Difference between 2015-2017 3.7's and the 2011-2014 3.7's?

[Kobra337]

New user here. New to the Ford Mustang Family (2015 V6 automatic) coming from a Chevy Camaro.

I've been researching information for an idea/possible modification down the road, but nobody seems to have a clear answer or I just have not looked deep enough.

What difference is there between the 3.7L Cyclone V6 engines from 2011-2014 and the Cyclones offered in the 2015-2017's? I saw somewhere that the intake manifold is slightly different between the two generations, but that engine part is not what i'm after. Somewhere else mentioned that the 2015-2017's are "basically the same, just slightly detuned versions of the 2011-2014's". Are the INTERNALS inside the aluminum engine block the same across the generations? Crank, rods, pistons, bearings, bolts/studs/fasteners, etc.

Any information would be greatly appreciated. Hopefully you guys are more helpful than the Camaro guys were when I had mine. If this has already been answered, please link to the thread/site where it's explained.

Sponsored

 

[Fatguy]

New user here. New to the Ford Mustang Family (2015 V6 automatic) coming from a Chevy Camaro.

I've been researching information for an idea/possible modification down the road, but nobody seems to have a clear answer or I just have not looked deep enough.

What difference is there between the 3.7L Cyclone V6 engines from 2011-2014 and the Cyclones offered in the 2015-2017's? I saw somewhere that the intake manifold is slightly different between the two generations, but that engine part is not what i'm after. Somewhere else mentioned that the 2015-2017's are "basically the same, just slightly detuned versions of the 2011-2014's". Are the INTERNALS inside the aluminum engine block the same across the generations? Crank, rods, pistons, bearings, bolts/studs/fasteners, etc.

Any information would be greatly appreciated. Hopefully you guys are more helpful than the Camaro guys were when I had mine. If this has already been answered, please link to the thread/site where it's explained.

Well I guess I will give my own take on the matter.


The actual engines are the same. Nothing changed. To make the Ecoboost look better they just used the horsepower numbers for the V6 on 87 and the Ecoboost on 93. On 93 I’d say the V6 puts out 308-314 - but you won’t notice it on 87 like the Ecoboost guys will on 87. The S550 V6 had to do 0-60 runs on the narrowest all season tires as no PP was to be had, and tested against the PP Ecoboost and the PP V6 earlier Mustangs. All of this conspires to make the 2015-2017 V6 Mustang seem slower and less powerful. But nothing can be further from the truth. The fact is that Ford wasn’t spending any money on an engine option they were phasing out so they have to be the same. Only the lower hood mandated any changes and that was it.


But that is my limited take on things. Others are far more knowledgeable than me here.

 

[Nagare]

Agreeing, nothing other than the upper intake manifold. It's a solid engine and it's given me no issues, just passed 30k on my 17 at the start of the month.

 

[Fatguy]

I find it funny to say this but real world times for the S550 V6 Mustang are 14.2 with a bone stock auto car on the dorky 17” wheels. Change wheels to bigger ones and tunes and cold air intake and they run mid 14s in the quarter mile.


That is real world with average people. Get a pro in there and he can make the most with the drivetrain and better rubber. That will drop to 13.9 just like the previous car. That is just funny and the small wheels do make you faster. I’d post a link because this made the news. Nobody was more surprised than that driver of a black totally stock V6 Mustang - but there you are...

 

[Fatguy]

Got the link. Here you go:




http://www.mustangandfords.com/news/1503-2015-v6-mustang-runs-14-20s-factory-stock/




On second look, that car may have factory 18” wheels. But he wasn’t expecting anything so they may have used photos of a similar car for the story. But bone stock car it was.

 

[MidwayJ]

I wish the Mustang V6 was 335 hp like the 3.6L Camaro V6.

 

[Nagare]

Ford definitely left more on the table than Chevy did in terms of the factory tune though so after a good tune, they're probably pretty close. Also depends on the power curve, I was jealous of the Genesis 3.8 having 348hp until I saw their dyno numbers were about the same as ours (although it does do the 1/4 faster than our cars stock).

