silvermike Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 I mean only 210Hp out of a 4.0L V6? IT shoul dbe around 250 and should be the duratec 35. The GT should be around 360HP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius1701 Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 I mean only 210Hp out of a 4.0L V6? IT shoul dbe around 250 and should be the duratec 35. The GT should be around 360HP. Have you actually had the opportunity to drive one? I have had an'05 that I purchased in November of '04, (She is my daily driver-does great in winter as well!) and am extremely satisfied- sub 7 second 0-60 1/4 mile in high 14-low 15 seconds. The car does not feel like 210HP.(More like 235-240!) While I would like to have more power, this car would run right with my 1994 5.0GT. Planning to do some mods eventually, but will have to wait due to my little daughter -born 4-4-06 :D !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iteched Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 My wife has the 2004 40th anniversary V6 model as a daily driver. We like the car a lot and it performs well enough for our use. Only thing I don't like is the electronic throttle. There is too much delay when the throttle is pressed as well as released. It reacts to the throttle completely different then my 4.2 (F-150) which has the normal cable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius1701 Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 My wife has the 2004 40th anniversary V6 model as a daily driver. We like the car a lot and it performs well enough for our use. Only thing I don't like is the electronic throttle. There is too much delay when the throttle is pressed as well as released. It reacts to the throttle completely different then my 4.2 (F-150) which has the normal cable. If you have a 2004 Stang, your throttle is still cable actuated. Fly-By-Wire began with design change in 2005. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 I mean only 210Hp out of a 4.0L V6? IT shoul dbe around 250 and should be the duratec 35. The GT should be around 360HP. Give it time. The 3.5 will find its way into the Mustang sooner or later. And while it only has 210 HP with the 4.0, it still has what, 240 lb-ft torque? It's more than adequate for a BASE engine. If you want more oomph, you step up to the GT. The base Mustang has always been more about the image than the performance. No reason to change that. It keeps it affordable to buy and affordable to insure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 Has anyone here had a 4.0 on a dyno? I bet it is underrated for HP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius1701 Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 (edited) Has anyone here had a 4.0 on a dyno? I bet it is underrated for HP. Only the "My Butt" Dyno and it sez more like 235-240HP :D However, I have heard reports of 170-190 RWHPon the dyno. equals more than 220 crankshaft HP. Edited September 6, 2006 by Tiberius1701 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 I bought a brand new Mustang GT back in 1986, with the good, old 5.0L V8, that put out 200 HP. We were thrilled, back then, with all that HP. 20 years later and we now complain about the base V6 only putting out a measly 210 HP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I bought a brand new Mustang GT back in 1986, with the good, old 5.0L V8, that put out 200 HP. We were thrilled, back then, with all that HP. 20 years later and we now complain about the base V6 only putting out a measly 210 HP. Keep in mind the 86 Mustang weighed about 700-800 lbs less than a new one. I do generally agree with you though. The horsepower wars are on again. Let's just hope it turns out better than the last time this happened. Mustang II anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmay's06 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Why would the added HP make you happy or would you still come around and find a reason to complain about the MUSTANG. GO away troll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nakas69stang Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 The V6 has more then enough power!!! I for myself got a 05GT for more power (third childhood) ha ha!! The mustang and F-150 is my meaning of FORD!!! Happy Trails!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swenson88 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 It's kind of hard to complain about the V6 Mustang having low power when Ford clearly offers more powerful Mustangs for you to buy. If the V6 Mustang was powerful less people would opt up for the more powerful (and more profitable) versions. Doesn't make much business sense. I agree that it should (and probably will) get the 3.5 as it gradually replaces other Ford V6's, but give it time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 The 4.0 is a torque engine designed and used in trucks (ranger) and SUVs (explorer). The 3.5 will eventually replace it but there are many other vehicles that need it first (like the 500 and Fusion) and it will take some time to get production ramped up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim kakouris Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 ...abouy 100,000 buyers in 2005 thought the v6 was worth the $20,000 or so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchdevil Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 (edited) ...abouy 100,000 buyers in 2005 thought the v6 was worth the $20,000 or so... Here we are in an age when V6 cars are now putting out more performance than V8 engines did in Mustangs of yesteryear. I don't understand why anyone would complain about the power of the V6 when there are available alternatives. If you want the power of a V8 then buy the GT. That is what it is there for. The Mustang is clearly in the original tradition of having a full line of alternatives to suit buyers desires. If you want power, a high content of options or a convertible then you must pay for it. The Mustang is still a buy these days buy no matter how it's optioned compared to some other cars over $30,000. If that is not good enough then it needs to be rethinked if someone has caviar tastes on a welfare budget. That is why I am driving a car under $10,000 right now until I can afford to buy a Mustang. And when I do buy a Mustang, it will be a compromise of what I can comfortably afford and still have something dynamic that I would love to own. It probably won't be a GT or convertible but I can be happy with a smaller piece of the pie and feel like my esteem is intact by not setting myself up to feel I need more to feel complete. I don't buy into the idea some people have that a Mustang has to be a V8, convertible or specialty model to enjoy what the essence of a Mustang really is... Just like I don't have to have front row tickets or a signed autograph to enjoy my favorite music artist... It doesn't make me less of a fan... Edited September 8, 2006 by Watchdevil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sixcav Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 On the one hand it is true the V6 Mustang is a decent peformer. I've driven