I kinda figured the 3.7 would be going into the 'stang, especially since the 3.5L EcoBoost is becoming the top-shelf Lincoln powertrain. That 3.7 should pound out more than enough power for the average Mustang buyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Once that happens there will be no reason to even consider a Camaro or Challenger. Unless, of course, you absolutely must have an overweight pig. The current 4.0L Cologne V6 in the Stang is better suited to light trucks. Its a bit of an odd design anyway considering that it was originally a pushrod engine that has been converted to a SOHC layout by using a jackshaft in place of the original in-block camshaft. There is a separate timing chain on the front that drives the left side camshaft off the jackshaft and another chain in the rear that drives the right side camshaft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLaudioF150 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 When Blue II speaks, you should listen. 6.7 SD are testing...are we going to see this engine early in 2010 calendar year? I was unaware that he has the inside scoop. If that's the case, then :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) F-150 is getting the 3.7 cuz it needs a V6. Edited June 12, 2009 by ausrutherford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Before Ford Aus decided to retain the DOHC I-6, FNA offered the 3.7 and 6R transmission. Heads and Inlet manifold on it were a generation along compared to MKS, I'm led to believe it had "a bit more than the MKS' 270 hp". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 If this was a secret, it was the worst kept secret in the auto industry. We've been talking on this board like its a done deal for well over a year now. As for the F-150 getting the 3.7L v6 as a base engine, it would seem likely. The 5.0L is a bit of overkill for a base engine IMHO. If we can think WAAAAYYYYYY back to the original discussions on the Cyclone V6 program, they talked of displacement capacities in the 3.9L range. I was kind of hoping that they would get the Cyclone up to 3.9Ls for the F-150 and possible future ranger applications to better compete with the 4.0L Toyota and Nissan V6s in the Tacoma, Base Tundra, and Frontier. Granted, I'm not sure that their biggest competitor, the Chevy/GM GMT900s will be able to keep using their 4.3L Vortech 4300 V6s much longer. That isn't exactly the most fuel efficient engine on the block. It does well when compared to the old discontinued Essex 4.2L V6 and even the not quite as old Cologne 4.0L v6, it will pale in comparisson to ANY of its competing similar engines. I'd imagine that GM would want to find a way to make the 3.9L High Value VCT OHV V6 go north-south to replace the vortec 4300. Its almost as cheap to make, makes about the same power numbers, but is a bit lighter and more efficient with a broader powerband. The 3.7L Cyclone, when it makes it into the Mustang in a year or so, would do well to have a few more ponies and pounds than the existing MKS setup. I don't see that as bieng a huge deal as I would expect the engine setup to mature a bit over the years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focus05 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I still kind of wish they'd bring the 4.0 I-6 from Australia over for the F-150. I think that could be an excellent base engine. I think the real question is: is there room in the line-up for much under the 5.0? If the 5.0 is going to be rated 15/20 or 15/21, what's the best mileage - short of an Ecoboost - Ford can get out of the pickup? 16/21, maybe 16/22. Would a 3.7 or any 6-cyl be worth that small gain? It seems like any 6-cyl or low-end V8 is simply a cost play on Ford's part - not a mileage play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 When Blue II speaks, you should listen. 6.7 SD are testing...are we going to see this engine early in 2010 calendar year? Most likely. In case you missed it, the legal battles between Ford and Navistar are over. Navistar has already announced it is closing the Indianapolis plant at the end of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 If we can think WAAAAYYYYYY back to the original discussions on the Cyclone V6 program, they talked of displacement capacities in the 3.9L range. I asked around last year. No plans for a 3.9L Too bad, naturally aspirated, it would make a good base engine for the F150 and a cheap optional engine for the next gen Ranger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 When Blue II speaks, you should listen. 