Phasing out the V6

[Arless]

Great debate, the 3.7 liter is what going on four years old! If memory serves me the 4.0 liter was in the Mustang line up for two decades. And has been off the market now for good since the end of 2010. Has me guessing just how long the all new for 2011 3.7 L v-6 will be on duty.

Wish they would come out with a short stroke v-6, that way if racers want to build high HP v-6 engines the insides of the engine will be already to go and good for twin turbo use, without having to de-stroke the engines

Sponsored

 

[Brent302]

I believe the 2.7 V6 EcoBoost would be the best candidate to come to the Mustang as a 3.7 replacement. Let's just for kicks apply the performance difference of the 2015 MKC 2.3 to the possibility of a 2.7 Mustang.

15 MKC 2.3-285HP/305TQ

15 Mustang 2.3-305HP/320TQ

Now if we apply that to a hypothetical 2.7 Mustang

15 F150 2.7- 325HP/375TQ
16 Mustang 2.7- 345HP/390TQ

That would make it
2.3 I4- 305/320
2.7 V6- 375/390
5.0 V8- 435/400

It would still leave a nice cushion for the 5.0 current at 435/400 and that can always improve. This is not fact and was just me plugging in the difference in MKC 2.3 and Mustang but it's interesting to look at as a possibility.

 

[Arless]

In my eye's the 3500 + pound 2015 Mustang is too heavy to use such a small 2.3 liter engine in the first place. Take a look around you and you will see the same going on in Chrysler and GM cars even before Ford had there turbocharged 2.3 liter unit refitted for turbo abuse four cylinder engine.

Chrysler and GM also had their turbocharged three cylinder engines before Ford had their global 1.0 liter eco-boost three cylinder engine. This 3 cylinder turbo version has become a well liked and must have for UK English men that are heavily taxed for owning anything larger than 2.0 liters.

Get that weight down "Ford are you listening" to 2600--2740 pound curb weight wet, now drop that 2.3 liter mill in the mush liter Mustang with naturally aspirated and stage 2 performance up grade to a single turbocharger 4 to 500 HP 2.7 liter mill. and stage 3 twin turbocharged 760 HP with a 2.0 liter Mountune tried and tested now for several years in Focus and Fiesta rally race cars. This 2.0 liter is a none symmetrical built larger bore x shorter stroke. Makes for a smooth high revving high HP & Torque engine

 

[DeColores]

I will be thankful when the i4 is eventually moved to Ohio, then I can worry about torque, gas mileage and engine sound. I just want to hear America back to work, 6 or 8 for me

DeColores

 

[zen25]

Would a small direct injected NA V8 be possible. Something under at or under 4L and get 400+hp out of it.
This can be twin turbo-ed in higher spec cars to make 650+ hp.

Is more smaller cylinders efficient than having larger cylinders.
Italian cars have always had V10 and V12 with lower volume.
Now German cars have 4L V8.
Would a 3.6L V8 be possible.

Also how about a 3 liter twin turbo. Just like M3/M4 but with much lower weight, smaller mustang just at 3200lbs will run circles around M4, give 25mpg in city at similar S550 EB price.

 

[Norm Peterson]

V8's have been produced - albeit in small volumes - at least as small as 1.5L. But more pistons tend to generate greater friction losses at any given displacement. This might not be the same measure of efficiency you're thinking of, but it's probably the more relevant one these days.

Normally aspirated, I'd look more for 800 lbs or less per liter of engine than any outright HP number, with 700 being better still. Don't forget that a 400 HP 3.0L is going to make its power pretty high up in the rev range, and sometimes you'll be caught below the powerband where midrange torque is what you'll be interested in. And that's a fairly constant function of displacement.

I'd expect somewhere around 275 ft-lbs from a 3.6L.


Norm

 

[zen25]

Makes sense.

Here is a British engine in a performance super car.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_M838T_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_12C

McLaren Engine is just 3.8L V8 produces crazy power/torque in MP4-12C and just weighs less than 150kg.

Smaller engine in a smaller lighter car might not suit Mustang. But if Ford ever decides to make a Corvette or Viper competitor, smaller V8 might be the way to go.

 

[zen25]

Here is a 9.3L V8.
Biggest I have heard.

[ame]

 

[phil1336]

Just like Mark Twain stated, "The news of my demise has been grossly exaggerated", much the same IMO of the demise of the V6. Perhaps the naturally aspired 3.7 V6 may give way in a year or two to the EB 3.5 V6 but Ford needs something to fit between its I4 and SVT V8`s. For both Truck use as well as a Fleet of Mid-Large FWD Sedans, some form of V6 will find a home for years to come.

