Deanh Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) ? what the heck was that????? Edited June 12, 2009 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Oh yeah! Says you!!!! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I'm thinking the PFI 3.7 V6 Mustang will give the DI V6 Camaro a black eyein performance and fuel economy.... Of course it will considering it weighs 500lb or so less then the Camaro... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercury Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 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. Just a guess from going north-south,no luxury noise reducing intake and mebbe a true dual exhaust; 285-290 HP & 280 Torque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 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. all I can tell you is that it has next generation heads and a different inlet manifold, let's just say Ford doesn't need DI to match hp and torque of a certain 3.6 from debtor's row...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ds91776 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 While this is good news for the Mustang ( in my opinion the 3.5V6 would have been great as is) I hope this news of a more powerful 3.7V6 really good news for the MKS, MKT, and possibly MKX. The MKS especially needs more than 273 HP as a base engine...as close to 300 HP as possible would be ideal. The EcoBoost V6 and it's extra 55-65 HP will be more than enough a step up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 While this is good news for the Mustang ( in my opinion the 3.5V6 would have been great as is) I hope this news of a more powerful 3.7V6 really good news for the MKS, MKT, and possibly MKX. The MKS especially needs more than 273 HP as a base engine...as close to 300 HP as possible would be ideal. The EcoBoost V6 and it's extra 55-65 HP will be more than enough a step up. its just because RWD can handle more power than the FWD MkT, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN12Fan Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Im one of the few here that actually thinks pretty positively of the Koln engine. Maybe because i stepped up from a Vulcan lol. It's not a bad engine (certainly not the worst V6 ever built), it's just that there are better engines out there from the competition and from Ford's own shelf. In my experience the Cologne V6 (the OHC version specifically) is a sturdy, torquey engine, but that's about it. Compared to the Duratec 35 and 37 V6s, it's heavy, has worse NVH, has worse fuel efficiency, and makes less torque and especially less horsepower. I've even heard that it's also not too cheap due to importation since it's aus Deutschland. It has a decent history and, again, it's not a bad engine, but it's past its prime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 The 5.0L is a bit of overkill for a base engine IMHO. The 5.0 wouldn't be a base engine in any form.....it's replacing the 5.4. 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. Who says it couldn't get better mileage than those? 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. That's how I understood it as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Who says it couldn't get better mileage than those? Just look at the un-aerodynamic mass it has to move. Eventually you are going to see a brick wall in fuel economy when it comes to full size pickups. IMO its oming soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itguy09 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 It's not a bad engine (certainly not the worst V6 ever built), it's just that there are better engines out there from the competition and from Ford's own shelf. In my experience the Cologne V6 (the OHC version specifically) is a sturdy, torquey engine, but that's about it. Compared to the Duratec 35 and 37 V6s, it's heavy, has worse NVH, has worse fuel efficiency, and makes less torque and especially less horsepower. I've even heard that it's also not too cheap due to importation since it's aus Deutschland. It has a decent history and, again, it's not a bad engine, but it's past its prime. I had one in an Explorer (4.0 SOHC) and it is a POS engine - easily one of the Worst Ford has ever built. Way too complicated timing chain system and by 80k the thing was rattling on cold startup and just generally loud, sucked gas, and was garbage. Then again the rest of the Explorer was nothing to write home about but the 4.0 SOHC was particularly a sore spot on many Explorers. Ford can't drop that boat anchor fast enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Just look at the un-aerodynamic mass it has to move. Eventually you are going to see a brick wall in fuel economy when it comes to full size pickups. IMO its oming soon. I don't have an article to back me up right now, but I remember reading that, despite it's rather boxy shape, it's the most aerodynamic F-150 yet, or something along those lines. Now I'm sure you're right, eventually there's gonna be a limit to how much FE you can squeeze out of a full size pickup, but I think there's still things that can be done by using different, lighter materials, and things like that. Remember, Ford has also committed to shedding weight across the board in all their next-generation models. Edited June 13, 2009 by rmc523 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I expect at least 285hp out of the D37 in RWD config. If Ford can deliver, I will purchase v6 premium as a daily driver and a GT for track duty. This would be a first in my lifetime. I have never even considered a v6 mustang before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 kinda cool how the D37 can make more power than the PI SN95 GTs. (acronyms and codenames unite!