akirby Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 If Nissan can get 330 hp out of their 3.7L V6 then why can't Ford get 315? Remember it will be mounted longitudinally in the stang, not east/west like the MKS/Taurus, etc. which allows better exhaust options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 If Nissan can get 330 hp out of their 3.7L V6 then why can't Ford get 315? Remember it will be mounted longitudinally in the stang, not east/west like the MKS/Taurus, etc. which allows better exhaust options. ones BASE engine does not need to be a rev meister....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 I have a hard time believing these numbers. A few days ago Fourcam on svt performance pretty much said the 5 O was good for 400hp but on 93 octane. While I would love to be wrong I expect both engines to come in at less than the rumor mill. I just dont see the 3.7 being 315 hp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Based on todays specs for the 3.5L, 315 hp from a 3.7L is just an increase of just over 10%. This can be done using the iVCT from the Fusion alone. Add DI for another 10% and you get 345 hp. In 5 years, the 3.7L N.A. could approach EcoBoost HP, but not low rpm torque. This would be a good engine for an F150. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 If Nissan can get 330 hp out of their 3.7L V6 then why can't Ford get 315? I agree with your premise, but is this truly an apples to apples comparison? Does the Nissan engine have features we don't have? <not challenging you, I really don't know> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 The 3.7 has intake VCT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 ones BASE engine does not need to be a rev meister....... Why not? I think that if a base Mustang can compete with a 370Z, that would be a good thing. Let's face it, a 5.0 GT will probably get a big bump in price as well as the base 3.7 Mustang. If the base 3.7 Mustang is priced near today's 4.6 GT, then it will need performance comparable to today's 4.6 GT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Why not? I think that if a base Mustang can compete with a 370Z, that would be a good thing. Let's face it, a 5.0 GT will probably get a big bump in price as well as the base 3.7 Mustang. If the base 3.7 Mustang is priced near today's 4.6 GT, then it will need performance comparable to today's 4.6 GT. and price itself out of the market.....AND cost more to insure....AND thus sell less....AND...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosetang Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Remember that the 3.7's current numbers are for a FWD application with a transverse mount, and in Mustang they'll be RWD with a longitudinal mount. 315 seems completely reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 (edited) Remember that the 3.7's current numbers are for a FWD application with a transverse mount, and in Mustang they'll be RWD with a longitudinal mount. 315 seems completely reasonable. dont see it, especially from the entry level side, besides that, if figures like 315 are getting tossed around for the 3.7 sort of makes the 400 for the 5.0 seem abysmal. Not to mention 365 from the eco engine ( although we know THAT is harnessed ) Edited September 2, 2009 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 (edited) this may be off-base since I'm not that engine savvie but if the same proportions are applied to the 3.7 as the increases in the 3.0v6 with "PIP", if the 315hp is on E85, the previous base hp would be 271 & per my database, the actual 3.7v6 has 270... ...is this too close for a co-incidence? Edited September 2, 2009 by 2b2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 dont see it, especially from the entry level side, besides that, if figures like 315 are getting tossed around for the 3.7 sort of makes the 400 for the 5.0 seem abysmal. Not to mention 365 from the eco engine ( although we know THAT is harnessed ) So what are the specs for the "entry level" Camaro? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 So what are the specs for the "entry level" Camaro? inflated from what I have read.....BUT 45 miles per gallon!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Greene Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Maybe the 3.7 is being prepared to replace the 3V 4.6 in the GT. With a 6 speed transmission with more mechanical advantage in lower gears, you wouldn't lose much acceleration (if any), and could get vastly improved MPG numbers. They do have to take those numbers up. As I have said on other posts, I expect the 5.0 to debut with a "soft" tune and advertised at less than 400 HP the first year or so. Then bringing it up to it's probably already developed 400 HP level is just a matter of a minor tuning change. Just like they have done with the GT 500. However....if the new 5.0 debuts in a new "Halo" ($) car of some sorts....then sure....probably curently developed HP right out of the box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 2 more years for the boss..ugh...the lineup looks good...real good..i can see a lot of V6 stangs causing the v8 kamero owners shame after they get spanked... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 this may be off-base since I'm not that engine savviebut if the same proportions are applied to the 3.7 as the increases in the 3.0v6 with "PIP", if the 315hp is on E85, the previous base hp would be 271 & per my database, the actual 3.7v6 has 270... ...is this too close for a co-incidence? The 3.0L PIP consisted of a major overhaul of the 3.0L new heads, valvetrain, intake, etc. 3.7L doesn't, at present have that kind of a ceiling. Premium tune/DI -maybe-, but without DI, I don't think so. And I believe the 330hp 3.7L Nissan V6 has DI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fubbyo Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Whoa. I don't think it will have to run premium. It'll probably get an HP rating with an asterisk. Like this: 3.7L V6 with 315 HP* *Rating based on 93 octane fuel, 295 HP for 87 octane Or something like that. Kind of like what other car makers out there do. I think they could & I wish they would. BlueII mentioned a while back that with knock sensor technology, that Ford and many others will go start giving ratings based on 93 octane premium unleaded but not require it. I think that's what it'll be. Just like Hyundai's figures for the Turbo 4 go from 210 on 87 to 220 on 91. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Why would you require 93 Octane in a BASE model? Though this does lead to an very interesting possibility....if the 3.7L can do that, that leaves pently of room for the EB I4 to be the base engine and get great MPG's at the same time....hmmmm Yeah, while those numbers may be achieved using 93, I would almost guarantee that 93 would not be required. As others have said, that'd be stupid to require it in your base model. I think an M3 is 200lbs heavier, not lighter than the current Mustang GT...I otherwise hope this is accurate info as it sure sounds great. Yeah it does. If true, that'd be awesome - a GT running with an M3 - makes you wonder how much better the GT500 will be...... Why not? I think that if a base Mustang can compete with a 370Z, that would be a good thing. Let's face it, a 5.0 GT will probably get a big bump in price as well as the base 3.7 Mustang. If the base 3.7 Mustang is priced near today's 4.6 GT, then it will need performance comparable to today's 4.6 GT. That'd be a mistake bumping the V6's price up to GT level......will there be an increase, absolutely, but to GT level, I doubt. As Dean said, it'd price itself out of it's own market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Meh. I don't buy these numbers. The 315hp from the 3.7L seems especially far-fetched. I would, however, expect 400hp from a 3.5L EB V6--given that it seems obvious the engine is being throttled back for the sake of the transaxle in the D3s. It does seem far fetched, but this engine makes 273/270 in the MKS, figure less restrictive (and muffled) inlet setup, less packaging concerns with the intake manifold in the large bay RWD Mustang, possible dual exhaust, more aggressive tune and potential substantive improvements to the engine (TiVCT?) and it seems plausible. The Cyclone is one of the better V6 engine families going right now, I wouldn't count it out if Ford puts some effort into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted September 2, 2009 Author Share Posted September 2, 2009 Looks like its DI...with standard awd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Looks like its DI...with standard awd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Looks like its DI...with standard awd. ?.........I truley doubt there will be an AWD Mustang....ever.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Wonder if the cyclone will make it into the F150 also as a base engine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Wonder if the cyclone will make it into the F150 also as a base engine? or F100/ Ranger replacement as the top of the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 if your source says 'standard AWD' he's laughing up his sleeve while talking through his hat (if you can imagine such a thing). 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.