Why no Naturally Aspirated 3.5L?

[Jonny11Quest]

This hasn't been a secret at all. Only reason there is a v6 in the US mustangs are cuz of the rental companies and fleet models. They were crying cuz of the extra cost even when Ford told it wouldn't be much more. I have said this the whole time who in the right mind will buy a v6 as long as there isn't a huge price difference? Which I'd guess 1-2k engine option to get the i4. Normal people will buy it for the gas mileage and other guys will buy it for the better performance. The i4 will be lighter faster get better mpg has more potential and it will sound better with the turbo spool and bov. Ford must have had a surplus of 3.7s sitting around so the decided to please the rental companies. Personally i would have just dumped it in the US like they did everywhere else.

I'd like to think I'm in my right mind, and I'm considering a 2015 V6. I'm also aware that the V6 will make up the majority of rental/fleet sales and a minority of all other sales, but it still has its merits. Namely, you get near identical power and gas mileage from a cheaper, more durable, proven engine. The turbo 4 will have significantly more torque and lighter weight, I'll give you, but when you talk aftermarket potential, the NA V6 takes the cake. You can say screw the reliability and get a turbo kit and have V8 power/torque with good mileage for when you're feeling light-footed. However, in my case, I'll likely do alot of my own maintenance and plan on keeping the car forever. Proven/less complex/300hp/30mpg/under $25k = win IMHO.

As for the 3.5, I don't know much about the engine, but I'd speculate that it's just the 3.5eco with the turbos stripped and was always intended for truck duty (ie low-rpm torque, heavy duty components, etc). The 3.7 was originally designed for the Mustang in '11 and does the job well.

Sponsored

 

[Grimace427]

I'd like to think I'm in my right mind, and I'm considering a 2015 V6. I'm also aware that the V6 will make up the majority of rental/fleet sales and a minority of all other sales, but it still has its merits. Namely, you get near identical power and gas mileage from a cheaper, more durable, proven engine. The turbo 4 will have significantly more torque and lighter weight, I'll give you, but when you talk aftermarket potential, the NA V6 takes the cake. You can say screw the reliability and get a turbo kit and have V8 power/torque with good mileage for when you're feeling light-footed. However, in my case, I'll likely do alot of my own maintenance and plan on keeping the car forever. Proven/less complex/300hp/30mpg/under $25k = win IMHO.

As for the 3.5, I don't know much about the engine, but I'd speculate that it's just the 3.5eco with the turbos stripped and was always intended for truck duty (ie low-rpm torque, heavy duty components, etc). The 3.7 was originally designed for the Mustang in '11 and does the job well.

I am an admin on another forum with a huge 3.7 V6 Mustang following and while the Cyclone engine's performance is nothing to scoff at, as far as initial mods go the turbo-4 offers a superior bang-for-the-buck. A simple tune could potentially add up to 30-50hp and 50+ft-lbs of torque with a factory ecoboost engine whereas the Cyclone would require significantly more mods to match that or go straight to forced induction which would offset any initial cost savings.

The N/A 3.5 is practically the same Duratec design as the N/A 3.7 and is not an Ecoboost with the turbos removed. Other differences include the lack of direct injection.

 

[Taneras]

This hasn't been a secret at all. Only reason there is a v6 in the US mustangs are cuz of the rental companies and fleet models.

I wouldn't say the only reason is that. I'm fairly sure the Mustang line would have died without the sales of their V6 models.

 

[T-5 killer]

I wouldn't say the only reason is that. I'm fairly sure the Mustang line would have died without the sales of their V6 models.

This right here. Most mustangs sold are the V6/base model. It keeps the car alive and profitable.

 

[blackhand1001]

Not sure exactly why you would want a NA 3.5 over the 3.7 or the ecoboost.

 

[C00KIE M0NSTER]

Not sure exactly why you would want a NA 3.5 over the 3.7 or the ecoboost.

The point of this thread (which I don't think any one has gotten) is why did Ford switch to the NA 3.5L with the new F-150 and keep the NA 3.7L in the 2015 Mustang. The F-150 is still heavier than the Mustang and generally the Mustang and F-150 share the same engines.

 

[Cosmos]

...The F-150 is still heavier than the Mustang and generally the Mustang and F-150 share the same engines.

I would cast a vote for inclusion of the F-150's 2.7EB V6 in the Mustang engine lineup, but not at the expense of either of the NA V6s. I have a bias which favors the lesser issues (possible or actual) associated with NA vis-à-vis both GDI and turbo induction engines and I'm not in need of potential performance that is above and beyond my driving demands.

 

[S550guy]

The answer:

With the F-150, Ford understands that the V6 has a future in the F-150. As far as efficiency goes, the 3.5L is slightly better than the 3.7L. However, in terms of overall robustness, the 3.7L is better.

Keeping this in mind, the F-150 is now all about fuel economy, lightness, etc. So the 3.5L is the right choice.

Now, enter the Mustang: a program that started with the 2.3L, the 5.0L, and nothing else. But then someone says, "gee, what if we added a base configuration to keep entry cost low?" This is when everyone decides to add a V6. So, do they choose the slightly more efficient engine and then spend more on developing that engine, on top of changing the MT82 to fit that engine, or do they go with the V6 that has already been on the program for the last 4 years and performed admirably?

This is why the 3.7L was used for the 15MY Mustang, and why the NA 3.5L is the new engine of choice for the F-150.

Hope this helps!

 

[DMV]

Hmm some corrections,

S550 program was not always 2.3 and 5.0 and nothing else.

You are correct it started with 2 engines and no V6. Many displacements were explored. It was for some time 2.7 but that changed a few years ago and settled on 2.3 for fuel economy and performance reasons. After 3 engines was decided, 3.7 was added, then replaced with 3.5.

S550 had the 3.5 until mid 2012 when finally determined the 3.7 was the best way due to cost and other factors. I'll just say, 3.5 is still being explored.

 

[Tony Alonso]

Hmm some corrections,

S550 program was not always 2.3 and 5.0 and nothing else.

You are correct it started with 2 engines and no V6. Many displacements were explored. It was for some time 2.7 but that changed a few years ago and settled on 2.3 for fuel economy and performance reasons. After 3 engines was decided, 3.7 was added, then replaced with 3.5.

S550 had the 3.5 until mid 2012 when finally determined the 3.7 was the best way due to cost and other factors. I'll just say, 3.5 is still being explored.

Do you work for Ford?

 

[DMV]

What is that they say about a gift horse?

;-)

 

[C00KIE M0NSTER]

^The thing I'm wondering is why the 3.7L would be cheaper than 3.5L?

 

[DMV]

It is older and needs no modifications for the new Mustang application unlike the 3.5.

To be clear, we are talking EcoBoost here.

 

[C00KIE M0NSTER]

^I'm talking about the NA 3.5L. The 2015 F-150 is switching from the NA 3.7L to the NA 3.5L as the base V6 engine. I would think with the Mustang being a lighter car, they would do the same with the 2015 Mustang?? But for some reason they are sticking with the 3.7L in the Mustang.

Sponsored