Quote:Despite being smaller than the outgoing 4.0-liter V6, the dual-overhead cam 3.7-liter's horsepower and torque ratings represent massive improvements over the 2010 model (305 HP dismisses 210 HP and 280 lb-ft. plays 240 torques). In fact, that's more horsepower than the 4.6-liter V8 Mustang made just a few years ago. While the 305-horse figure only allows the Mustang to pip the crosstown Camaro by a single all-important stallion in the pony car bragging wars, Ford says the powertrain will be good for 30 miles-per-gallon on the highway when paired with its new six-speed automatic, also one notch better than the Chevy.
Wow, I'd actually consider a V6 now...Love these numbers for the V6 as I would assume this means some good things for the GT. Camaro/Chally who? B)
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/30/2...-2009-preview/
Nice.
Can't wait to pump these big guys at the track........or get pumped. lol
SVT ZX3,Nov 30 2009, 05:05 PM Wrote:Quote:Despite being smaller than the outgoing 4.0-liter V6, the dual-overhead cam 3.7-liter's horsepower and torque ratings represent massive improvements over the 2010 model (305 HP dismisses 210 HP and 280 lb-ft. plays 240 torques). In fact, that's more horsepower than the 4.6-liter V8 Mustang made just a few years ago. While the 305-horse figure only allows the Mustang to pip the crosstown Camaro by a single all-important stallion in the pony car bragging wars, Ford says the powertrain will be good for 30 miles-per-gallon on the highway when paired with its new six-speed automatic, also one notch better than the Chevy.
Wow, I'd actually consider a V6 now...Love these numbers for the V6 as I would assume this means some good things for the GT. Camaro/Chally who? B)
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/30/2...-2009-preview/
[right][snapback]297896[/snapback][/right]
Probably a tweaked version of the Lincoln Duratec 37 ... which means that bolting up the twin turbo 3.5 could be an easy option too ... very interesting.
...very nice... I could actually see myself behind the wheel of a 6cyl Mustang in the future with this on the horizon!
But it makes you think what they could do to the V8 :)
Thing is though, will this engine be lighter or heavier than the outgoing 4.0L?
Either will require suspension reworking to account for the weight differential.
Great now I'll definitely get punked out by V6 Stangs on the track :ph34r: (Current gen it really depends on who is behind the wheel)
NefCanuck
MMMM 5.0L
What's the starting price on one of those puppies?
ZTWsquared,Nov 30 2009, 06:03 PM Wrote:Probably a tweaked version of the Lincoln Duratec 37 ... which means that bolting up the twin turbo 3.5 could be an easy option too ... very interesting.
[right][snapback]297903[/snapback][/right]
I see what you did there. Now I want to try that.
Keep in mind that the stock EcoBoost 3.5L doesn't need 91 octane to run. So, chances are the 3.7L V6 makes all that power with 87 as well.
This is why I stick with Ford. Year after year, their engines are top-notch.
Time to swap the 2010 Escape 240HP V6 into my Escape :P
Grr... must resist urge to try and shoehorn bigger motor into car (3.5L would be easy enough, but the 3.7 would probably require a literal crowbar to get into the engine bay :ph34r:)
NefCanuck
NefCanuck,Dec 1 2009, 01:06 PM Wrote:Grr... must resist urge to try and shoehorn bigger motor into car (3.5L would be easy enough, but the 3.7 would probably require a literal crowbar to get into the engine bay :ph34r:)
NefCanuck
[right][snapback]297915[/snapback][/right]
Its the same engine.....the cylinders have been bored out
Someone tell Ford to get rid of those awful gauges!!
![[Image: 500x_2011_ford_mustang_v6_3.jpg]](http://cache-foo-02.gawkerassets.com/gawker/assets/images/12/2009/11/500x_2011_ford_mustang_v6_3.jpg)
Damn, am I the only one who hates this part of the retro look!
D-Dub,Dec 1 2009, 01: Wrote:NefCanuck,Dec 1 2009, 01:06 PM Wrote:Grr... must resist urge to try and shoehorn bigger motor into car (3.5L would be easy enough, but the 3.7 would probably require a literal crowbar to get into the engine bay :ph34r:)
NefCanuck
[right][snapback]297915[/snapback][/right]
Its the same engine.....the cylinders have been bored out
[right][snapback]297918[/snapback][/right]
Ah, I did not know that.... good grief, I need to win the Lotto Max, then I would embark on an insane project like that, just to say that I did it :lol: (
Of course it would probably make the car nose heavy as all hell :P)
NefCanuck
Gravter,Dec 2 2009, 09:13 AM Wrote:Someone tell Ford to get rid of those awful gauges!!
Damn, am I the only one who hates this part of the retro look!
[right][snapback]297937[/snapback][/right]
You're the first one I've heard complain about the "Twin Cowl" look in the Mustang :huh:
Personally I love it mainly because it reminds me of my dad's old '67 Mustang (I think that and A/C were the few options that car had, hell, it had power brakes and manual steering :ph34r:)
NefCanuck
I guess I simply love modern look... but not too modern as in digital readout... I hate those too.
My 99 Cobra wasn't too modern but I loved the gauge layout.
My brother-in-law has a 64 1/2 stang with a 300 in-line 6 and has these kind of gauges and look ok with that years interior look.
I like the shelby interior gauges though!
![[Image: m5lp_0503w_18z+Ford_Mustang_Shelby_Cobra...Gauges.jpg]](http://image.mustangandfords.com/f/9076564/m5lp_0503w_18z+Ford_Mustang_Shelby_Cobra_GT500+Interior_Gauges.jpg)
Gravter,Dec 2 2009, 09:13 AM Wrote:Someone tell Ford to get rid of those awful gauges!!
Damn, am I the only one who hates this part of the retro look!
[right][snapback]297937[/snapback][/right]
I LOVE IT
:)
NefCanuck,Dec 2 2009, 11:25 AM Wrote:(Of course it would probably make the car nose heavy as all hell :P)
NefCanuck
[right][snapback]297946[/snapback][/right]
why is that?
Flofocus,Dec 2 2009, 03:00 PM Wrote:NefCanuck,Dec 2 2009, 11:25 AM Wrote:(Of course it would probably make the car nose heavy as all hell :P)
NefCanuck
[right][snapback]297946[/snapback][/right]
why is that?
[right][snapback]297959[/snapback][/right]
The chassis on the Fusion isn't set up for the larger block (IIRC the MKZ has specific suspension upgrades up front to handle the extra mass of the bigger block)
Now of course with the changes I've made to
my specific car's suspension, there would be no issue of doing a ram & cram of the bigger MKZ motor :D
NefCanuck
NefCanuck,Dec 2 2009, 04:19 PM Wrote:Flofocus,Dec 2 2009, 03:00 PM Wrote:NefCanuck,Dec 2 2009, 11:25 AM Wrote:(Of course it would probably make the car nose heavy as all hell :P)
NefCanuck
[right][snapback]297946[/snapback][/right]
why is that?
[right][snapback]297959[/snapback][/right]
The chassis on the Fusion isn't set up for the larger block (IIRC the MKZ has specific suspension upgrades up front to handle the extra mass of the bigger block)
Now of course with the changes I've made to my specific car's suspension, there would be no issue of doing a ram & cram of the bigger MKZ motor :D
NefCanuck
[right][snapback]297960[/snapback][/right]
If you had a spare 3.5 you could do this no problem, there is already a fusion that has this( 2010 SPORT)......or you could just sell your car and get the sport.
True but teh Sports suspension is different than lesser Fusions.
Sell my car and have to start all over again :blink:
But I haven't even finished what I want to do with this one yet :P
NefCanuck