@man36021 No, the Ti-VCT does NOT alter lift and it does not alter duration... The only thing i does is to shift the Centerline angles of both in and ex cams, and hence also the LSA between them stepless (No new thing...Volvo has done that since 2002)... And your 50/50 ex/in stuff... Do you even have a clue about what you're talking about? I will be VERY interested in reading how you think changing the LSA and Centerline angles will change the ratio between in and ex valve time-area :)
Not to disapoint you guy's.. But variable valve timing has been around on European engines since the 90's!!! Both Volvo and BMW started with "dual" VVT in 2002. The Japanese also, at least Toyota, Nissan and so on... Those systems only affect valve centerline angle, and lobe separation angles. Honda has used their V-tec system in some form or another since the 90's. Tho it both alternates duration, timing and lift through the switching between "rigid" cam profiles.
To all of you saying that Ti-vct is not new tech, it is a vvt, it's just a new form of it, instead of just having a varying time on each set of valves (exhaust, and intake), Ti-vct moves the cams in different positions every time according to engine conditions, so every valve is independantly moved, this applies to both overhead cams, thus allowing there to be perfect 50/50 air, and exhaust ratios every time. It really is that simple.
@man36021 Actually Ti-vct, is basically vtec, or i-vvt. 50/50 is not always perfect, durring some rpm's you want more air, and in others, you want more fuel. The cams moving in different position IS what causes a varying time on each set of valves....So thats all vtec ti-vct, so on and so fouth systems work. This system is just late as hell(almost 20 years behind Vtec-vtec is first of its kind). What ford needs to do now is improve their chaise, and reduce weight.
@fitimio001 Ti-vct is not v-tec, what you explained is nothing more than vvt technology. V-tec stands for variabl valve timming, and electronic lift controll, this sinply uses the ecu monitor to change the cam (usually a single ovehead one) to help give the a specific open/closing time, however, each set of valves is not independantly moved, which limits the engine. Ford's Ti-vct technology independantly moves each and every valve via a DOHC setup, which allows for the best of both efficiancy..
@man36021..reliability and performance. So, your rash comments are wrong, ford had a vvt before Ti-vct, it was just not as advanced (to further prove this, most more modern cars use vvt technology). So the difference between this, and v-tec, is that each and every valve is independantly moved, prior to a set of valves being moved to optimise engine efficiancy. it's pretty simple.
@man36021 I never said that Ti-vct was vtec. And actually most vtec systems are DHOC, like B16 B18 B20 k20, so on and so forth. Honda did it first, and their system works the best. It does not use the ecu either, it needs it, but it doesn't operate off of it. It uses oil pressure. The Ti-VCT is same technology as V-TEC with a different name. Ti-VCT does not control every specific valve, it works just like VTEC and changes the angle on the cams to allow more aggressive cam timing.
@fitimio001 No, v-tec is fully reliant on the ecu system bro, that's where the electronic lift control comes in, and there's another difference, Ti-vct is reliant on roller finger followers and advanced phasers to enhance the timming. Now, every specific valve is controled to the point that best suits the current engine position, and every specific valve is controlled based off of that (since nothing's perfect).
@fitimio001 Now v-tec was designed to deliver better fuel economy, not performance (for example, most "fast" hondas are ricers) and it doesn't even kick in until it reaches a certain rpm range, to optimise economy ratings. Ti-vct gives you an average of both worlds since it works throughout the entire engine process, while both advancing, and retarding the valves independantly for better efficiancy and performance. V-tec wasn't made for speed, period (even with the DOHC models) .
@man36021 Im sorry, but you need to do research before you talk because it makes you looke like an idiot... Vtec gives great fuel economy when you are not pushing the car(lower rpm), but when you go above 4500 rpm(can be changed), the cam timing changes allowing the exhust and intake valves to open more, and longer. Since you side "not performance" you were completely wrong, and thereby lying, and everything you say from now on is a joke. If someone with an NSX, EK9, Integra type R heard this...
@fitimio001 All of which make low hp numbers, they had other things done to them to make them faster, that's why the rice burners try to say muscle cars can't turn (as most improvements in the cars you mentioned were improved based off that) v-tec is econ shit, so keep your gay little ricer talk out of this.
@man36021 Bro im not a ricer.Those cars dont have anything done to them, they come stock off the factory with a plethora of power. See you have it stuck in your thick, ignorant, republican skull, that imports are shit, because you were brain-washed by your family to do so. Its ok, its not your fult. The "ricer" cars are meant to be balanced. The have a manageable and usable Hp, High reving, best turning, low weight, while still being economical and affordable.You lost your ethos when you lied.
@fitimio001 Dude, check out the auto reviews, muscle cars are normally 12 second vehicles, and most get up to at least .88g's on the skidpad, cars like the subaru wrx, and mitsubishi evo get from .72, to around .80g's with AWD. Dude, the only reason thier power is usable is because they make no power to begin with. Most cars like the wrx, and evo, can only compete with the track times of a v6 mucle car, and usually cost as much as the v8 models due to being turbo charged.
@pcfxer V6 stang gets .96g's, and makes 306hp on paper with a v6 engine, while your car makes on paper only 140hp naturally aspirated with an inline 4 cylinder. Dude, that car's not comparable, so i'll take this as a joke dude, lol.
@man36021 200hp/180lbs-ft of torque, 6-speed close-ratio transmission, W-rated summer tires, V-brace in the trunk, double reinforced firewall/cowl, 12.6" front disc rotors/11.5" rear disc rotors, 17" wheels MINIMUM (calipers will not clear), lowered 1.5" over the 2.0S, high rate springs/dampers, 25mm front sway bar, I forget the rear...
@pcfxer Dude, first of all look at the power difference, not a chance bro. Second of all, the club of america sport package only improves handling by a bit, so the v6 stang most likely gets .94-.93g's without it. Damn dude, I thought you were joking, what makes you think a 4-banger that only makes 180lbs-ft of torque could compete with any stang to date, look bro, your argument will sound more reasonable if you talk trash to some focus drivers.
