plev72 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Hey all, I'm looking to consider a 2011 Mustang when I get back from deployment --- from what I'm reading online, it looks like there is a possibility that there will be 3 new engines in 2011? (and hopefully a 6-speed - finally!) 3.7 (~280hp) 3.5 (???) ecoboost (~350hp) 5.0 (~400hp) One of the websites was saying the info came from looking up 2011 Mustang engine part numbers and descriptions. Any updated information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Hey all, I'm looking to consider a 2011 Mustang when I get back from deployment --- from what I'm reading online, it looks like there is a possibility that there will be 3 new engines in 2011?(and hopefully a 6-speed - finally!) 3.7 (~280hp) 3.5 (???) ecoboost (~350hp) 5.0 (~400hp) One of the websites was saying the info came from looking up 2011 Mustang engine part numbers and descriptions. Any updated information? Yes to the 3.7 and 5.0, probably no to the EB 3.5 (for 2011 at least). I think we might see a 2.0L EB as a base engine before we see the 3.5EB. The 3.5EB (in RWD form) will be really close to the 5.0L in power and wouldn't be needed unless it provided a big FE advantage over the 5.0L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Yes to the 3.7 and 5.0, probably no to the EB 3.5 (for 2011 at least). I think we might see a 2.0L EB as a base engine before we see the 3.5EB. The 3.5EB (in RWD form) will be really close to the 5.0L in power and wouldn't be needed unless it provided a big FE advantage over the 5.0L. Isn't that the point of EB? (The bolded part) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Isn't that the point of EB? (The bolded part) my thought exactly....I think you will see the 3.5 as a high tech alternative to the V8...can't hurt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plev72 Posted August 10, 2009 Author Share Posted August 10, 2009 I was figuring that the 3.5 EB would fit in the lineup (I know, apples and oranges... but not really) as the 3.0 Twin Turbo in the BMW 5-series line-up. They currently run: (328/528) 3.0 liter = 230 hp (335/535) 3.0 liter twin turbo = 300 hp (claimed - apparently the real number is above that) (550) 4.8 liter = 360 hp According to all of the car mags, the twin turbo is the best bang for the buck in as much as the 4.8 liter is more powerful, but the 3.5 liter is lighter and better balanced... (not to mention chipable to 387 hp) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Isn't that the point of EB? (The bolded part) My point was it would have to deliver BIG fuel savings to make it wortwhile in a mustang. Enthusiasts certainly aren't going to give up a V8 just for 1 or 2 more mpg. 3-4 mpg - maybe. A few at least. But if you can give current V6 buyers a more fuel efficient EB 2.0 then they'd probably go for it, even if it was only 1 or 2 mpg. Most GT buyers aren't looking for fuel economy. Remember the EB 3.5L is currently only offered in vehicles that don't have a V8 option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Forgot about the weight factor. If the 3.5L EB is much lighter than the 5.0 then I could see it being offered as a GT350 - built for handling. But I still think you'd get more sales and PR out of a EB 2.0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 (edited) My point was it would have to deliver BIG fuel savings to make it wortwhile in a mustang. Enthusiasts certainly aren't going to give up a V8 just for 1 or 2 more mpg. 3-4 mpg - maybe. A few at least. But if you can give current V6 buyers a more fuel efficient EB 2.0 then they'd probably go for it, even if it was only 1 or 2 mpg. Most GT buyers aren't looking for fuel economy. Remember the EB 3.5L is currently only offered in vehicles that don't have a V8 option. hell, it gets what with the SHO with a MASSIVE curb weight and burdened with AWD....I would think a 30 mpg 400hp eco 6 in a Mustang would do nothing if not good PR and like I said a "high" tech alternative to the traditional V8..........to which I might add is Fords ONLY ongoing utilization of the V8 in a sedan...... Edited August 10, 2009 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I think we might see a 2.0L EB as a base engine before we see the 3.5EB. I concur. Most Mustang drivers want a V8 period. They don't want an engine that performs like a V8. The 2.0L EB could fit a different niche, like the old Mustang SVO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) My point was it would have to deliver BIG fuel savings to make it wortwhile in a mustang. Enthusiasts certainly aren't going to give up a V8 just for 1 or 2 more mpg. 3-4 mpg - maybe. A few at least. But if you can give current V6 buyers a more fuel efficient EB 2.0 then they'd probably go for it, even if it was only 1 or 2 mpg. Most