 

[Arless]

v-6 nothing new to say at least

Just like Mark Twain stated, "The news of my demise has been grossly exaggerated", much the same IMO of the demise of the V6. Perhaps the naturally aspired 3.7 V6 may give way in a year or two to the EB 3.5 V6 but Ford needs something to fit between its I4 and SVT V8`s. For both Truck use as well as a Fleet of Mid-Large FWD Sedans, some form of V6 will find a home for years to come.

:gossip:Running high 10's with a mid-size turbocharger install with a 2012 V-6 and automatic transmission with 4000 rpm stall converter. 3.73 gears, Aluminum driveshaft. Auburn limited slip differential. Long tube 1 3/4" headers 3" collector Borg Warner turbocharger, BAMA 93 octane tune with remapped air fuel ratio. Ford racing suspension upgrade. 10" drag radials, 13 psi setting for the 10.97 ET. @ 128 mph.

This turbocharger can be computer set to go as high as 34 psi maximum PSI. Through turbo pop off valve time sequence, The programmed psi for each gear change, is restricted from 1st through 3rd 7 psi to 13 psi. all out from fourth through sixth 34 psi.

The 3.7 x 227 cubic inch six jugs will be around for a long,.. long time. Dad works for Ford in the engine development and build department. Said even an engine design that is not great in demand, and or .GOV regulated mandatory delete. The said engine has to run long enough to pay for the time and development of the design.

Plus all the different size molds needed sand aluminum. Solid forged blocks of steel to cut into crankshafts and rods. To delete a mill before three years has passed will not pay for the creation of the engine. Let a lone show a profit, only during the latter months of the third year if then.

Now this is for a engine that saw only a short life during marketing and way back when. This does not happen in this day and age. The cost of retooling a production robot to produce a new engines is unbelievable. You can count on the 3.5 & 3.7 liter v-6 mills to be around for quite a long time.

With well over 500 HP at the rear wheels less a 200 HP shot of nitrous oxide. With 630 HP at the flywheel then add 200 HP nitrous hit = 830 HP @ the crank. 672.30 BHP at the rear wheels. Running now going on it's third year with this tune under the hood. The engine is totally stock, as is the transmission. :threadjacked:

 

[Arless]

The 227 cubic inch 6 cylinder engine in my eye's is the best mill Ford has ever introduced to the American public since the 4.0 liter was first introduced over two decade's prier. Here's why I love the v-6 3.7 liter mill. 500 rear wheel Horsepower is only a Borg Warner

 

[Spartan]

The 227 cubic inch 6 cylinder engine in my eye's is the best mill Ford has ever introduced to the American public since the 4.0 liter was first introduced over two decade's prier. Here's why I love the v-6 3.7 liter mill. 500 rear wheel Horsepower is only a Borg Warner

Too bad Ford went the wrong way with choices. You should be able to get a base or premium in all 3 engine options. Very disappointed with their decision on this. I'm getting the GT only because I can't get the V6 in premium.

 

[Arless]

That's a thought the 5.0 liter that I would personally love to own, and could If I left it parked most of the time. I can remember when gas was 27.9 a gallon for leaded Sonoco 96 octane and 37.9 a gallon for 101 octane leaded high test. That is why I choose the v-6 with a turbocharger add on.

 

[f150funtastic]

3.7 is not going away

The 3.7 engine is a multi functional engine.
flex-fuel and can be configured to run on CNG
Compressed natural gas. - This is a new feature
as of 2014. - The f150 can run on more than 1 type
of fuel and get well past 700 miles on both tanks.
CNG is about 1.60 less per equal gallon.- Probably
this will only be so on an F150- I really like this engine!
* the reason for the 3.5 ( downgrade ) is to create
a less expensive option and a greater difference for
the upgrade engine - The 3.7 In an F150 is rated at
17 city- 23 hwy- as you know its full of great tech
and built strong- its not going away!

 

[Arless]

Yes I was aware of hear say, from other sources that the 3.7 liter was not going to stay in the Mustang, cost being the major drop of the base mustang engine. The 3.5 liter v-6 has a shorter stroke which is great for a performance point of view.

The shorter stroke allows higher HP and higher rpm the torque will peak at higher rpm than the rather long strong 3.7 engine. The 3.5as I understand it has been around longer than the 3.7 v-6, thus having more performance built parts than the newer 3.7 liter engine.

I'm ok with the swap, both have double over head cams and four valve heads with finger followers to control camshaft opening and closing. Should come with variable valve timing as to not loose the bottom end torque. Basically set up like the 3.7 engine

Sponsored