@man36021 Also...isn't the 0.96g only with the mustang club of america package? If I were in the market, I'd get that pkg + V-6. 306hp is plenty enough for trouble making (200hp is now).
@pcfxer Ti-vct uses advanced phasers, and roller fingrer followers to controll the camshafts, and independantly variate the timming of the valves, it's just a more advanced vvt system, it helps to controll each valve, which is a hard thing to accomplish within an engine. and v-tec, (as i've explained earlier) is nothing like Ti-vct other than the fact that it's another form of vvt. Ti-vct helps to improve overall performance over fuel efficiancy, while v-tec does the opposite.
@man36021 vtec isn't just valve timing it is LIFT and because the came is profiled differently. Can Ti-VCT on the same bank of cylinders, apply different timing on intake valve for cylinder #1 than cylinder #3?
@pcfxer Actually, yes, Ti-vct stands for twin independant variable cam timming, so it's pretty much in the name, the difference is that Ti-vct uses mechanical lift to variate the timming prior to electronic lift. It's just ford's vvt system, and you can think that honda and nissan have the best, but then again, the only "performance cars" don't make much power, and are turbocharged, therefore taking away all of the advantages of v-tec in the first place. Thank you for the input.
@man36021 Where are your engineering credentials? Oh right, you don't have any. Here we go; Ti-VCT does not apply/variate valve LIFT. Nissan's 3.7L v-6 in the IPL G coupe actually produces 348hp and pollutes less than the Ford 3.7L (It even uses twin throttle bodies). VVEL is not only superior technology to Ford's Ti-VCT but also to Valvetronic and Porsche Vario-Cam.
@man36021 Twin Independent ONLY refers to the timing being different on ONE bank of valves...Intake can have different timing on exhaust. In the NAME, the timing can not be changed on a cylinder-cylinder basis which is the only way the Ford system would be more advanced than any other system.
@pcfxer all right it's, twin INDEPENDANT variable cam timming, right? Dude, because this is a DOHC setup, each intake, and exhaust valve can be changed to a more accurate position. You aren't very good at this are you?
Variable Cam Timing... that's VVT basically and quoting Wiki: "It was in the 1920s that the first patents for variable duration valve opening started appearing"
I bought a 2011 mustang v6 yesterday. Has as much get up and go as my friends 2005 Mustang GT. Except 31 mpg is nothing close to what I get. F**k it takes hella gas!
@paladain55 I don't think Ford will offer the ecoboost in the Mustang because most Mustang buyers that want performance are gearheads who want the sound and rumble of a V8. Ford learned this when they offered the SVO in 1984 to 1986. The SVO was an awesome car it was just ahead of it's time. For less money one could get a 5.0 GT. But who knows? With gas prices the way they are maybe a forced induction Mustang would sell now.
@waterfrontdude i like the new 3.7l . i wanna do an sts twin turbo. that would be cool. because turbos are super efficient and are suppost to give u like 8% better mpg when ur not on the throttle
@paladain55 over the years, that line because and excuse. turbo will save you some mpg but wait! most of the time people tend to speed more often before the install. so saying its save you more money on mpg and if you needed more power its there...it just become a myth.
Well done. As much as I don't like the Mustang (too many versions), I would love to own the new one. The Duratec 37 is a beefy motor and has all forged internals. It is a 3.5L Ecoboost (Duratec 35) without the turbo, but with the internals. Slap a couple turbos on there and the new SVO is all yours.
@zepelin33 The point is the fuel economy it gets while also making 305Hp... They could crank more power out of the engine but it wouldn't be as good on gas.
@dragsteralf Every bit as good as the VQ. Have you driven the new 3.7 VQ Z? Engine is way granier and vibrates much more than the new Ford V6. The Mustang also costs 8k less than the Z, model for model. Plus, when you buy one the money stays in this country. Buy a Nissan and the money goes back to Japan. It's easy to take pride in an American car maker again. GO FORD. RUN WITH THE OVAL!
@dragsteralf I tested the 370Z. Good car, but I hate the sound of it. It needs more muscle. I'll always prefer the 300ZX. Best motor, best interior space, and best handling imho. But the 370s styling is spot on.
@cssplayer19 because the fuel economy blew....besides, with the direct injection engines they have on these '11's now, the 5.0 liter is PERFECT! However, the V6 is badass too. I can say that the V6 is great for people who would get hit with insurance. Myself included, I had to get a V6 because insurance was $500 a month for a GT! Ahh, being 17 blows :/ Well sorta haha.
Its funny , if ford or GM wanted they could pull more Horses from these V6s, but what would be the point to the V8s then, really if they wanted they could pull near 400 Horses from the engines, with all the technology today anything its possible, V8s Muscle Cars in the 80s would have dream of having 300 HP lol.
@skippys70 The engine in this mustang is basically a like a Honda DOHC (dual overhead cam) V-TEC engine. Ti-VCT is what Ford is calling their implementation of variable valve timing (VVT). Honda has been using the VVT technology for years. It's how Honda made 200HP 4cyl engines back in the 90s. Did ford make a 200HP 4cyl engine in the 90s? By the way, Honda has a 3.7L V6 with roughly equivalent power ratings. Ford could have been using this for years. Think before you make fun of V-TEC, dumbass.
@lolhehe420 yeah, but does honda have a badass car like a mustang? Im sorry, that was out of line. atleast we are all car people and know how they work and fix them. I cant stand people who just troll without backing it up.
@lolhehe420 umm this is different.. this is not variable valve timing with two cam lobes for each valve and two sets of cam followers. this is twin independent variable cam timing. Much different. the computer can advance or retard the timing of the exhaust valve and intake valve banks in seperately of one another. It does not however have independant variable valve timing. Obviously Ford did something right with the coyote (5.0 v8) engine, it too has Ti-VCT and that thing is a fucking BEAST
@mattmatt115 I realize that it is not the same. The variable cam timing design was made by Ford. It ultimately adjusts the timing of the valves, so it is considered a variable valve timing technology. Like I said, this is Ford's implementation of VVT technology and it's pretty damn clever. It's results are similar to any other VVT technology: good gas mileage at low RPM, more power at high RPM, and a wide power band.