6.7 SD are testing...are we going to see this engine early in 2010 calendar year? Blue II is the man (or woman?) when it comes to inside FoMoCo info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) I asked around last year. No plans for a 3.9L That's one of the reasons why the 3.7 was nixed for the Falcon - a lack of bottom end torque. By comparison, the 4.0 I-6 has 290 lb ft available at 3,000 rpm and the 3.7 is 50 lb ft less at that point. I still kind of wish they'd bring the 4.0 I-6 from Australia over for the F-150. I think that could be an excellent base engine. Works for me, especially the Falcon's cheaper than Ecoboost PFI turbo. Edited June 12, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue II Posted June 12, 2009 Author Share Posted June 12, 2009 If this was a secret, it was the worst kept secret in the auto industry. We've been talking on this board like its a done deal for well over a year now. As for the F-150 getting the 3.7L v6 as a base engine, it would seem likely. The 5.0L is a bit of overkill for a base engine IMHO. If we can think WAAAAYYYYYY back to the original discussions on the Cyclone V6 program, they talked of displacement capacities in the 3.9L range. I was kind of hoping that they would get the Cyclone up to 3.9Ls for the F-150 and possible future ranger applications to better compete with the 4.0L Toyota and Nissan V6s in the Tacoma, Base Tundra, and Frontier. Granted, I'm not sure that their biggest competitor, the Chevy/GM GMT900s will be able to keep using their 4.3L Vortech 4300 V6s much longer. That isn't exactly the most fuel efficient engine on the block. It does well when compared to the old discontinued Essex 4.2L V6 and even the not quite as old Cologne 4.0L v6, it will pale in comparisson to ANY of its competing similar engines. I'd imagine that GM would want to find a way to make the 3.9L High Value VCT OHV V6 go north-south to replace the vortec 4300. Its almost as cheap to make, makes about the same power numbers, but is a bit lighter and more efficient with a broader powerband. The 3.7L Cyclone, when it makes it into the Mustang in a year or so, would do well to have a few more ponies and pounds than the existing MKS setup. I don't see that as bieng a huge deal as I would expect the engine setup to mature a bit over the years. Switch from Koln to Cyclone was never a qestion or a secret. Just informing of 2011 MY availability. IT WILL HAVE MORE PONIES FACT!!!!!! NO SECRET!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Switch from Koln to Cyclone was never a qestion or a secret. Just informing of 2011 MY availability. IT WILL HAVE MORE PONIES FACT!!!!!! NO SECRET!!!!!! Im one of the few here that actually thinks pretty positively of the Koln engine. Maybe because i stepped up from a Vulcan lol. Great news to hear though. The 3.7L with a few more ponies should put to rest some arguments over the V6 Camaro as well. Its not like the 3.7 is even really all that underpowered NOW even.. so more should only be gravy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Switch from Koln to Cyclone was never a qestion or a secret. Just informing of 2011 MY availability. IT WILL HAVE MORE PONIES FACT!!!!!! NO SECRET!!!!!! How much more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) Im one of the few here that actually thinks pretty positively of the Koln engine. Maybe because i stepped up from a Vulcan lol. Great news to hear though. The 3.7L with a few more ponies should put to rest some arguments over the V6 Camaro as well. Its not like the 3.7 is even really all that underpowered NOW even.. so more should only be gravy. I'm thinking the PFI 3.7 V6 Mustang will give the DI V6 Camaro a black eye in performance and fuel economy.... Edited June 12, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I don't think there has ever really been a hp war going on over the base engines. If a customer is buying the base engine, hp is immediately not an issue (within reason of course). They are looking for economy both in the purchase price and operating costs. I know historically the base engines in trucks haven't been particularly fuel efficient, but that is often because the base engine is also paired with a lesser transmission and/or the engines themselves are less than cutting edge (4.3 GM, 4.2 Ford, 3.7 Dodge). Maybe Ford has put more effort into the Cyclone to actually make a mpg difference this time. It would be a selling point these days if they did. I imagine a 270hp 3.7 w/6speed would match up at least evenly with the 2v 4.6 w/4R70W - see 3.5 taurus v. panther. Sure, low end torque isn't a match, but again, it's a base engine.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 How much more? At least 60 hp and 30 lb ft. 4.0 Cologne: 210 hp/240 lb ft Duratec 37: +270 hp / 270 lb ft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) At least 60 hp and 30 lb ft. 4.0 Cologne: 210 hp/240 lb ft Duratec 37: +270 hp / 270 lb ft. That's not what I gathered from Blue IIs post. I read it as more HP than in the MKS, thus my question. It's a given that it has more than the Cologne V6. Edited June 12, 2009 by TomServo92 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.