2011 Mustang V6 305 hp and 31mpg

[mcrews]

tjts,
Got to drive a 04-05 (not sure) Mach 1. It had the shaker hood scope and GT-40 heads AND an IRS. Man what a very sweet ride. Amanzing difference with the IRS.

[jkp1187]

Originally Posted by 99LeCouch

31 MPG from a 305 hp pony car is nothing to sneeze at. I bet we could see 40 MPG easily with the manual transmission version. I bet when Chevy ups the Camaro's mileage they come out with a 33 MPG version.

^ This.

Although, I agree -- the Ecoboost from the Taurus would've been a perfect fit for the 'lesser' Mustang.

[dcb]

"30 miles-per-gallon on the highway "
It is BS to claim hiway mileage in the headlines and qualify it in the small print.

It's not terribly clever to drive a 300hp anything if you are concerned about economy for that matter.

[Allch Chcar]

The Mustang has it's faults. The SRA does hold it back. But the V6 engine has always been outdated. They've been using Iron block Vulcans in the Mustang since 94-96 and the Vulcan was old then. The all aluminum Modular V8 was top stuff for it's time but it topped out a couple years ago. The new motor while it does produce some HP is now sporting a higher HP number than Torque. Most Mustangs have been shipped with torque cams since the concept. If it wasn't for the still new "Muscle Wars" we might see a straight 4 in the new Mustang. An Eco boost would do wonders for the heavy weight and poor MPG. Sure 20's are nice but what about some 30's? The 80's Foxbodies that sold the most were heavier than the current Mustang and the biggest seller was the wimpy 4 cylinder Foxes.

I still don't like the Mustang lineup, I don't believe in this Muscle car stuff. I look at a car for it's merits not just it's HP and Torque. The Mustang's only merit is it's fast, it's RWD, and it's sporty. It's not very aerodynamic at .36 and while the Mustang has had a good OD tranny it's been a balancing act. I looked at getting an old Foxbody but gave up on it when there are much better cars to drive.

[Domman56]

I gotta agree with the Ecoboost version for the GT that thing would still haul major butt and it'd knock down great mileage most likely

[AeroModder]

Originally Posted by Christ

They should just give the new Mustang the EcoBoost V6, and to hell with "traditional power".

Seriously, it's about time they stopped sacrificing the rest of the product line to keep the Mustang as their "exotic" offering. Either step up and build up the line, or step aside and let someone else into the ring.

The Mustang is first and foremost a sports car. It's also an American icon. They nearly killed the name in the 70's and 80's with the Mustang IIs.

My stepsister has an '86 Mustang with the 2.3L 4-cylinder. It's gutless, and not nearly as efficient as it should be.

[jkp1187]

Originally Posted by AeroModder

The Mustang is first and foremost a sports car. It's also an American icon. They nearly killed the name in the 70's and 80's with the Mustang IIs.

My stepsister has an '86 Mustang with the 2.3L 4-cylinder. It's gutless, and not nearly as efficient as it should be.

Yeah, but the V6 Ecoboost (in the Taurus SHO) puts out 65 HP MORE than the 3.7L V6 in the 'base' Mustang.

Of course, then they'd have to worry about cannibalizing sales of the V8.

[bgd73]

I went through a spell of wanting 6 cyls when I was kid (everything was v8- "rice" out of the question). this was the 80s if you didn't guess.
I remember when the lopsided GM 4.3 came out...I do not work with "out of balance" engines, never wanted one. I remember the impalas with it, and even the mustangs. the ford ranger trucks with a 2.9, and the giant 3.8 transverse in grandmas wagon....they all sucked miserably.

I wanted absolutely none of them and still don't. Never bought a car with one, and never will..

The v6 is not correct. The idea is always grand, but never correct. Leave it to an american jackass to put in a mustang and claim big power...

I may get that 3.3 flat six SVX engine in the 2700 pound sube some day....just to reveal my true thoughts on 6 cylinders and success. the flat is the only attempt at normal, if to know any math at all for four stroke and crank.

lucky for america it is a mustang with choices.. go small v8 before that 6...it is good advice.. anybody can follow it.

Don't mind me and my bluntness.

[Nevyn]

Originally Posted by jkp1187

Yeah, but the V6 Ecoboost (in the Taurus SHO) puts out 65 HP MORE than the 3.7L V6 in the 'base' Mustang.

Of course, then they'd have to worry about cannibalizing sales of the V8.

The problem/reason I think, that they haven't/don't do that, is because American muscle cars are about pure, unadulterated power from a naturally aspirated engine.

While saying "I have a Mustang with the 3.5L EcoBoost engine" doesn't sound bad, saying "I have a twin-turboed Mustang" makes you sound like a dork; as far as general consensus goes.

I'm not saying it hasn't been done; I'm merely speculating that Ford is trying to cater to the "purists" by keeping the turbos out of the Mustang.

[winkosmosis]

Originally Posted by bgd73

I went through a spell of wanting 6 cyls when I was kid (everything was v8- "rice" out of the question). this was the 80s if you didn't guess.
I remember when the lopsided GM 4.3 came out...I do not work with "out of balance" engines, never wanted one. I remember the impalas with it, and even the mustangs. the ford ranger trucks with a 2.9, and the giant 3.8 transverse in grandmas wagon....they all sucked miserably.

I wanted absolutely none of them and still don't. Never bought a car with one, and never will..

The v6 is not correct. The idea is always grand, but never correct. Leave it to an american jackass to put in a mustang and claim big power...

I may get that 3.3 flat six SVX engine in the 2700 pound sube some day....just to reveal my true thoughts on 6 cylinders and success. the flat is the only attempt at normal, if to know any math at all for four stroke and crank.

lucky for america it is a mustang with choices.. go small v8 before that 6...it is good advice.. anybody can follow it.

Don't mind me and my bluntness.

A straight six isn't practical. It's much too long. Besides, I have one in my Jeep and it's not that great an engine. Very power efficiency, and I don't see any benefit from the supposedly perfect balance because it still vibrates just like any engine.

A flat six isn't perfectly balanced, because the cylinders are offset from one another