Any V6 fans?

[phil1336]

Even BMW which for decades has marketed it Vehicle`s for the "Driver Enthusiast" has seen the ratio of Manual Transmissions to Automatic Transmissions diminish to almost (nothing) here in the North America Market! Across their entire Line, 328i, 528i, or 728i, they are nearly all Automatic. The Mustang V8 may survive a bit longer with its Optional Manual Transmission but the days of "rowing your gears" is numbered. I work work Part-Time at Manheim Auto Auctions and on Sale Day, when Dealers look into (any) Vehicle regardless of Make or Model and they notice a Manual Transmission, the first thing they grumble is, "f@#$%in Stick Shift". Even at Wholesale Prices, they always yield "thousands" less for a comparable Vehicle equipped with Automatic Transmission. Model, Trim, Options, Mileage, Condition, etc also important but Manual Transmission is "the kiss of death". If resale or residual value is a factor, the decision is an easy one. Glad I enjoyed my (new) 67` Stingray Corvette and 68` AMX and shifted my way happily into retirement & old age. Awaiting my 2015 Mustang Base V6 Convertible and simply shifting into (D). IMO,Paddle Shifters are simply a gimmick and asinine. Wish there was an Option to (delete) them from the Steering Wheel like the Blade Spoiler delete.

Sponsored

 

[Horse]

Just read about the 52/48 weight distribution of the 2015 EB in another thread
http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php/more-specs-numbers-2553.html

Made me wonder the f/r weight distribution of the V6 (fastback and/or convertible). Better, or worse, than 52%?

It's likely 52/48 for V6, just as for EB. Not bad at all. :ford:

 

[66coupe]

It's likely 52/48 for V6, just as for EB. Not bad at all. :ford:

Cool. For practical purposes, that's a 50/50 car.

Throw a couple things in the trunk, or a kid in the back seat, and you might actually hit 50/50.

 

[66coupe]

It's likely 52/48 for V6, just as for EB. Not bad at all. :ford:

For comparison, the 2014 V6 was 54/46 (maybe this is common knowledge, but I had to look it up). So the imbalance was cut in half.

 

[66coupe]

Over in this thread, this is a discussion about the effects of the lower hood on the 2015: http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php/no-room-under-2564.html

Post #4 says:

Somewhere (I believe on the thread where numbers were recently released) it reads that the reason the V6 gets 5 less Hp for the 2015's is because they had to modify the intake manifold because the hood wouldn't clear it. I'm sure the Coyote is a bit different but it seems to me that the OP might be on to something.

I was curious how the V6 lost 5 HP. I figured it was a different tune to intentionally separate it a bit more from the EB. But this suggests that it has a modified intake manifold because of the lower hood.

So a lower hood should improve aerodynamics slightly, but also make it a bit harder for the engine to breath with the modified intake. Do they offset and leave us with the same MPG?

I have no answer, just questions.

 

[phil1336]

Cool. For practical purposes, that's a 50/50 car.

Throw a couple things in the trunk, or a kid in the back seat, and you might actually hit 50/50.

How about the Optional Spare Tire and Jack Assembly Option # 66W?

 

[phil1336]

Over in this thread, this is a discussion about the effects of the lower hood on the 2015: http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php/no-room-under-2564.html

Post #4 says:


I was curious how the V6 lost 5 HP. I figured it was a different tune to intentionally separate it a bit more from the EB. But this suggests that it has a modified intake manifold because of the lower hood.

So a lower hood should improve aerodynamics slightly, but also make it a bit harder for the engine to breath with the modified intake. Do they offset and leave us with the same MPG?

I have no answer, just questions.

If it fact Ford made any changes whatsoever to the 3.7 V6 Engine for the 2015 Mustang such as modifying the intake manifold to accommodate the (lower) Hood or anything else for that matter to (reduce) the HP by "5", I think its more likely a Marketing Ploy to give the EB 2.3 I4 a 10 HP separation from the V6. I think MPG for the 2015 Mustang V6 will be the same as last year although it comes standard now with 3:15 rear axle gear ratio which (could) give better Performance at the expense of Fuel Economy by a mile or two per gallon of gas.

 

[stangs-R-me]

How about the Optional Spare Tire and Jack Assembly Option # 66W?

From my 2011 V6:

5.46 lbs. for Air Pump, Styrofoam block, and Mtg. hardware.
vs.
5.30 lbs. for Jack, Wrench, and all mtg. hardware (from '07-09 GT)
plus
28.66 lbs. for '07 GT 17" Temp Spare (aluminum rim) w/ 60 PSI air

= 28.5 lb. is all the weight Ford was saving by eliminating a spare on 2011 V6 Mustangs !!