Un mustang v6 c comme un moteur pas d'huile sa devrait jamais se produire ! Si y a qui son trop pauvre pour sacheter un v8 acheter juste autre chose !!
98-02 gm f bodies put to the wheels almost what they advertised at the crank about 300-320rwhp...so sometimes they do underrate alot but yea the mustang would b alot faster I'd it put 300 to the wheels.. Also I think in motorrrends magazine article they mentioned Calculating for the drivetrain loss so their number is an estimated hp at the crank
I'm surprised they put that much power in the V6. With today's economy it wouldn't be a bad compromise at all. More power than many 6's ans some V8's. More power than the original 5.0!
Ford is definitely the most impressive American car co.
@5959512 The Nissan 370z with a V6 pumping out 332hp starts at $30,410. For $29,645, you can get the Ford Mustang GT with a V8 engine pumping out 412hp. Both get 26mpg.. You gotta take into account the price difference between the 370z and the V6 Mustang.
@Cosmo1093 Magazines say 460 hp for the new 5.0.How else could it run a 12.7 in the 1/4 mile. I am a Mopar nut myself. but this is one sweet motor. Be it a V6 or V8 both are nice. yl
@ylism It's weird how Ford's numbers are always lower than those found in independent tests. It happened with the Motor Trend test of the V6 too, although it wasn't as drastic.
@ylism I could not remember the name of that magazine that I read that in. I read so many. lol But I do like all cars that make good motors & bodys. yl
eye1em.... the reason ford doesnt have a moonroof on the new mustangs is because of the roof design. It's a short roof and has alot of curve to it. The only way to make it work is to have the glass tilt and slide up above the top. When Ford did a test market for the idea, it failed miserably. Kudos to the folks who decided not to do it. Mustang is an american icon, not some euro trash wannabe.
@anonazero S2K's a bad example the K series engines seem to respond better to aftermarket mods. Kinda like Fords old 302s. They are so so stock but like the 302's once they breathe better they become a difference engine entirely. I agree with you though. They save their best engines for the Acura line up and Japan. Japan gets a 2.2L I4 putting out 260hp and the best one we get here in the states that isen't luxury brand is the F20 (stock wise)
@Metalhead852 here's the other thing. they require way more maintenance. its like with m3 engines. they're super pimp but need valve checkups and stuff. most people dont want to do that every 15-20k miles ya know? i know its no big deal but most folks just want to put gas in the car, change the oil, and drive. the higher ya rev the more service it requires. its just inevitable, unfortunately.
The glass roof and convertible options are nice but I'd rather have a moonroof or a hard-top convertible. The camaro has a moonroof but the dash is hideous. The first one to meet our demands(I'm not the only one that wants this) will get my business.
I am bout to get my driver license in a few month and im around 5ft 3in or so and i been thinking about get a mustang but i dont know if its a good car for my height. plz help
@0SpyderScope I'm 5'4", you can easily adjust the seat to feel comfortable, I test drove a fully loaded (even had nav) 2011 v6 Mustang today, it was a damn nice car.
@skippys70 you said always. What about the shitty ass 4.8 in the last gen GTs. Sorry but when it comes to engines GM is a step ahead of Ford. Also VTEC is still a superior system to Fords even with how dated it is. Honda continually gets better HP/L ratios than Ford. This is fact.
@undertake782 This is true currently. However with the upcoming zeta platform and the large reduction in weight expected with the next gen Camaro you will see GM either equal with or slightly ahead. Its a back and forth deal with GM and Ford. Sadly the Mopar guys use to have a fighting chance but the only thing close is the Challenger SRT8 which cost a very large chunk of change more than the better performing 5.0. Just don't say "always" because Ford has made plenty of embarrassing Mustangs.
About time something amazing like this came from america. I admit I have driven nothing but japanese cars my whole life....no longer will I purchase a japanese car after seeing this! valve timing mated with a 6-spd cranking out 305hp for a 3.7 Liter? That's what you call efficiency! But not only that, an american car that handles great as well?? America finally did it! I am shocked this day finally came.
@AnonymoussourceL0L V6's are more difficult to balance than V8's. More cylinders there are the more power strokes there are which allows for generally (nothing is black and white) higher Rs. Think Ferrari, Lambo ect.
OMG were you serious with that statement? High revs has almost nothing to do with the cylinder count. How about valve train, stroke, and bore? I got a 2 cylinder VTWIN that can safely rev to 12000 RPMs and a V6 that goes to 7000. A pushrod V8 can not safely rev to a high RPM because you risk valve float and damage.
@Metalhead852 haha thats funny. Nascar anyone? 9,000rpms for hours on end. Regardless of your sarcasim like i said nothin is black and white but comparin Small engines to large is simply stupid. We were discussin production engines. Chev, Ford, Lambo, BMW. shit like that not VTWINS and shit. Chev Pushrod 7.0 no problem singin at 7k ALL day. Numurous production V6's with DOHC and whatever else can not compete with that. Really no need to be a tool.
@jkheslekrants I only made that statement because the guy didn't know what he was talking about. I was only saying that the amount of pistons does not determine safe engine operating RPM limits. But yes I was being sarcastic. My main point is that quality valve train components along with your bore and stroke play the largest role. There is a formula but I don't remember it off of the top of my head.
@jkheslekrants yep but those pistons you mention are the size of a wet noodle --- no wonder they rev to 15000 rpms .low mass --- low inertia -- super solid engine cradle ---- other little things.But like they say --- the light that burns the brightest also burns out the quickest
All car builders constantly weigh power against reliability -- and warranty repaoir costs .
Most people drive like idiots --- take little care of machinery ----- and are basically stupid .
@frank55656 Just a last little note, really shouldnt "dumb" yourself down and start making accuations as to who i may be or what goes on during the course of my typical day haha. Just for you . Im a Technician. 6ft, 21yrs old, weigh 195 and can run a mile in 6.80 comfortably. Haha. Stop being a punk and lets keep the topic to just car talk shall we?
