Ford V6 – first car to break 300 hp and over 30 mpg

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Boosh Brus

Am I missing something here?
"Ford’s confirmation of an EPA-rated 31 highway mpg rating to go along with the 305 horsepower rating makes the 2011 Mustang the most fuel efficient car with over 300 hp ever produced. "

A Mustang with 224kw and a highway fuel use of 7.6 liters per 100 kilometers
A BMW 550i has 270kw with highway fuel use of 7.2 liters per 100 kilometers

Its still impressive but not ground breaking.

Hang on,

you're talking steady state highway driving, not the EPA figures

EPA highway cycle for 2010 Mustang 4.6 Auto = 23 mpg or 10.2 litres/100klm
EPA highway cycle for 2010 BMW 550i Auto = 22 mpg or 10.7 litres/100klm

EPA highway cycle for 2011 Mustang 5.0 Auto = 25 mpg or 9.45 litres/100klm

Not bad for a 400 hp car.....

[Franco Cozzo]

Also remember, a US Gallon is 3.78L compared to the normal imperial gallon which is 4.4L I think.

Remember that if you calculate manually

[Road_Warrior]

Even so, the online calculators which are quire clearly US-based, give a result that shows the V6 Mustang to be no-that-brilliant compared to the I6 in terms of fuel efficiency. It has the wood over it in power, that is about it.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Even so, the online calculators which are quire clearly US-based, give a result that shows the V6 Mustang to be no-that-brilliant compared to the I6 in terms of fuel efficiency. It has the wood over it in power, that is about it.

There's no direct comparison between US EPA city/highway/combined fuel economy and our
Urban/Extra urban/combined fuel economy figures, he test loops are completely different.

Our Falcon I-6 has yet to prove its fuel economy to Euro VI, the US tier 2 Bin 5 regulation actually
exceeds Euro VI emission specifications so the Duratec 37 is already there, the I-6 has to get there.....

Some European makers are notorious for fooling the Euro test loops,
that's why the US EPA tests emissions outside the test loops to
catch auto makers trying "funny tricks".

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by jpd80

There's no direct comparison between US EPA city/highway/combined fuel economy and our
Urban/Extra urban/combined fuel economy figures, he test loops are completely different.

Our Falcon I-6 has yet to prove its fuel economy to Euro VI, the US tier 2 Bin 5 regulation actually
exceeds Euro VI emission specifications so the Duratec 37 is already there, the I-6 has to get there.....

Some European makers are notorious for fooling the Euro test loops,
that's why the US EPA tests emissions outside the test loops to
catch auto makers trying "funny tricks".

There lies the reality of the situation when trying to compare the two motors: Very hard thing to do. Thanks for pointing that out John.

In other words... lets not compare the Barra 4.0 to the D37.
It's better to poke fun at the alloycrap, anyway.


Ultimately the longer stroke and inline configuration would be a plus with bottom end and smoothness. Not so good for packaging, and consequently chassis balance... although the SV6 still lags 2 seconds per lap behind XR6 around a particular circuit. That's embarrassing.


Back on topic. To achieve this is well worth bragging about, it's a definite draw-card for those in that pricing bracket. The order books are full, not deterred by the higher price rise for this upcoming model, so it's another sweetener for those who've ordered.
I'm waiting for the reviews on this motor and hoping it's as smooth as it is powerful.

[mik]

some good points made, it should be interesting to compare the 2 engines in flesh.

[Quicksand]

Originally Posted by mik

it should be interesting to compare the 2 engines in flesh.

I'd imagine it wouldn't taste very good.

[388cube_edxr8]

Originally Posted by Inducted_Breeze

I'd imagine it wouldn't taste very good.

lol smart a$$

[ebxr82nv]

ok so it makes power and torque, but where in the rev range? an I6 motor will always make both earlier and better than a v6.

[Stav]

Fuel smuel!!! What 1/4 mile times are these anchors pulling?

[Chilliman]

Originally Posted by Stav

Fuel smuel!!! What 1/4 mile times are these anchors pulling?

We'll find out for sure on the official test day in L.A. - March 29.

But in the meantime a perusal of Mustang and US Ford enthusiast forums, for what its worth, have people punting anywhere from an optimistic 13.6seconds to a more conservative 14.4 seconds for the Mustang V6 with the middle ground falling around 14.0seconds dead.

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by ebxr82nv

an I6 motor will always make both earlier and better than a v6.

:

So a 3L I6 will be better than a 4L V6?

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Stav

Fuel smuel!!! What 1/4 mile times are these anchors pulling?

They have'nt been tested yet. I estimate 13.7 to be quite achievable.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Chilliman

We'll find out for sure on the official test day in L.A. - March 29.

But in the meantime a perusal of Mustang and US Ford enthusiast forums, for what its worth, have people punting anywhere from an optimistic 13.6seconds to a more conservative 14.4 seconds for the Mustang V6 with the middle ground falling around 14.0seconds dead.

We will need to be a bit wary the times and economy are for the stock V-6 2011 Stang, not the "Performance Package" option (strut brace, shocks, sway bars, diff, wheels, etc) which is 1588kg compared to 1700kg standard.

[4Vman]

Yes... not sure you can really translate the mustang results into theoretical Falcon results.....

The vehicles are different shapes, different weights, use different fuels, have different transmissions etc etc....

