2011 Mustang engine specs leaked!

[old_fairmont_wagon]

A couple of points:

 

1) The Nissan High Revving 3.7L VQ series does NOT have GDI. It has a really nice airflow setup in the intake and exhaust, a high RPM limit, and TiVCT that is fairly intelligent. Notice, they may manage 330 hp, but they can't get much past 270 lbs of torque.

 

2) During the development phase, the Cyclone was designed with many technology upgrades in mind, including GDI, TiVCT, etc. The current 3.7L was setup specifically to fatten the torque curve, not make obscene HP numbers. From what I've seen on the net, the Longitudinal Cyclone has been a somewhat seperate developmenet branch when it comes to performance. It has a better exhaust layout (in general) and likely will have a bit higher of an RPM limit as well. So, better breathing, higher RPM, TiVCT and likely other modifications (like a switch to the VCT setup on the PIP D30 which is supposed to be more efficient) and I find it wholely plausible that the 3.7L Cyclone V6 can make 315 hp, naturally aspirated, without GDI. It MIGHT even be able to do it on regular 87 octane pump gas. Something else to consider, the Cyclone's current applications require it to be somewhat civilized (at least the non EB versions) and as a result, design/tuning consideration may have gone to reducing its NVH levels over performance. In the mustang, there is a bit more tolerance for that sort of thing. Look at the 3.7L in the Nissan 370Z. It used to be that the VQ was known for its smoothness and power, now, its all power with critics getting on it about its harshness. They still wind up giving it a positive review in the end though.

 

3) As for the rest of the info, It sounds like what we are expecting. I do think that they might release the 5.0 with 380 hp or so, though that's going to be a bit of a letdown for a lot of people. The other possibility is that it comes out with the full 400 hp, but that there's a SE released a year later with maybe 5-10% more power (which will become the standard for the GT in 2013 or so).

 

4) With a 300 HP entry level mustang, that DOES leave the door open for a 225 or so HP 4 banger to be an entry level option. The problem is, what Longitudinal mount 4 bangers does Ford have anymore? The 2.5L in the ranger? ITs got no balance shaft, isn't exactly Mr. Smooth, and frankly, doesn't have the bones to shove a mustang around like an owner would like. All the EB I-4s that have been talked about are Transverse at the moment. About the only thing that will work for this application is the EB I-4 for the Falcon down in Aus. Is that being built here and sent down there, or is it going to be built down there?

[sullynd]

Wonder if the MKX will get the 3.7.

[chevys]

Igor says both engines are rated on 93 octane. Reason being is that this is what all the imports do and Ford is tired of being labeled to have weak engines. Seems like they brought this on themself over the years but that is another story. I guess this is the new trick these days. Personally, I loved the days when the Mach 1's and 03/04 cobras were under rated from the factory. I think the 99 Cobra fiasco taught them that trick.

 

I dont know off hand but is the LS3/L99 and 3.6 in the Camaro rated on 93 octane?

[Deanh]

it is possible because the RWD layout allows for better air flow to the engine.

so FWD hinders horsepower even in normally aspirated iterations?........sure adds to the BRING BACK RWD PLATFORMS argument...

[TomServo92]

I dont know off hand but is the LS3/L99 and 3.6 in the Camaro rated on 93 octane?

 

I found the 2010 Camaro owners manual online and this is what it says:

 

Recommended Fuel

 

If the vehicle has the 3.6L V6 engine

(VIN Code V), use regular unleaded

gasoline with a posted octane rating

of 87 or higher. If the octane rating is

less than 87, you might notice an

audible knocking noise when you

drive, commonly referred to as spark

knock. If this occurs, use a gasoline

rated at 87 octane or higher as soon

as possible. If you are using gasoline

rated at 87 octane or higher and you

hear heavy knocking, the engine

needs service.

 

So the answer would be "no".

Edited September 3, 2009 by TomServo92

[fordmantpw]

I found the 2010 Camaro owners manual online and this is what it says:

 

 

 

So the answer would be "no".

 

That doesn't mean the HP ratings are not for 93 octane. All that says is you have to use 87 octane or higher in the car.

[falcman]

A couple of points:

 

1) The Nissan High Revving 3.7L VQ series does NOT have GDI. It has a really nice airflow setup in the intake and exhaust, a high RPM limit, and TiVCT that is fairly intelligent. Notice, they may manage 330 hp, but they can't get much past 270 lbs of torque.

