NLPRacing Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 No. Why? Insurance. IMHO, a sub-300 hp engine should be available as the base model. It's a Mustang, insurance will always be high. Even when there was a 4 cylinder, 120 HP model, insurance was still crazy high just because it was a Mustang. I can't think of a slower car than an 80's automatic, 4 cylinder Mustang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrk1984 Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 For everyone saying the 3.7 can't be 315hp, there are a few things to consider: Its going from FWD to RWD with a new intake, exhaust routing, and possibly new heads/cams. The DOHC 4.6 was rated at 260hp in the FWD 1996 Continental, while the RWD cars had 280/290/305hp (Mark VIII/Cobra) So the the old 4.6 ratings were 20-45 hp less in the FWD compared to the RWD couterparts of the same years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 For everyone saying the 3.7 can't be 315hp, there are a few things to consider: Its going from FWD to RWD with a new intake, exhaust routing, and possibly new heads/cams. The DOHC 4.6 was rated at 260hp in the FWD 1996 Continental, while the RWD cars had 280/290/305hp (Mark VIII/Cobra) So the the old 4.6 ratings were 20-45 hp less in the FWD compared to the RWD couterparts of the same years. Torque steer mitigation and automatic transmission preservation, most likely. And many companies have done this, as someone alluded to: Chrysler's 3.5L makes 230 HP (Avenger/Sebring) or 250 HP (300/Charger/Challenger). GM's LLT (3.6 DI) makes 280 HP (Acadia/Enclave/Traverse, LaCrosse) or 306 HP (CTS, STS). Nissan's VQ35 makes up to 290 HP (Maxima) or 306 (M35). Toyota's 3.5L makes up to 271 HP (ES 350) or 306 (IS/GS 350). There's a lot more in these engines that Ford hadn't been able to unleash in its current configurations. The Mustang seems to be the perfect car in which to show off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I wonder how fuel economy will enter into all of this. Ford has publicly stated that all future vehicles will have class-leading fuel economy. I wonder if they'll trade off a few HP in favor of more MPG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I wonder how fuel economy will enter into all of this. Ford has publicly stated that all future vehicles will have class-leading fuel economy. I wonder if they'll trade off a few HP in favor of more MPG. Its my understanding that they will from reading a web chat from one of the eco boost engineers. I cant wrap my head around a ecoboost v6 Mustang even though I realize the potential. Some will love it but I just dig the V8 growl. One day Im afraid sooner and not later the V8 will be gone. Speaking of which the stang does not meet the 2012 crash requirments if I understand correctly. That tells me a probable weight gain is on the way. Am I wrong? The challenger and camaro both already meet the standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Its my understanding that they will from reading a web chat from one of the eco boost engineers. I cant wrap my head around a ecoboost v6 Mustang even though I realize the potential. Some will love it but I just dig the V8 growl. One day Im afraid sooner and not later the V8 will be gone. Speaking of which the stang does not meet the 2012 crash requirments if I understand correctly. That tells me a probable weight gain is on the way. Am I wrong? The challenger and camaro both already meet the standards. Isn't it supposed to be fully redesigned for then anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Isn't it supposed to be fully redesigned for then anyway? I thought it was 2014?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 IIRC, Ford has said the next Mustang will be smaller than the current one, so while the weight gain necessary to meet collision regs may result in a heavier car, but the overall smaller size may keep it from being as heavy as the Camaro or Challenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 It's a Mustang, insurance will always be high. Even when there was a 4 cylinder, 120 HP model, insurance was still crazy high just because it was a Mustang. I can't think of a slower car than an 80's automatic, 4 cylinder Mustang. Depends, hell my 06 GT Mustang is cheaper to insure then my 02 SVT Focus was! The new Mustang has design features that make it cheaper to fix, you can see this when you open up the hood and look at the fender braces on it, they are sectioned out allowing the autobody shop to cut out just the damaged part. There was a press release on this when the S197 came out also about it being easier to repair and cheaper to insure..plus I think the avg age of the typical Mustang buyer went up too (safer drivers) so that helps too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I thought it was 2014?? I dunno, could be, I thought I remembered reading about a 2012-2013 full redesign timetable.....could be way off base, though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted September 6, 2009 Author Share Posted September 6, 2009 (edited) Iv heard MY13...which goes along with Fords 3 year commitment. Edited September 6, 2009 by ausrutherford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 No. Why? Insurance. IMHO, a sub-300 hp engine should be available as the base model. I know in QC you pay extra in insurance if your engine is over 4.5L in size for cars and light trucks. I don't know about power outputs off-hand. My father the dealer used to recommend getting a Mustang LX with the 5.0 option when it was available because the insurance didn't discriminate except between the LX and GT. Like I said, I don't know how it is now off-hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 The 3.7 will do 315 HP. Do you think it would be a good choice for the Mustang base engine? Yes, it would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I think the insurance industry have many other variables to look at, when they come up with the insurance coverage on vehicles. Example, I'm paying much less on my Lincoln LS V8 with 280HP will pay substantially less ($720 for the year-and I have hefty numbers on coverage on it), compared to my 240HP Mustang GT of years ago (clean record whole time)...I do not believe it's based specifically on a magical number or 300HP threshold, rather, it's based on actual incidents, theft, reports, crashes, mortality rate, crash ratings. Plus, if 300HP were a magical number that would double your car insurance, I find that as a petty excuse when many other carmakers have no issues passing that threshold (Genesis Coupe, 370Z, IS350, G37, CTS) etc.... IN other words, if THEY can pass the threshold, they I dont see why Ford