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) I don't have an article to back me up right now, but I remember reading that, despite it's rather boxy shape, it's the most aerodynamic F-150 yet, or something along those lines. Aerodynamics is expressed as "drag coefficient" or Cd. The equation for Cd is total drag force divided by the product of 0.5 times the density of the fluid, times the velocity, times the frontal area of the object. Solving for drag force the equation is the product of 0.5 times the density of the fluid, times the velocity, times the Cd, times the frontal area of the object (as a vector in the opposite direction) Or simply put, and F150 (or an E150) can have a really "good" Cd, but once you multiply it times the frontal area (which is enormous), the drag is pretty darn significant regardless of what the Cd is ! Edited June 14, 2009 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) kinda cool how the D37 can make more power than the PI SN95 GTs. (acronyms and codenames unite!) How close will the D37 and 6-speed auto get to the performance of the current 4.6 V8 and 5-speed auto? Given the V6's lower price and superior fuel economy, maybe the trade off is small.... Edited June 14, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 How close will the D37 and 6-speed auto get to the performance of the current 4.6 V8 and 5-speed auto?Given the V6's lower price and superior fuel economy, maybe the trade off is small.... Less weight :happy feet: , only around 40 hp lower than MY10 (20 for 05-09). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) Less weight :happy feet: , only around 40 hp lower than MY10 (20 for 05-09). Please don't get caught up in peek or published numbers. The entire power curve is what is important. Bw 40hp at the 300hp level is a boatload...not to mention the torque. Edited June 14, 2009 by atomaro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Aerodynamics is expressed as "drag coefficient" or Cd. The equation for Cd is total drag force divided by the product of 0.5 times the density of the fluid, times the velocity, times the frontal area of the object. Solving for drag force the equation is the product of 0.5 times the density of the fluid, times the velocity, times the Cd, times the frontal area of the object (as a vector in the opposite direction) Or simply put, and F150 (or an E150) can have a really "good" Cd, but once you multiply it times the frontal area (which is enormous), the drag is pretty darn significant regardless of what the Cd is ! And there lies the problem.....you gotta try to have a relatively aerodynamic truck while allowing plenty of room to allow for proper cooling for the powertrain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Please don't get caught up in peek or published numbers. The entire power curve is what is important. Bw 40hp at the 300hp level is a boatload...not to mention the torque. Agreed but the D37 and 6 speed will put the V6 combination much closer to the 4.6 V8 and 5-speed auto. Sure the new 5.0 will increase the gap again but the whole Mustang range then moves up a cog. No wonder Camaro will find the going tough, they have nothing left to bring on the V6 side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 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. Yeah, I knew of the legal battles and closing the plant...just wasn't sure when the engine was going to show up. Hopefully this will be a great engine for Ford and they can put the 6.0 (and Navistar in genernal) issues behind them for good! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 And there lies the problem.....you gotta try to have a relatively aerodynamic truck while allowing plenty of room to allow for proper cooling for the powertrain. You missed my point. Having good aerodynamics (Cd) doesn't mean much of anything if the frontal area is the size of a barn door ! The flip side is, it is pretty much impossible to have a small frontal area on a truck, unless you are going to "slam it" to the ground and chop about 4 inches off the roof height. Actually one of the best things to improve overall drag on a truck is to put the smallest mirrors you can find on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 all I can tell you is that it has next generation heads and a different inlet manifold, EXCELLENT While this is good news for the Mustang (in my opinion the 3.5V6 would have been great as is) I hope this news of a more powerful 3.7V6 really good news for the MKS, MKT, and possibly MKX. These "big boys" might not get the new heads and manifold. I suspect the Mustang is quite a bit lighter so it can give up some low end torque for some high end horsepower. These boys, along with the Flex and Edge, need all the low end grunt they can get, just to get rolling ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) Yeah, I knew of the legal battles and closing the plant...just wasn't sure when the engine was going to show up. Hopefully this will be a great engine for Ford and they can put the 6.0 (and Navistar in genernal) issues behind them for good! Navistar's new favorite customer is the US Army ! Interesting as they are shutting down their Indianapolis plant and moving to Mexico. Edited June 14, 2009 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 You missed my point. Having good aerodynamics (Cd) doesn't mean much of anything if the frontal area is the size of a barn door ! The flip side is, it is pretty much impossible to have a small frontal area on a truck, unless you are going to "slam it" to the ground and chop about 4 inches off the roof height. Actually one of the best things to improve overall drag on a truck is to put the smallest mirrors you can find on it. I understand. Then you got Ford putting the towing mirrors on the F-150 now.... 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.