 

[Rick#7]

The 3.7 is one of the most under-appreciated and under-developed engines to come out of Ford. When it was released in Mustang trim for the 2011 model it had virtually the same hp/liter as the 5.0 Coyote that debuted at the same time, however it offered far better mpg on the highway (not just EPA figures, but in real world driving), is significantly lighter offering better front/rear weight bias, had fewer complaints/warranty issues in spite of higher production, and yet has received very little respect or recognition from the automotive community and is still treated like an unwanted step-brother by the V8 crowd. If Ford had continued to develop and update this engine with the same enthusiasm as they did with the Coyote I have no doubt it would be putting out a reliable 330+ HP, but Ford devoted all of their development budget to upgrading the 5.0 to Gen II and Gen III versions, while focusing their massive marketing machine on glorifying the Ecoboost as the better "entry-level" Mustang so they could justify phasing out the V6 regardless of how good a car it was.

So to answer your question, there is mechanically little to no difference in either generation of the 3.7 because - as others have said - Ford simply did not want to spend any money unnecessarily changing/updating an engine they had planned to eliminate. The only changes were to fit it to the different engine bay, and reduce production costs. The biggest difference I'm aware of is they changed the EFI from a mass air system to a speed density system, presumably to lower the production cost, but things like the block, heads, crank,etc. are all the same.

 

[Decosse]

So to answer your question, there is mechanically little to no difference in either generation of the 3.7 because - as others have said - Ford simply did not want to spend any money unnecessarily changing/updating an engine they had planned to eliminate. The only changes were to fit it to the different engine bay, and reduce production costs. The biggest difference I'm aware of is they changed the EFI from a mass air system to a speed density system, presumably to lower the production cost, but things like the block, heads, crank,etc. are all the same.

Thanks for that info. I have always been curious - and I risk starting something here, but I'd really like to know- does using 91-93 octane result in a (small) horsepower gain in the 2015-17 Cyclones as it (supposedly) does in the 2011-14s? My sources for that statement are from a "Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords" article about the engine (in particular ECU spark advancement). A dyno test from American Muscle as they were setting a baseline for developing a CAI system and Bama tune shows a 6 hp gain. (I'm not sure about rules on linking other forums and such, but I have them)

I have never found anything like this regarding the 2015-17 engines, other than anecdotal. I have heard the rumors that the missing 5 hp was more political than actual, the EB and Coyote ratings are on 93 octane and the Cyclone is rated on 87, etc. Personally, I think I can feel a difference between my usual 89 octane and 91- a little more response and liveliness. I'm saying apparent, but not dramatic. I'm also aware of wishful thinking, lol, and whether it's worth the price difference.

In any event, remember the S197 GTs had 300 hp from their 4.6s until 2010, so our 3.7s are pretty remarkable. All things are relative, but there is no such thing as a "slow" S550,

edit: I stand corrected . The 2004-09 GTs had 300 hp.

 

[cyclonetron]

Biggest differences I know of:

2011-2014:

2.73 gears
305 hp
Multiple trim levels available
Solid rear axle
Easy bolt on axle back exhaust
Slightly lighter weight

2015-2017:
3.15 gears
300 hp
Two trim levels
Independent Rear Suspension

 

[cyclonetron]

Thanks for that info. I have always been curious - and I risk starting something here, but I'd really like to know- does using 91-93 octane result in a (small) horsepower gain in the 2015-17 Cyclones as it (supposedly) does in the 2011-14s? My sources for that statement are from a "Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords" article about the engine (in particular ECU spark advancement). A dyno test from American Muscle as they were setting a baseline for developing a CAI system and Bama tune shows a 6 hp gain. (I'm not sure about rules on linking other forums and such, but I have them)

I have never found anything like this regarding the 2015-17 engines, other than anecdotal. I have heard the rumors that the missing 5 hp was more political than actual, the EB and Coyote ratings are on 93 octane and the Cyclone is rated on 87, etc. Personally, I think I can feel a difference between my usual 89 octane and 91- a little more response and liveliness. I'm saying apparent, but not dramatic. I'm also aware of wishful thinking, lol, and whether it's worth the price difference.