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

They have'nt been tested yet. I estimate 13.7 to be quite achievable.

I'll throw a punt, purely based on tractive effort: 14.13

[Falc'man]

:rolleyes:




0 to 60 in 5.1 seconds and the quarter mile in 13.7!!! at 102.0 mph. :sm_headba

[Wally]

Fess up, they had been tested yet hadn't they!

[Falc'man]

They obviously had, but there was no word or results in the public domain, afaik.

I was guesstimating.
I don't punt.

It was obvious to me.
The 2010 Mustang, 4.6 litre 315hp (13.5s)
...vs...
The 2011 V6 Mustang, with a little less power & weight, and missing a fair chunk of torque. Even I figured that one out.

[outback_ute]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

13.7!!![/B] at 102.0 mph. :sm_headba

This will include roll-out though, so I'd suggest the real/raw figure would be 14.0sec

[HSE2]

Play nice everyone

[FG XR]

was this the v6 engine drive.com.au rumored was to have twin turbo in the F6?

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Coyote V8

was this the v6 engine drive.com.au rumored was to have twin turbo in the F6?

Back then it was what Ford had actually planned (more than rumour) but it fell through. It was the 3.5 ecoboost currently found in some Ford models in the US.

[FG XR]

what a weapon that would have being! :

hopefully ford aus deliver the goods with i6 euro iv

[Ghiadude]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

This will include roll-out though, so I'd suggest the real/raw figure would be 14.0sec

but rollout happens only on a dragstrip which is generally accepted as the standard for measuring 0-400m. AFAIK this whole rollout thing came about when wheels and motor couldnt get the same times as the guys at the dragstrip and then perpetuated the myth that drag strip times are inaccurate...
:

[outback_ute]

I know that, and it is the standard for magazine testing in the States (some even quote a 0-60 figure with rollout...) but it is not the standard for magazine testing here as you point out. I don't think they say actual strip times are inaccurate, just different. As for 'accuracy', that depends if they (US magazines) time the cars with an onboard system or use the christmas tree - which brings the issue of grip levels of a strip vs. 'normal' bitumen, and ultimately whether you want to know how fast a car is on a road or dragstrip.

[Falc'man]

Excuse the long ads...

This is a little review on the new 3.7 litre V6 2011 Mustang.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGZB4qe4d-M

It doesn't sound too bad from the inside.

[Falc'man]

http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...ustang-v6.html

Yes, these are both all-American muscle cars. No, neither one has a V8. Does that make this any less of a grudge match? Well...yeah, but consider the numbers for a moment.

Both the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT and the 2011 Ford Mustang V6 put out over 300 horsepower. That was a big number not too long ago. Still is. They also have six-speed manual transmissions, limited-slip differentials and at least 19-inch wheels and tires. That's some pretty decent equipment for what many consider "base" models.

And you know what? They turn some pretty good numbers, too. Nothing that will strike fear into anything with a V8, but certainly good enough to hold their own against a 370Z or Hyundai Genesis Coupe. How fast exactly? Click the jump to find what these two V6-powered American muscle cars can do at the track.

[PHP]Chevrolet Camaro LT Ford Mustang V6



0-30mph 2.5 2.2
0-45mph 4.1 3.8
0-60mph 6.1 5.6
0-75mph 9.0 8.1
0-60mph with roll out 5.7 5.3



1/4 mile 14.3 @ 98.0 13.9 @ 101.2



30-0mph 28.0 26.0
60-0mph 111.8 103.0



Skidpad 0.86 0.91
Slalom 68.2 68.6



As-tested weight 3790.0 3508.0[/PHP]


Camaro

Acceleration Comments: There's good speed here, but the V6 doesn't do anything to satisfy from a sound or feel perspective. Shifts are met with an unpleasant wind-up in the powertrain. Shifter is high in effort and somewhat notchy, but finds gears without a fight.

Braking Comments: Very good stopping distance, but pedal feel is lacking. Hard to determine if ABS is active with a pedal this soft. Not confidence-inspiring at the limit.

Handling Comments: Largely the same less-than-inspiring feel of the V8 Camaro. Front tires wash out with little feel or feedback on the skid pad, and despite decent numbers, the V6 Camaro isn't terribly satisfying in these tests either. Again, it feels as if this chassis is constantly trying to manage a huge wheel and tire combo. Nothing here is truly bad, but it's also not truly rewarding.

Mustang

Acceleration Coments: Holy crap, this is a hard-running V6, more than enough power to overwhelm its tires leaving the line. Managing wheelspin is key in this car to get good acceleration times. Also gets good rubber on the 2-3 shift. Tranny doesn't like to rush that shift, however. We missed 3rd gear several times. Otherwise, though, this is a powerful, free-revving, nice-sounding V6.

Braking Comments: 103 feet? From a Mustang? Wow. Pedal feel isn't anything special, but there's no sign of fade and the short distance is outstanding.

Handling Comments: Truly impressive manners from a live-axle car. Balance is good as is typical with recent Mustangs, but there's more than that. There's a true sense of what's happening at the wheels with this Mustang, which provides ample driver confidence. And it's better than the independently sprung Camaro in both tests. Ford is doing something right.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

:

So a 3L I6 will be better than a 4L V6?

The I6 configuration would still be smoother.

[Falc'man]

V6 Mustang commercial.