@frank55656 how am i being a bully? haha And did you honestly just reference Fast Fords and Muscle Mustangs as a legit source? You Ford guys are all the same. That is a bull shit biased magazine that you folk praise like gospel The fastest that i have heard/witnessed a stock 2011 5.0 run is 13.1 at 110 and he was fitted with the 3.73 rear diff Another guy i talked to ran 13.7 Call it driver error or whatever you like regardless that is far from a 12.6. Damn simply cant understand people like you
@frank55656 -- right on frank -- Internet bullies are just like internet sex -- very little real satisfaction --- just in ones own mind ----If you got to say something , think about it first --- cutting people up cus of car preferences is just crap . Its like thinking your tax money is used for good reasons and not just corrupt politicians and their contractor friends .
I say who cares about a second or two unless she's making dinner and it;s getting cold .
High power v-6 is the best thing that;s ever happened --- and we have Ford to thank .Now the Challenger has to smell the Bacon or get out of the kitchen .The Camaro just needs to go to weight watchers -- ok and maybe a few more ponies.
How about a dual clutch for the v-8 Stang ---- cus I'm just lazy .
Well if they can stuff it in the Fiesta --- why not a good looking car .
What's next a v-6 in a Corvette ??
Ok I'll take the dual clutch in the v-6 Mustang ---- but just cus you forced me .
@frank55656 You are an idiot and are pulliin shit outta your ass so please you can Go to hell. Stock Mustang GTs Can NOT run 12's until now with the God like 5.0. The 4.6 is Lethargic unless its boosted or extensively modified. You truly arent worth my time to discuss this shit with
One last note. I highly doubt Even a 5.0 with 3.31 will be able to touch 12.9. Take this 12.6 shit to bed with you. . .Moron
"It's only 305 horsepower"... actually it's closer to 308 and it gets 31mpg. You'll have to mod a civic si to just get past the 300hp mark, but then you're 29 mpg goes down the shoot. And seriously, $22k for a 2.0L rice burner? You can buy the v6 mustang for that much money, have better fuel economy, have more fun and get the attention you want in addition to compliments. You can't beat it, you just can't!
The 3.7 gots a little more of the twisty force though (torque for those of you who haven't taken physics yet), probably more important than a measly 1hp. But apples to apples, hardly relevant, 1 more hp, 7 more ft lb tq, .1 liters. I have better things to argue over like how Chrysler's 3.5L is a revolting steaming pile of fail.
@Reaper87xx Dodge has always amazed me --- so slow to react even in the late sixties .Last ones in the fracas first ones out when the going got rough .That;s why I have always admired Ford --- stuck with the Stang all the way through the lean years when the Insurance bastards screwed the public as well as the safety Nazis
But I digress as usual.V-6 Mustang in the works very soon then a supercharger when the divorce comes final.'
that article quotes a mustang engineer letting some info out about edging the camaro. and its generally acepted that the camaro has horrible visibility. also the interior, while striking to look at, is not so functional as i would like every day. guages behind the shifter are retro, and great in a concept car but that died out a while back for a reason
looks like ford took ferrari's piston design? and why variable cam timing what good will that do? it's not going to change how far the valves open like v-tech? why would this add power?
@superfunnyman123 it has a lot more to do with adjusting the timing based on throttle input. Mostly its to conserve fuel so the engineers can juice the engine up in other areas. and to hell with v-tech...
@EatmyDust1311 Im not here to bicker. Chev 3.6 makes more power per liter than the 3.7 (do the math yourself. . if you can) and it sucks more fuel because the chevy is a heavy ass mother fucker. put the 3.6 chev in a car the weighs 3500lbs instead of 3800lbs and watch the epa surpass the fords. With that said i am not taking anything away from ford;s 3.7. it is a respectable powerplant
@jkheslekrants dont give me that ricer bullshit. yes, the camaro is a fatty which would explain why its slow and sucks fuel. but the mustng is lighter, more powerfull, faster, gets better gas mileage, better visibility, better interior... the only thing the camaro has is its styling, and only until everyone gets thier fill of it. remember 2005?
@EatmyDust1311 Yes the mustang IS lighter. yes it makes ONE more HP. Interior and visibility being better in the Ford is a personal opinion. I think the Chevy's interior is Nicer and the visiblity is fine. For me they are both easy to drive. There isnt anything 'ricer' about my comment. Chev makes more power/liter but is a pig which explains its 2 mpg epa less and its slower ets. Now on a post note the 6 speed manual mustang V6 gets epa 29hwy = to the Chevy which is 300lbs heavier. Get over it.
@jkheslekrants one more hp is about the same, but you cant argue with 300 pound weight loss, ferrari would kill all the children in the world to save 300 pounds on any of thier cars. im not entirely sure about the v6 mustang engine, i think they just barely edged the camaro on purpose. bith engines have more in them, its just a question of how much. and the 5.0 in the gt make more hp per liter than the 6.2 in the ss, and since both engines were developed at the same time i cant help but think...
@jkheslekrants As far as interiors go, they're equally as shoddy but we're not talking about a 70G Benz either. But how can you say that the Camaro can have as good visibility as the Stang even by opinion? Have you even driven a new Camaro or 6th gen Stang for that matter? Camaro's visibility is EASILY EASILY the most garbage of all the three pony cars. When visibility is the #1 reason why I won't buy a car (and many motoring journalists as well) that's pretty serious problem.