 

2) During the development phase, the Cyclone was designed with many technology upgrades in mind, including GDI, TiVCT, etc. The current 3.7L was setup specifically to fatten the torque curve, not make obscene HP numbers. From what I've seen on the net, the Longitudinal Cyclone has been a somewhat seperate developmenet branch when it comes to performance. It has a better exhaust layout (in general) and likely will have a bit higher of an RPM limit as well. So, better breathing, higher RPM, TiVCT and likely other modifications (like a switch to the VCT setup on the PIP D30 which is supposed to be more efficient) and I find it wholely plausible that the 3.7L Cyclone V6 can make 315 hp, naturally aspirated, without GDI. It MIGHT even be able to do it on regular 87 octane pump gas. Something else to consider, the Cyclone's current applications require it to be somewhat civilized (at least the non EB versions) and as a result, design/tuning consideration may have gone to reducing its NVH levels over performance. In the mustang, there is a bit more tolerance for that sort of thing. Look at the 3.7L in the Nissan 370Z. It used to be that the VQ was known for its smoothness and power, now, its all power with critics getting on it about its harshness. They still wind up giving it a positive review in the end though.

 

3) As for the rest of the info, It sounds like what we are expecting. I do think that they might release the 5.0 with 380 hp or so, though that's going to be a bit of a letdown for a lot of people. The other possibility is that it comes out with the full 400 hp, but that there's a SE released a year later with maybe 5-10% more power (which will become the standard for the GT in 2013 or so).

 

4) With a 300 HP entry level mustang, that DOES leave the door open for a 225 or so HP 4 banger to be an entry level option. The problem is, what Longitudinal mount 4 bangers does Ford have anymore? The 2.5L in the ranger? ITs got no balance shaft, isn't exactly Mr. Smooth, and frankly, doesn't have the bones to shove a mustang around like an owner would like. All the EB I-4s that have been talked about are Transverse at the moment. About the only thing that will work for this application is the EB I-4 for the Falcon down in Aus. Is that being built here and sent down there, or is it going to be built down there?

 

Nice post, very informative.

 

Falcon's EB I-4 will be built there (in the U.S.) and brought over here. Scheduled for 2011, and will be the first rwd application for said motor. In other words, you won't get it any earlier? It's 2 litre.

[TomServo92]

That doesn't mean the HP ratings are not for 93 octane. All that says is you have to use 87 octane or higher in the car.

 

If you look at the same section for 6.2L V8 it says 93 octane is recommended and 87 octane may be used but with decreased performance. If the V6 was the same, it would have similar verbage. Since it does not, logic would say the there is no performance loss for using 87 octane in the V6.

[fordmantpw]

If you look at the same section for 6.2L V8 it says 93 octane is recommended and 87 octane may be used but with decreased performance. If the V6 was the same, it would have similar verbage. Since it does not, logic would say the there is no performance loss for using 87 octane in the V6.

 

I didn't read the 6.2 section as you did, so I'll take your word for it.

[NLPRacing]

Well to quote an old proverb...we live in interesting times:

 

Ford has officially commented about the rumors, which adds a bit of legitimacy to them IMO

 

http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=2090...42#/fordmustang

 

http://twitter.com/FordMustang

 

Boy, that non-comment really says a lot! It's too bad the current Explorer/Sport Trac won't get these engines. A Sport Trac Adrenalin with the 5.0 would of been real cool.

[jpvbs]

Nice post, very informative.

 

Falcon's EB I-4 will be built there (in the U.S.) and brought over here. Scheduled for 2011, and will be the first rwd application for said motor. In other words, you won't get it any earlier? It's 2 litre.

 

Mike Levine, (of pickuptrucks.com) posted a few weeks ago that his Ford insider told him Ford is still planning on, or is at least considering, offering the 2.0eb for use in the F150. I think Mike's words were, "a 4 cyl smaller than 2.5l." His sources are usually pretty accurate.

 

If it goes to the F150, it wouldn't be hard to give it to the Mustang. But, I wonder if it will only come further down the road when mpg requirements tighten more.

[theoldwizard]

It's too bad the current Explorer/Sport Trac won't get these engines.

Roger, Roger !

 

The fuel economy on both of those is abysmal ! That 4.0L should have been put out to pasture long ago.