GT buyers aren't looking for fuel economy. Remember the EB 3.5L is currently only offered in vehicles that don't have a V8 option. You may find that the turbo doesn't canabalize the V8's sales and actually attract more buyers. Compared to the 5.0 V8, the EB V6 is very expensive, the Falcon's I-6 turbo would be a cheaper option. Unfortunately, they've missed the window and that bird has flown.... Edited August 11, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I concur. Most Mustang drivers want a V8 period. They don't want an engine that performs like a V8. The 2.0L EB could fit a different niche, like the old Mustang SVO. I agree totally. When I had my 5.0 Mustang, one of the great joys of it was the V8 burble that Ford continues to refine. You can alway tell when a V8 Mustang goes by. No way would the dull sounding Ecoboost twin turbo fit in with the Mustang GT sounds. 5.0 V8 with the delightful burble is perfect. Ecoboost would be OK with a special edition Mustang like SVO, but not the GT. V8 power need only to apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) For 2011 the 3.7 V6 engine and the 5.0 coyote V8 are a given. The 3.5 ecoboost is more of a BIG V8 type engine replacement as it provides a mountain of torque at lower RPMs, but the flipside is the cost. Think about it, FORD has placed the EB 3.5 as the replacement for the 5.4 liter triton engine! I 'm guessing that the T6 ranger will do something similar and have a 2.0 EB engine as the smaller choice and the 3.7 liter as the larger engine option. Ford usually uses the same larger engine in the small truck as the smaller engine in the mustang, so that at least fits with the roadmap. I also doubt that anyone wants to drive a 2.0 EB 230HP mustang. Now if ford pulls a 2.5 EB out with 280HP all bets are off, because I can definately see ford placing such an engine in the mustang. Also keep in mind that Ford has to watch their CAFE ratings, by using the new 5.0 liter and selling a supercharger as an aftermarket tool that can give you close to 500HP cheaply and inexpensively. The GT350 is probably going to die on the release of the 5.0 as from what I've read the 5.0 will probably have 350HP out of the box. Add a supercharger and some suspention mods and you have the GT500. Edited August 11, 2009 by Mackintire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I agree totally. When I had my 5.0 Mustang, one of the great joys of it was the V8 burble that Ford continues to refine. You can alway tell when a V8 Mustang goes by. No way would the dull sounding Ecoboost twin turbo fit in with the Mustang GT sounds. 5.0 V8 with the delightful burble is perfect. Ecoboost would be OK with a special edition Mustang like SVO, but not the GT. V8 power need only to apply. So you've heard the EcoBoost V6 up close and personal? You say Ford has refined the V8 burble, so you think they would just throw out any exhaust sound for the EB? Sounds like a V6 hater to me! I would definitely consider an EB Mustang if I were in the market. I think the GT should remain a V8 with the EB V6 being a special edition (GT 350?). Of course, I won't be buying a Mustang until my kids have moved out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 So you've heard the EcoBoost V6 up close and personal? You say Ford has refined the V8 burble, so you think they would just throw out any exhaust sound for the EB? Sounds like a V6 hater to me! I would definitely consider an EB Mustang if I were in the market. I think the GT should remain a V8 with the EB V6 being a special edition (GT 350?). Of course, I won't be buying a Mustang until my kids have moved out... As a matter of fact, I have heard the Ecoboost Taurus SHO up close at full song, and it leaves much to be desired as far as sound goes. And I agree with you, a special edition EB would be fine, but leave the 5.0 V8 for the GT exclusively. On a Taurus, the EB sound is fine, but not on the Mustang GT. The sound is a very important aspect of the Mustang GT experience. I would hope that there would always be a place for the V8 Mustang, no matter how small a niche eventually. Long live the V8 in some form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 While I have not heard a 3.5 EB in anything yet I can say that after I replaced the exhaust on my Thunderbird SC with a Flowmaster system the car was actually less appealing to me. Granted comparing the old supercharged Essex V6 to an EB is not apples to apples but nothing beats the sound of a V8 IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) This is the way a turbo 6 should sound: That Falcon pulls a 13.2 quarter mile too in manual and auto (ZF). Edited August 11, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehaase Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I think CAFE will force Ford to