@Reaper87xx I have driven both cars dude. My Momma owns a 2006 stang and i work at wilsonville chevrolet in portland oregon (i have driven many a used vehicles including a 2010 trac pack 4.6 M5 Stang). I have driven numerous 2010 Camaros as well. and i honestly (no bull shit) dont have any problem with visibility. i can see everything that i need to see when manuvering a vehicle without any stress of any kind. I like the chevy bruh even though its a heavy ass bitch. She's fuckin beautiful
@Reaper87xx And fuck journalists bruh. They are paid to creat hype. you honestly believe a stock 3.7 mustang is gonna run 13.7? Fuck no, how bout 5.0 runnin 12.7? Yeah ok. Ive talked to fellas who own these cars. the consistent spread is good run = 13.1 and typical run =13.7 for the 5.0
@Anthony4378 i dont like being in a a camaro *AKA* cramped yellow junk box with joke rear seats, 0 visibility, and an interior worse then in the challenger (GASP!*), nor a challenger with the steering wheel feel vaguely connected to the wheels to compensate for its massave weight... whats you're definition of a sports car? a civic?
Hm, I always side with ford, but that engine looks like it has a lot to break. Anyone know the est life? or is that one of those, only time will tell things?
Buy the V8
gt201250 1 week ago
305hp for as much as 3.7l is too little.
jwserge 1 week ago
@jwserge thats more than the previous modles v8! pretty good but it cant be more than the new v8.
Prodriver33 1 week ago
@man36021 No, the Ti-VCT does NOT alter lift and it does not alter duration... The only thing i does is to shift the Centerline angles of both in and ex cams, and hence also the LSA between them stepless (No new thing...Volvo has done that since 2002)... And your 50/50 ex/in stuff... Do you even have a clue about what you're talking about? I will be VERY interested in reading how you think changing the LSA and Centerline angles will change the ratio between in and ex valve time-area :)
flyfaen1 2 weeks ago
Not to disapoint you guy's.. But variable valve timing has been around on European engines since the 90's!!! Both Volvo and BMW started with "dual" VVT in 2002. The Japanese also, at least Toyota, Nissan and so on... Those systems only affect valve centerline angle, and lobe separation angles. Honda has used their V-tec system in some form or another since the 90's. Tho it both alternates duration, timing and lift through the switching between "rigid" cam profiles.
flyfaen1 3 weeks ago
@flyfaen1 There are differences in vvt system functions, and designs. Hate to break it to you, but most people know this. Fail
man36021 2 weeks ago
To all of you saying that Ti-vct is not new tech, it is a vvt, it's just a new form of it, instead of just having a varying time on each set of valves (exhaust, and intake), Ti-vct moves the cams in different positions every time according to engine conditions, so every valve is independantly moved, this applies to both overhead cams, thus allowing there to be perfect 50/50 air, and exhaust ratios every time. It really is that simple.
man36021 5 months ago
@man36021 Actually Ti-vct, is basically vtec, or i-vvt. 50/50 is not always perfect, durring some rpm's you want more air, and in others, you want more fuel. The cams moving in different position IS what causes a varying time on each set of valves....So thats all vtec ti-vct, so on and so fouth systems work. This system is just late as hell(almost 20 years behind Vtec-vtec is first of its kind). What ford needs to do now is improve their chaise, and reduce weight.
fitimio001 3 months ago
@fitimio001 Ti-vct is not v-tec, what you explained is nothing more than vvt technology. V-tec stands for variabl valve timming, and electronic lift controll, this sinply uses the ecu monitor to change the cam (usually a single ovehead one) to help give the a specific open/closing time, however, each set of valves is not independantly moved, which limits the engine. Ford's Ti-vct technology independantly moves each and every valve via a DOHC setup, which allows for the best of both efficiancy..
man36021 3 months ago
@man36021..reliability and performance. So, your rash comments are wrong, ford had a vvt before Ti-vct, it was just not as advanced (to further prove this, most more modern cars use vvt technology). So the difference between this, and v-tec, is that each and every valve is independantly moved, prior to a set of valves being moved to optimise engine efficiancy. it's pretty simple.
man36021 3 months ago
@man36021 I never said that Ti-vct was vtec. And actually most vtec systems are DHOC, like B16 B18 B20 k20, so on and so forth. Honda did it first, and their system works the best. It does not use the ecu either, it needs it, but it doesn't operate off of it. It uses oil pressure. The Ti-VCT is same technology as V-TEC with a different name. Ti-VCT does not control every specific valve, it works just like VTEC and changes the angle on the cams to allow more aggressive cam timing.
fitimio001 3 months ago
@fitimio001 No, v-tec is fully reliant on the ecu system bro, that's where the electronic lift control comes in, and there's another difference, Ti-vct is reliant on roller finger followers and advanced phasers to enhance the timming. Now, every specific valve is controled to the point that best suits the current engine position, and every specific valve is controlled based off of that (since nothing's perfect).
man36021 3 months ago
@fitimio001 Now v-tec was designed to deliver better fuel economy, not performance (for example, most "fast" hondas are ricers) and it doesn't even kick in until it reaches a certain rpm range, to optimise economy ratings. Ti-vct gives you an average of both worlds since it works throughout the entire engine process, while both advancing, and retarding the valves independantly for better efficiancy and performance. V-tec wasn't made for speed, period (even with the DOHC models) .
man36021 3 months ago
@man36021 Im sorry, but you need to do research before you talk because it makes you looke like an idiot... Vtec gives great fuel economy when you are not pushing the car(lower rpm), but when you go above 4500 rpm(can be changed), the cam timing changes allowing the exhust and intake valves to open more, and longer. Since you side "not performance" you were completely wrong, and thereby lying, and everything you say from now on is a joke. If someone with an NSX, EK9, Integra type R heard this...
fitimio001 3 months ago
@fitimio001 All of which make low hp numbers, they had other things done to them to make them faster, that's why the rice burners try to say muscle cars can't turn (as most improvements in the cars you mentioned were improved based off that) v-tec is econ shit, so keep your gay little ricer talk out of this.
man36021 3 months ago
@man36021 Bro im not a ricer.Those cars dont have anything done to them, they come stock off the factory with a plethora of power. See you have it stuck in your thick, ignorant, republican skull, that imports are shit, because you were brain-washed by your family to do so. Its ok, its not your fult. The "ricer" cars are meant to be balanced. The have a manageable and usable Hp, High reving, best turning, low weight, while still being economical and affordable.You lost your ethos when you lied.