a couple of them and they were alright. On the other hand I have to agree with the first poster to some extent. Most other competitors V6 powered sedans have more HP than Ford's V6 Mustang. A V6 Accord for instance is 242 HP, the Altima 260, the Camry 263. I don't think it would be that tough for Ford to get 230 or 240 hp out of the 4.0 motor, it's certainly capable of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 (edited) On the one hand it is true the V6 Mustang is a decent peformer. I've driven a couple of them and they were alright. On the other hand I have to agree with the first poster to some extent. Most other competitors V6 powered sedans have more HP than Ford's V6 Mustang. A V6 Accord for instance is 242 HP, the Altima 260, the Camry 263. I don't think it would be that tough for Ford to get 230 or 240 hp out of the 4.0 motor, it's certainly capable of it. But none of those competitors you mentioned offer a V8. Let's call a spade a spade. The V6 in the Mustang is a BASE engine. How do the Accord, Altima, and Camry BASE engines stack up? Let's keep in mind the 4.0 is tuned more for torque delivery than horsepower. Sure, it likely COULD be tuned to make 230-240 HP, which looks nice on paper, but it would likely have adverse effects on the torque output and/or fuel economy. Edited September 11, 2006 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruteger Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Have you actually had the opportunity to drive one? I have had an'05 that I purchased in November of '04, (She is my daily driver-does great in winter as well!) and am extremely satisfied- sub 7 second 0-60 1/4 mile in high 14-low 15 seconds. The car does not feel like 210HP.(More like 235-240!) While I would like to have more power, this car would run right with my 1994 5.0GT. Planning to do some mods eventually, but will have to wait due to my little daughter -born 4-4-06 :D !! Everything is relative. Back in the sixties, the heyday of the musclecar, a typical 6.3L to 6.5L V8 powered 2-door intermediate-sized or 'pony' car (383 to 396 cubic inch) was rated at around 325-335 SAE gross horsepower (a much higher way of rating than is used today). These are the engines that powered the vast majority of domestic musclecars and they were only good for high 14 - low 15 second numbers in the quarter mile, a number very close to what can be achieved by today's 4.0L V6 Mustang. The difference is the manner by which these times are achieved. In the sixties, at wide-open throttle from a standing start, all of the venturis of a carburator would 'dump' into the engine, making for a dramatic take-off. Today's computer-controlled fuel management systems apply the power and torque in a much more linear, smooth, and efficient manner, but are still every bit as fast with an engine two-thirds the size of a sixties musclecar. So, while a V6 Mustang might 'suck' compared to the same vintage V8 today, that's certainly not the case when compared to V8s that were available as little as 10 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sixcav Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 All true fellas. There's no doubting the V6 in today's Mustang is a good performer. And when I advocate 230 - 240 hp yes it's all about making the car more appealing on paper. That's because most people that buy those cars are not real car enthusiasts who understand the difference between a torque car and an rpm car. They just see the hp numbers and draw conclusions from there. It sucks but it's reality. Of course as you pointed out they would need to find a way to do it and still make the car meet fuel efficiency parameters and what have you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted September 16, 2006 Author Share Posted September 16, 2006 OK even though the V6 Mustang has 240LBS of torque, smaller V6's have more. The 3.2Tl has only 7lbs less torque and 60 more HP. All rival 3.5L engines have 250+ torque. Those cars don' have V8 options but the charger and 300 have 3.5L 250HP 250 torque V6 engines and optional V8s. Why can't the V6 Mustang have the 3.5 at 265Hp and the V8 one at 5.4L with over 400HP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 Why can't the V6 Mustang have the 3.5 at 265Hp and the V8 one at 5.4L with over 400HP? Who says it won't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 (edited) OK even though the V6 Mustang has 240LBS of torque, smaller V6's have more. The 3.2Tl has only 7lbs less torque and 60 more HP. All rival 3.5L engines have 250+ torque. Those cars don' have V8 options but the charger and 300 have 3.5L 250HP 250 torque V6 engines and optional V8s. Why can't the V6 Mustang have the 3.5 at 265Hp and the V8 one at 5.4L with over 400HP? Again, the numbers can be deceiving. The 4.0 delivers its torque at a pretty low RPM compared to some of its fanicier smaller displacement competitors. It's not all about peak numbers. It's about the delivery over the entire width of the power band. 4.0 Mustang - 240 lb ft @ 3500 RPM 3.2 TL - 233 lb-ft @ 5000 RPM That's quite a difference in where you'll actually feel that torque. Edited September 16, 2006 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrtran Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 Again, the numbers can be deceiving. The 4.0 delivers its torque at a pretty low RPM compared to some of its fanicier smaller displacement competitors. It's not all about peak numbers. It's about the delivery over the entire width of the power band. 4.0 Mustang - 240 lb ft @ 3500 RPM 3.2 TL - 233 lb-ft @ 5000 RPM That's quite a difference in where you'll actually feel that torque. 1985 1/2 Mustang SVO - 240 lb-ft @ 3000 RPM (I know, I know - different rating standard and all, but still - 2 less cylinders!) SCNR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted September 18, 2006 Share Posted September 18, 2006 1985 1/2 Mustang SVO - 240 lb-ft @ 3000 RPM (I know, I know - different rating standard and all, but still - 2 less cylinders!) SCNR Yep...that's why the SVO's kept up pretty well with the GT's of the same era. Interesting cars no doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotLap Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 I mean only 210Hp out of a 4.0L V6? IT shoul dbe around 250 and should be the duratec 35. The GT should be around 360HP. I see your point but try to remember that the V6 is the entry level Mustang and as such that's how it is positioned in Ford's line-up. While I see other auto makers with more exotic/powerful V6's - those are ususally their top of the line offerings and as long as the V8 remains in the Mustang line up - you will probably not see Ford bringing a high powered, exotic V6 engine to the base Mustang. More likely, Ford will continue gradually tweeking/refining the existing V6 or bring in another corporate V6 with increased hp. If you look at the V6 as a stand alone vehicle - I agree with your point it is kind of underpowered compared to other V6 offerings out there - but if you look at it in the context of the entire Mustang model offerings - then it fills it's niche nicely. 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.