can't...if the person can't really afford their car insurance, then they shouldnt be buying the vehicle, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenp77 Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 The 3.7 will do 315 HP. Do you think it would be a good choice for the Mustang base engine?Blue: U seeing anything yet on the coyote in the f-150?????? Wonder when for will release some pics and numbers like they jus t did on the 6.7L diesel???Thnx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 The 3.7 will do 315 HP. Do you think it would be a good choice for the Mustang base engine? Honestly, I think that is overkill for a base engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETSOLVER Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 "plus I think the avg age of the typical Mustang buyer went up too" :yup: anyone wonder where that demo needs to end? somehow Ford has to spread that 'Stang thang around without diluting it. glad that isn't my task. Not sure if I could. retro syling, front to back, cheap but soft...ever on. The probe thing will never be lived down, but Mustang needs to capture new customers. We milked them for all they are worth. ($helby anyone? cough cough) my current thinking is something along the lines of a 370Z, 4/5ths scale. Simple, pure and making no apologies for its lack. Scaled back top end platform, known engineering, unpretentious (keep your stickers, badges, scoops, and wings, the design is pure) and as dirt solid reliable as my kettle. That typed, I doubt I'll be in the market, but if I bought one for the kids, uncle might just trade for the weekend... :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AM2 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) For everyone saying the 3.7 can't be 315hp, there are a few things to consider: Its going from FWD to RWD with a new intake, exhaust routing, and possibly new heads/cams. The DOHC 4.6 was rated at 260hp in the FWD 1996 Continental, while the RWD cars had 280/290/305hp (Mark VIII/Cobra) So the the old 4.6 ratings were 20-45 hp less in the FWD compared to the RWD couterparts of the same years. Like what I said in my previous post.... "The Fusion's 3.0 liter V6 makes 240hp, thats 80hp/L. If the 3.7 liter V6 was tuned to produce the same 80hp/L as the 3.0 liter V6, it would be making 296hp. 296hp is so close to 300hp, I think getting 300+ horsepower is very possible for the 3.7 liter V6." I guess anything over than the standard 3.7's 273hp should be good enough for the Mustang since its much lighter than its competitors. The 3.7 liter Mustang V6 will most likely weigh the same or slightly less than the current 4.0 liter Mustang V6, even with the standard 3.7's 273hp, the power to weight ratio would already be close to that of the more powerful but much heavier Camaro V6. Edited September 7, 2009 by AM2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 "plus I think the avg age of the typical Mustang buyer went up too" :yup: anyone wonder where that demo needs to end? No its not a bad thing, keep in mind that the typical car buyer has aged along with the rest of the country. Anyways, baby boomers who grew up with the Mustang are more willing to spend 30k+ on a new second car... Interest in the Mustang is still strong in younger people (hell Ford is plugging the drifting angle with the 2010!), but they also have a lot more choices out there then they did 20-30 yrs ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 How specific do you need him to be? Uhhhh... seriously? There are no specifics, only rhetoric. If you can find any, feel free to correct me. That's why vehicles are "engineered" for their intended use. Ford won't put a 7000 RPM screamer with 4.30's in a Mustang for mass production use. Since when is a 7k engine considered a screamer? The 3.7 will do 315 HP. Do you think it would be a good choice for the Mustang base engine? I'll take 2 please. It's a Mustang, insurance will always be high. Heard that. The insurance on my first Mustang was over $400 a month! I wonder how fuel economy will enter into all of this. Ford has publicly stated that all future vehicles will have class-leading fuel economy. I wonder if they'll trade off a few HP in favor of more MPG. They will, but not enough to give the Camaro an edge. Isn't it supposed to be fully redesigned for then anyway? No. Honestly, I think that is overkill for a base engine. There's no such thing as overkill in a fragmented market. Read a book. The 3.7 liter Mustang V6 will most likely weigh the same or slightly less than the current 4.0 liter Mustang... Less, and not slightly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Heads, intake package and exhaust are all different from those currently used in the MKS. Ah, well, that changes things a bit. I would not have thought Ford would redo the heads on a three year old motor, but if they have.... 10% hp improvement on the 3.7 as currently designed seems a bit too much to expect, but if they redid the heads... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Ah, well, that changes things a bit. I would not have thought Ford would redo the heads on a three year old motor, but if they have.... 10% hp improvement on the 3.7 as currently designed seems a bit too much to expect, but if they redid the heads... seems to me, naturally aspirated 3.7 @315 hp almost embarass's the eco engine, hell all that extra plumbing etc for a MERE 50 more hp? will be interesting to see how they perform AGAINST each other, Mustang is lighter by quite a bit......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 seems to me, naturally aspirated 3.7 @315 hp almost embarass's the eco engine, hell all that extra plumbing etc for a MERE 50 more hp? will be interesting to see how they perform AGAINST each other, Mustang is lighter by quite a bit......... Don't forget the SHO/MKS are power limited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 seems to me, naturally aspirated 3.7 @315 hp almost embarass's the eco engine, hell all that extra plumbing etc for a MERE 50 more hp? will be interesting to see how they perform AGAINST each other, Mustang is lighter by quite a bit......... While you make a good point the TT3.5 in the rwd application would probably make more like 400-425 imo. When it finally hits the F150 we will know more and somewhere I read it will be tuned for more torque then hp so you can bet a Mustang would probably be a real screamer with one under the hood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Don't forget the SHO/MKS are power limited. that I know...and from what I have heard by over 100hp........sure makes a case for RWD in my book......... 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.