fitimio001 3 months ago
@fitimio001 Dude, check out the auto reviews, muscle cars are normally 12 second vehicles, and most get up to at least .88g's on the skidpad, cars like the subaru wrx, and mitsubishi evo get from .72, to around .80g's with AWD. Dude, the only reason thier power is usable is because they make no power to begin with. Most cars like the wrx, and evo, can only compete with the track times of a v6 mucle car, and usually cost as much as the v8 models due to being turbo charged.
man36021 3 months ago
@man36021 My Sentra Spec-V hits 0.86gs and costs half of a V-6 mustang....annnd go.
pcfxer 3 months ago
@pcfxer V6 stang gets .96g's, and makes 306hp on paper with a v6 engine, while your car makes on paper only 140hp naturally aspirated with an inline 4 cylinder. Dude, that car's not comparable, so i'll take this as a joke dude, lol.
man36021 3 months ago
@man36021 200hp/180lbs-ft of torque, 6-speed close-ratio transmission, W-rated summer tires, V-brace in the trunk, double reinforced firewall/cowl, 12.6" front disc rotors/11.5" rear disc rotors, 17" wheels MINIMUM (calipers will not clear), lowered 1.5" over the 2.0S, high rate springs/dampers, 25mm front sway bar, I forget the rear...
SPEC-V: not the sentra you looked up.
pcfxer 3 months ago
@pcfxer Dude, first of all look at the power difference, not a chance bro. Second of all, the club of america sport package only improves handling by a bit, so the v6 stang most likely gets .94-.93g's without it. Damn dude, I thought you were joking, what makes you think a 4-banger that only makes 180lbs-ft of torque could compete with any stang to date, look bro, your argument will sound more reasonable if you talk trash to some focus drivers.
man36021 3 months ago
@man36021 Also...isn't the 0.96g only with the mustang club of america package? If I were in the market, I'd get that pkg + V-6. 306hp is plenty enough for trouble making (200hp is now).
pcfxer 3 months ago
@man36021 Ti-VCT DOES NOT CONTROL LIFT! It is not as advanced as Vtec and is NO WHERE NEAR VVEL.
pcfxer 3 months ago
@pcfxer Ti-vct uses advanced phasers, and roller fingrer followers to controll the camshafts, and independantly variate the timming of the valves, it's just a more advanced vvt system, it helps to controll each valve, which is a hard thing to accomplish within an engine. and v-tec, (as i've explained earlier) is nothing like Ti-vct other than the fact that it's another form of vvt. Ti-vct helps to improve overall performance over fuel efficiancy, while v-tec does the opposite.
man36021 3 months ago
@man36021 vtec isn't just valve timing it is LIFT and because the came is profiled differently. Can Ti-VCT on the same bank of cylinders, apply different timing on intake valve for cylinder #1 than cylinder #3?
pcfxer 3 months ago
@pcfxer Actually, yes, Ti-vct stands for twin independant variable cam timming, so it's pretty much in the name, the difference is that Ti-vct uses mechanical lift to variate the timming prior to electronic lift. It's just ford's vvt system, and you can think that honda and nissan have the best, but then again, the only "performance cars" don't make much power, and are turbocharged, therefore taking away all of the advantages of v-tec in the first place. Thank you for the input.
man36021 3 months ago
@man36021 Where are your engineering credentials? Oh right, you don't have any. Here we go; Ti-VCT does not apply/variate valve LIFT. Nissan's 3.7L v-6 in the IPL G coupe actually produces 348hp and pollutes less than the Ford 3.7L (It even uses twin throttle bodies). VVEL is not only superior technology to Ford's Ti-VCT but also to Valvetronic and Porsche Vario-Cam.
pcfxer 3 months ago
@man36021 Twin Independent ONLY refers to the timing being different on ONE bank of valves...Intake can have different timing on exhaust. In the NAME, the timing can not be changed on a cylinder-cylinder basis which is the only way the Ford system would be more advanced than any other system.
pcfxer 3 months ago
@pcfxer all right it's, twin INDEPENDANT variable cam timming, right? Dude, because this is a DOHC setup, each intake, and exhaust valve can be changed to a more accurate position. You aren't very good at this are you?
man36021 3 months ago
what a cool V6, plenty of power and torque...my 300zx had these figures 20 years ago. I guess it's good to see America catching up.
hmm *hefts fire extinguisher*
BrEnNo1023 5 months ago
Variable Cam Timing... that's VVT basically and quoting Wiki: "It was in the 1920s that the first patents for variable duration valve opening started appearing"
AMVDawg 6 months ago
I bought a 2011 mustang v6 yesterday. Has as much get up and go as my friends 2005 Mustang GT. Except 31 mpg is nothing close to what I get. F**k it takes hella gas!
hustler1593 6 months ago
i wish they did an ecoboost version :'(
paladain55 7 months ago
@paladain55 I don't think Ford will offer the ecoboost in the Mustang because most Mustang buyers that want performance are gearheads who want the sound and rumble of a V8. Ford learned this when they offered the SVO in 1984 to 1986. The SVO was an awesome car it was just ahead of it's time. For less money one could get a 5.0 GT. But who knows? With gas prices the way they are maybe a forced induction Mustang would sell now.
waterfrontdude 6 months ago
@waterfrontdude i like the new 3.7l . i wanna do an sts twin turbo. that would be cool. because turbos are super efficient and are suppost to give u like 8% better mpg when ur not on the throttle
paladain55 6 months ago
@paladain55 over the years, that line because and excuse. turbo will save you some mpg but wait! most of the time people tend to speed more often before the install. so saying its save you more money on mpg and if you needed more power its there...it just become a myth.