consider eventually using the 230 hp 2.0L EB (or even the 170 hp 2.5L) as the base Mustang engine, not as a modern day version SVO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 As a matter of fact, I have heard the Ecoboost Taurus SHO up close at full song, and it leaves much to be desired as far as sound goes. And I agree with you, a special edition EB would be fine, but leave the 5.0 V8 for the GT exclusively. On a Taurus, the EB sound is fine, but not on the Mustang GT. The sound is a very important aspect of the Mustang GT experience. I would hope that there would always be a place for the V8 Mustang, no matter how small a niche eventually. Long live the V8 in some form. And you think Ford would tune the exhaust on the Mustang the same as the SHO? I think not...Ford knows what they are doing...they've spent millions tuning the exhaust on the Mustang GT, and will continue to do so with a V6 EB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 ... the EB V6 is very expensive[/u], (compared to) the Falcon's I-6 turbo ... Get over it ! The I6 is dead. What you don't understand is that there are dozens and dozens of middle and upper level powertrain managers who focused on making certain their bosses know that EcoBoost is the ONLY SOLUTION ! No diesel, no turbo PFI. Remember the Modular Mafia ? You now have the EcoBoost Elite ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Get over it ! The I6 is dead. What you don't understand is that there are dozens and dozens of middle and upper level powertrain managers who focused on making certain their bosses know that EcoBoost is the ONLY SOLUTION ! No diesel, no turbo PFI. Remember the Modular Mafia ? You now have the EcoBoost Elite ! Let's just say that the 'EcoBoost Elite" have hit a slight snag..... You may want to inquire with friends at your end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plev72 Posted August 11, 2009 Author Share Posted August 11, 2009 I wonder if anyone would buy a 'secretary's mustang' in this day and age, or whether it would just undermine the nameplate? I would think they could offer a low end mustang --- smaller wheels, softer suspension, etc. around $18,000 --- and if it got 30mpg --- 210 hp would be plenty. (I wouldn't buy one myself... but... people did buy the fox mustang convertibles w/ 88hp engines (drove one... awful)....) Also - I can't see them dumping the Shelby w/out putting out a replacement (Boss, whatever) - nor can I see them only tuning the V8 for 350hp... that wouldn't make much sense when the camero v6 will probably be bumped to 325 in the next year or two... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I wonder if anyone would buy a 'secretary's mustang' in this day and age, or whether it would just undermine the nameplate? I would think they could offer a low end mustang ---smaller wheels, softer suspension, etc. around $18,000 --- and if it got 30mpg --- 210 hp would be plenty. (I wouldn't buy one myself... but... people did buy the fox mustang convertibles w/ 88hp engines (drove one... awful)....) Also - I can't see them dumping the Shelby w/out putting out a replacement (Boss, whatever) - nor can I see them only tuning the V8 for 350hp... that wouldn't make much sense when the camero v6 will probably be bumped to 325 in the next year or two... The V6 is essentially a 'secretary's Mustang' today, and it typically outsells the GT by a decent margin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 2004 V6 Mustang Horsepower: 193 Torque: 225 2010 V6 Mustang Horsepower: 210 Torque: 240 Tell me again why nobody would buy a 230 hp Mustang? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
30 OTT 6 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 You may find that the turbo doesn't canabalize the V8's sales and actually attract more buyers.Compared to the 5.0 V8, the EB V6 is very expensive, the Falcon's I-6 turbo would be a cheaper option. Unfortunately, they've missed the window and that bird has flown.... Are you ever going to stop whining about your precious "Falcon I-6"? Others have been booted off BON (wrongly, I might add) for such complusive nagging (see "Panthers"). But humour me, how do you propose to fit the 4.0L I-6 into the current Mustang? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Are you ever going to stop whining about your precious "Falcon I-6"? Others have been booted off BON (wrongly, I might add) for such complusive nagging (see "Panthers"). But humour me, how do you propose to fit the 4.0L I-6 into the current Mustang? Ever think there might be more going on behind closed doors then you know about with the I6 engine? I'd say there is zero chance that the I6 makes it into the Mustang, but you never know how it will work out in another product(s) 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.