[akirby]

so FWD hinders horsepower even in normally aspirated iterations?........sure adds to the BRING BACK RWD PLATFORMS argument...

 

It's not FWD per se - it's the fact that the engine is mounted longitudinally which puts the exhaust manifolds front and rear instead of side by side. Reduces the options for intake and exhaust routing.

[buddysystem]

This is all great news. The couple photos of the 5.0 that were out indicate that the motor will probably have some type of plastic shroud covering an otherwise pretty clean looking v8. I recall seeing 4 studs around the intake. It would be nice if they powder coated or anodized the valve covers with a minimal shroud to cover up some wires. The 2010 isn't too bad.

Edited September 3, 2009 by buddysystem

[TomServo92]

I didn't read the 6.2 section as you did, so I'll take your word for it.

 

Just so you know I'm not lying:

 

If the vehicle has the 6.2L V8 engine

(VIN Code W) or the 6.2L V8 engine

(VIN Code J), use premium unleaded

gasoline with a posted octane

rating of 91 or higher. For best

performance, use premium unleaded

gasoline with a posted octane

rating of 93. You can also use

regular unleaded gasoline rated at

87 octane or higher, but the vehicle’s

acceleration could be slightly

reduced, and you might notice a

slight audible knocking noise,

commonly referred to as a spark

knock. If the octane is less than 87,

you might notice a heavy knocking

noise when you drive. If this occurs,

use a gasoline rated at 87 octane

or higher as soon as possible.

Otherwise, you could damage the

engine. If you are using gasoline

rated at 87 octane or higher and you

hear heavy knocking, the engine

needs service.

 

:D

Edited September 3, 2009 by TomServo92

[TomServo92]

It's not FWD per se - it's the fact that the engine is mounted longitudinally which puts the exhaust manifolds front and rear instead of side by side. Reduces the options for intake and exhaust routing.

 

That must be why most Audi's have a north-south configuration even though they are FWD-based. Audi didn't like the intake-exhaust restrictions of a longitudinal configuration.

[therealmrmustang]

...Audi didn't like the intake-exhaust restrictions of a longitudinal configuration.

 

 

I'm sure that you meant transverse configuration.

[fordmantpw]

Just so you know I'm not lying:

 

 

 

:D

 

So how do I know you didn't just type that up? j/k

 

So let me get this straight. The 6.2 is approved for 87 octane, but you may get spark knock when you use it, so maybe don't use it?

[TomServo92]

I'm sure that you meant transverse configuration.

 

Sorry. Yes, that's what I meant to type.

[TomServo92]

So how do I know you didn't just type that up? j/k

 

So let me get this straight. The 6.2 is approved for 87 octane, but you may get spark knock when you use it, so maybe don't use it?

 

I think it's just a cover for piston slap....

 

:lol:

Edited September 3, 2009 by TomServo92

[fordmantpw]

I think it's just a cover for piston slap....

 

:lol:

 

[akirby]

Sorry. Yes, that's what I meant to type.

 

My mistake. I said longitudinal when I meant transverse. I was only off by 90 degrees.

[rmc523]

4) With a 300 HP entry level mustang, that DOES leave the door open for a 225 or so HP 4 banger to be an entry level option. The problem is, what Longitudinal mount 4 bangers does Ford have anymore?

 

I could see the EB-4 being available in an upcoming Mustang as a base model. Well, if you think about it, we haven't seen the 3.5/7 available in a RWD configuration thus far either, yet it's in the Mustang....

 

Wonder if the MKX will get the 3.7.

 

I can't give a 100% guarantee, as I'm guessing, but I see absolutely no reason for it not to recieve the 3.7, since everything else in the lineup (except Navigator and TC) has the 3.7 standard. The EB-4 being available wouldn't surprise me either.

[ANTAUS]

Supposedly from what I "heard" 2 years ago, the refreshened MKX will come with 300HP. HOW it gets there, it didn't specify. So I'm guessing the 3.7L can easily make that if need be...

[rmc523]

Supposedly from what I "heard" 2 years ago, the refreshened MKX will come with 300HP. HOW it gets there, it didn't specify. So I'm guessing the 3.7L can easily make that if need be...

 

Hmm, that'd be nice.....and would certainly fit within the realm of possibility if these Mustang numbers are true.