BlueRice 6 months ago
@paladain55 it uses the same tech that an ecoboost does so it pretty much is
evanthefreak 6 months ago
@evanthefreak oh, so you could just put something like a hellion turbo.
paladain55 6 months ago
@paladain55 im not really sure, i do know that procharged makes a turbo kit for it but other than that im really not sure
evanthefreak 6 months ago
dope on the track, magic on the street lets go mustang
MrHibachi21 7 months ago 3
VRaiment bien fé
Blorque59 7 months ago
this thing beats the ugly ass camaro hands down in looks and power.
jbs0317 10 months ago 18
skyline is better
:)
TrucksNBikes 11 months ago
Well done. As much as I don't like the Mustang (too many versions), I would love to own the new one. The Duratec 37 is a beefy motor and has all forged internals. It is a 3.5L Ecoboost (Duratec 35) without the turbo, but with the internals. Slap a couple turbos on there and the new SVO is all yours.
americansmark 1 year ago
31MPG = 7,7L/100km..... NEVER ! No way !
DiggaBua 1 year ago
@DiggaBua no, 7,7 is possible. even with a 2011 GT (but only on highway).
skunkerOfAg 7 months ago
2000 BMW 3.2l R6 - 343 hp Torque 365 Nm @ 4900 rpm
1992 BMW 3.8l R6 - 340 hp, Torque 400 Nm @ 4750 rpm
zepelin33 1 year ago
@zepelin33 The point is the fuel economy it gets while also making 305Hp... They could crank more power out of the engine but it wouldn't be as good on gas.
twztd28 10 months ago
Comment removed
zepelin33 1 year ago
ford finally makes a good v-6....now they have to make them as good as nissan does.
dragsteralf 1 year ago
@dragsteralf fords is every bit as good. they simply sacrificed a little horsepower for excellent fuel economy. just sayin.
1ightweightSukka 1 year ago
@dragsteralf Every bit as good as the VQ. Have you driven the new 3.7 VQ Z? Engine is way granier and vibrates much more than the new Ford V6. The Mustang also costs 8k less than the Z, model for model. Plus, when you buy one the money stays in this country. Buy a Nissan and the money goes back to Japan. It's easy to take pride in an American car maker again. GO FORD. RUN WITH THE OVAL!
Mymothersson31 1 year ago 3
@Mymothersson31 A lot of Nissans are primarily located in Tennessee and that is where most of the powertrains come from.
pcfxer 3 months ago
@dragsteralf I tested the 370Z. Good car, but I hate the sound of it. It needs more muscle. I'll always prefer the 300ZX. Best motor, best interior space, and best handling imho. But the 370s styling is spot on.
americansmark 1 year ago
Fast, Fun, & Ford Motor Company :)
merimar3 1 year ago
Since, I live in the City..., I'd Love to have the V6 version of the new 'Stang! ;-)
BklynJayL 1 year ago
Best V6 engine in the world! ;-)
BklynJayL 1 year ago
Buying my '11 Mustang V6 Premium was one of the best purchases that I have made in a long time.
I could have bought the GT, and I could have bought the manual, but because I don't race, there is no reason to me to have bought anything else.
The auto, while not as fun as a manual, has been so convenient, and is still smooth and responsive.
zulu45 1 year ago
why didn't they just keep the 5.0 from 1994 to 2010.
cssplayer19 1 year ago
@cssplayer19 5.0 its not practical v6 rules 305 hp what more can i ask for :)
Reddylion 1 year ago
@cssplayer19 because the fuel economy blew....besides, with the direct injection engines they have on these '11's now, the 5.0 liter is PERFECT! However, the V6 is badass too. I can say that the V6 is great for people who would get hit with insurance. Myself included, I had to get a V6 because insurance was $500 a month for a GT! Ahh, being 17 blows :/ Well sorta haha.
merimar3 1 year ago
Apple Pie, Baseball, And the Ford Mustang... America.
zur2122 1 year ago 43
@zur2122 pornstars :)
Reddylion 1 year ago
@zur2122 no its chevy not ford, thats why chevy was the heart beat of america
1990irocz350 1 week ago
..Santa better give me this...ive been good all year...but dont worry ill still be good when i get it ;)
SoloAndroid 1 year ago
well that makes no sense, The V6 gets an X-Pipe, while the Mighty 5.0 has to make due with an H-Pipe?
digitalrailroader 1 year ago
@digitalrailroader its for the sound haha h pipes sounds deeper n has that muscle car sound but x pipes equal a lil bit better preformance
paintballa25 1 year ago
@digitalrailroader its for the sound haha h pipes sounds deeper n has that muscle car sound but x pipes equal a lil bit better performance
paintballa25 1 year ago
The difference between an X and an H in terms of HP is insignificant. They use the H Pipe for the deeper sound it produces from the V8.
HaleFire7 1 year ago
go CHEVY go CAMARO go Tijuana BC
gr8oli 1 year ago
Hmm... new engine, I'll pass for now. Wait a year or two for them to work out the defects.
obits3 1 year ago
Its funny , if ford or GM wanted they could pull more Horses from these V6s, but what would be the point to the V8s then, really if they wanted they could pull near 400 Horses from the engines, with all the technology today anything its possible, V8s Muscle Cars in the 80s would have dream of having 300 HP lol.
cubano1389 1 year ago
@cubano1389 probably but you don't want to put extreme loads and forces on an engine or it will have a very short life
F1NN69 1 year ago
@jflorf1989 i wasnt talking about weight i was talking about MPG XD but 31 mpg isnt bad for a car the weights about 3400 pounds
frozendrake 1 year ago
@skippys70 The engine in this mustang is basically a like a Honda DOHC (dual overhead cam) V-TEC engine. Ti-VCT is what Ford is calling their implementation of variable valve timing (VVT). Honda has been using the VVT technology for years. It's how Honda made 200HP 4cyl engines back in the 90s. Did ford make a 200HP 4cyl engine in the 90s? By the way, Honda has a 3.7L V6 with roughly equivalent power ratings. Ford could have been using this for years. Think before you make fun of V-TEC, dumbass.
lolhehe420 1 year ago
@lolhehe420 yeah, but does honda have a badass car like a mustang? Im sorry, that was out of line. atleast we are all car people and know how they work and fix them. I cant stand people who just troll without backing it up.