In any event, remember the S197 GTs had 300 hp from their 4.6s until 2010, so our 3.7s are pretty remarkable. All things are relative, but there is no such thing as a "slow" S550,

Actually the 2010 GT had a revised 4.6L producing 315hp engine. It wasn't until 2011 that they received the Coyote.

 

[Decosse]

Actually the 2010 GT had a revised 4.6L producing 315hp engine. It wasn't until 2011 that they received the Coyote.

Yes, I phrased that all wrong . Should have said the 04-09 ones... Thanks for clarifying.

edit: One more small difference-3.55 available on S550 V6 with 051A

 

[Rick#7]

Thanks for that info. I have always been curious - and I risk starting something here, but I'd really like to know- does using 91-93 octane result in a (small) horsepower gain in the 2015-17 Cyclones as it (supposedly) does in the 2011-14s? My sources for that statement are from a "Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords" article about the engine (in particular ECU spark advancement). A dyno test from American Muscle as they were setting a baseline for developing a CAI system and Bama tune shows a 6 hp gain. (I'm not sure about rules on linking other forums and such, but I have them)

I have never found anything like this regarding the 2015-17 engines, other than anecdotal. I have heard the rumors that the missing 5 hp was more political than actual, the EB and Coyote ratings are on 93 octane and the Cyclone is rated on 87, ....

While I don't have any quotable facts or any inside source to back up this belief, I do believe that the 300 HP rating is both actual and inconsequential. 1st, 5 HP is such a small variance that it can come from simply using a different testing dyno, or having a different group of test engines pulled from the line, but it could just as easily be due to the different exhaust system, different EFI system, or a combination of any of these factors plus several other possibilities we're not aware of. I also wouldn't put it past Ford to purposely select test engines and conditions to get the results they wanted to benefit the marketing teams goals (i.e. to promote the ecoboost as a worthwhile upgrade to the V6), but whether or not Ford specifically tried to widen the HP margin between the V6 and EB for marketing reason is just speculation that is best answered by someone with an inside connection with the Ford brass. Bottom line however, is that missing 5 HP makes absolutely no noticeable difference in the real world performance of the V6 car.

I also believe the tested HP numbers of the V6 are based on 87 octane while the EB is based on 91 octane fuel, for the simple reason that the owners manual recommends using a minimum 87 for the V6, and a minimum 91 for the EB, so it stands to reason they would use the recommended fuel to test the engines. FWIW, the 5.0 coyote owners manual also states to use minimum 87 octane (at least it does in my 2015 GT owners manual), so if someone claims Ford used 91 to achieve the 435HP rating, I'd have to see something more convincing than anecdotal evidence showing that before I believe it.

 

[Nagare]

I also believe the tested HP numbers of the V6 are based on 87 octane while the EB is based on 91 octane fuel, for the simple reason that the owners manual recommends using a minimum 87 for the V6, and a minimum 91 for the EB, so it stands to reason they would use the recommended fuel to test the engines. FWIW, the 5.0 coyote owners manual also states to use minimum 87 octane (at least it does in my 2015 GT owners manual), so if someone claims Ford used 91 to achieve the 435HP rating, I'd have to see something more convincing than anecdotal evidence showing that before I believe it.

Ecoboost claims are definitely on 93 and not 91.

M6G post and an Autoblog article that quotes a Ford engineer.

The power figures for all the 18+ vehicles are based on 93 as well (screenshot from the Ford Fleet page):

And the 2015 Mustang brochure also indicates power numbers for both the Eco and GT are based on 93 octane fuel.

 

[Rick#7]

And the 2015 Mustang brochure also indicates power numbers for both the Eco and GT are based on 93 octane fuel.

I stand corrected, 93 instead of 91

Sponsored