If Ford simplifies the assembly line and has just one SPARE, it will need to be an 18" which is what they used on all 2011-up GT's. I would guess the 18" mini-spare weighs a little more than the 17" one I've got.

Doug

 

[phil1336]

From my 2011 V6:

5.46 lbs. for Air Pump, Styrofoam block, and Mtg. hardware.
vs.
5.30 lbs. for Jack, Wrench, and all mtg. hardware (from '07-09 GT)
plus
28.66 lbs. for '07 GT 17" Temp Spare (aluminum rim) w/ 60 PSI air

= 28.5 lb. is all the weight Ford was saving by eliminating a spare on 2011 V6 Mustangs !!

If Ford simplifies the assembly line and has just one SPARE, it will need to be an 18" which is what they used on all 2011-up GT's. I would guess the 18" mini-spare weighs a little more than the 17" one I've got.

Doug

Deleting the Spare Tire (Mini Emergency Donut) and Jack Assembly was (not) done for weight savings or fuel economy. Its just a hell of a lot cheaper to provide you with a $5 Mini Tire Inflator and a Can of Tire Sealant Goo! Case closed. At least Ford has the decency to offer it as an add on Option in the 2015 Mustang for $200. In their C-Max Hybrid, since they did`nt design a proper stowage space, they never offered one. Had to grab one from a Salvage Yard from a late model Focus.

 

[Horse]

Over in this thread, this is a discussion about the effects of the lower hood on the 2015: http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php/no-room-under-2564.html

I was curious how the V6 lost 5 HP. I figured it was a different tune to intentionally separate it a bit more from the EB. But this suggests that it has a modified intake manifold because of the lower hood.

So a lower hood should improve aerodynamics slightly, but also make it a bit harder for the engine to breath with the modified intake. Do they offset and leave us with the same MPG?

I have no answer, just questions.

If it is harder for the engine to breathe, doesn't it mean less fuel hence higher MPG? :help:

 

[66coupe]

If it is harder for the engine to breathe, doesn't it mean less fuel hence higher MPG? :help:

I was thinking that if the intake was a bit more constricted, then the engine would need to work harder to suck the air in. The extra effort to suck in the air is an added load on the engine. But I may be wrong. :shrug:

 

[66coupe]

If it fact Ford made any changes whatsoever to the 3.7 V6 Engine for the 2015 Mustang such as modifying the intake manifold to accommodate the (lower) Hood or anything else for that matter to (reduce) the HP by "5", I think its more likely a Marketing Ploy to give the EB 2.3 I4 a 10 HP separation from the V6.

You might be right there. It may just be BS to avoid saying "we detuned it (or under-rated it) to make the EB more appealing". We should get a pretty good idea when people take delivery and start looking at things more closely.

I think MPG for the 2015 Mustang V6 will be the same as last year although it comes standard now with 3:15 rear axle gear ratio which (could) give better Performance at the expense of Fuel Economy by a mile or two per gallon of gas.

Oh yes, the changed axle ratio. Not something I would have asked for.

I want to know the numbers!

 

[66coupe]

In this thread, the EB is reported to get 33-34 MPG. http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php/had-ford-rep-2576.html

Rep went over a lot of things, some I didn't know.. First impressions of the car in general was, WOW. Beautiful!! One thing to note tho.. be told us some inside info... 33 to 34 mpg. Pretty stought! They told the sales staff to "PUSH THE ECO-BOOST!". I will say .. it's very comfortable, roomy and made MUCH better. Very impressed.

It doesn't say if that's EPA numbers or real world numbers (or made-up numbers ).

Assuming those are accurate numbers, does it sway anyone who was planning on getting the V6? I think I need to know the V6 numbers before I would consider changing my plan.

 

[Horse]

I was thinking that if the intake was a bit more constricted, then the engine would need to work harder to suck the air in. The extra effort to suck in the air is an added load on the engine. But I may be wrong. :shrug:

I thought that the amount of fuel injected into an engine is determined by the amount of air/oxygen. If the intake is reduced (esp. by design), then less fuel is comsumed. Of course the car will be less powerful. But less powerful cars (in general) have higher MPG, aren't they?

I am by no means an engineer. All I know about cars (correct or otherwise) are from reading here and there over the years. I may be wrong too :headbonk:

 

[Horse]

In this thread, the EB is reported to get 33-34 MPG. http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php/had-ford-rep-2576.html


It doesn't say if that's EPA numbers or real world numbers (or made-up numbers ).

Assuming those are accurate numbers, does it sway anyone who was planning on getting the V6? I think I need to know the V6 numbers before I would consider changing my plan.

33-34 sounds very good. But I will wait for the V6 number.

Sponsored