2strokedetroit 1 year ago
@lolhehe420 umm this is different.. this is not variable valve timing with two cam lobes for each valve and two sets of cam followers. this is twin independent variable cam timing. Much different. the computer can advance or retard the timing of the exhaust valve and intake valve banks in seperately of one another. It does not however have independant variable valve timing. Obviously Ford did something right with the coyote (5.0 v8) engine, it too has Ti-VCT and that thing is a fucking BEAST
mattmatt115 1 year ago
@mattmatt115 I realize that it is not the same. The variable cam timing design was made by Ford. It ultimately adjusts the timing of the valves, so it is considered a variable valve timing technology. Like I said, this is Ford's implementation of VVT technology and it's pretty damn clever. It's results are similar to any other VVT technology: good gas mileage at low RPM, more power at high RPM, and a wide power band.
lolhehe420 1 year ago
Un mustang v6 c comme un moteur pas d'huile sa devrait jamais se produire ! Si y a qui son trop pauvre pour sacheter un v8 acheter juste autre chose !!
fplourde83 1 year ago
I WANT THAT V6 FOR MY 2006 TAURUS SEL!
cactuspete1973 1 year ago
@cactuspete1973 hell yeah total sleeper. same for our 04 ses
PRO50MUSTANGS 1 year ago
Put this motor in the Ford Focus!
Avatarblackwolf 1 year ago
this 305hp v6 get more or the same mpg than you "High Performance" V-Tec
frozendrake 1 year ago
98-02 gm f bodies put to the wheels almost what they advertised at the crank about 300-320rwhp...so sometimes they do underrate alot but yea the mustang would b alot faster I'd it put 300 to the wheels.. Also I think in motorrrends magazine article they mentioned Calculating for the drivetrain loss so their number is an estimated hp at the crank
ws61200 1 year ago
I'm surprised they put that much power in the V6. With today's economy it wouldn't be a bad compromise at all. More power than many 6's ans some V8's. More power than the original 5.0!
Ford is definitely the most impressive American car co.
jeffhanson1 1 year ago 2
@jeffhanson1 That original 5.0 from the 80's and 90's had 225 at the rear wheels didnt it?
cactuspete1973 1 year ago
@cactuspete1973 no it had over 300. the v6 mustangs had the same hp as the 2005-2009 v6 mustangs in those years. a new breed indeed
wonderbreadkw 1 year ago
Nissan 370z -330hp
5959512 1 year ago
@5959512 30HP for a extra 15 grand ill stick with the mustang if I want performance luxury coupe I'll buy a pre-owned maserati for 40k
bighorse215 1 year ago
@5959512
but then everyday, when you walk into your garage to go to work, you see a round japanese rice rocket
dlinecg 1 year ago
@5959512 The Nissan 370z with a V6 pumping out 332hp starts at $30,410. For $29,645, you can get the Ford Mustang GT with a V8 engine pumping out 412hp. Both get 26mpg.. You gotta take into account the price difference between the 370z and the V6 Mustang.
Cosmo1093 1 year ago
@Cosmo1093 Magazines say 460 hp for the new 5.0.How else could it run a 12.7 in the 1/4 mile. I am a Mopar nut myself. but this is one sweet motor. Be it a V6 or V8 both are nice. yl
ylism 1 year ago
@ylism It's weird how Ford's numbers are always lower than those found in independent tests. It happened with the Motor Trend test of the V6 too, although it wasn't as drastic.
Cosmo1093 1 year ago
@ylism I could not remember the name of that magazine that I read that in. I read so many. lol But I do like all cars that make good motors & bodys. yl
ylism 1 year ago
@5959512 ford v6 eco boost 376
flugin2008 1 year ago
@5959512 And also significantly more expensive.
Reaper87xx 1 year ago
Go Mustang, Go Ford, Go America!
erijavec 1 year ago 45
@erijavec Best comment so far man.
MarineUSA93 1 year ago
@MarineUSA93 Thanks! That just felt right.
erijavec 1 year ago
@erijavec ya baby lol...
Reddylion 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@erijavec Fuck Mustang,Fuck Ford,FUCK AMERICA!
kostis897 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kostis897 how about you go FUCK yourself!!!
1ightweightSukka 1 year ago
@kostis897 No buddy, FUCK YOU! Crawl back under your rock, infadel!
Mymothersson31 1 year ago
eye1em.... the reason ford doesnt have a moonroof on the new mustangs is because of the roof design. It's a short roof and has alot of curve to it. The only way to make it work is to have the glass tilt and slide up above the top. When Ford did a test market for the idea, it failed miserably. Kudos to the folks who decided not to do it. Mustang is an american icon, not some euro trash wannabe.
hawkeyfam3 1 year ago
VTEC is dead.
WTFGUY956 1 year ago
@WTFGUY956
VTEC is still the only one changing valve duration and lift and soon Valve Phasing. Fords system is only cam timing.
Metalhead852 1 year ago
@Metalhead852 You're right.
I fail :(
WTFGUY956 1 year ago
@Metalhead852 if only honda built engines that could make real power NA that didn't cost 35K. the S2k just isn't worth the money anymore.
anonazero 1 year ago
@anonazero S2K's a bad example the K series engines seem to respond better to aftermarket mods. Kinda like Fords old 302s. They are so so stock but like the 302's once they breathe better they become a difference engine entirely. I agree with you though. They save their best engines for the Acura line up and Japan. Japan gets a 2.2L I4 putting out 260hp and the best one we get here in the states that isen't luxury brand is the F20 (stock wise)
Metalhead852 1 year ago
@Metalhead852 here's the other thing. they require way more maintenance. its like with m3 engines. they're super pimp but need valve checkups and stuff. most people dont want to do that every 15-20k miles ya know? i know its no big deal but most folks just want to put gas in the car, change the oil, and drive. the higher ya rev the more service it requires. its just inevitable, unfortunately.
anonazero 1 year ago
@anonazero Are you referring to the Honda K and F series engines? Or their high output V6s in the Acura line up?
Metalhead852 1 year ago
That's nice stuff
Blaze0820 1 year ago
The glass roof and convertible options are nice but I'd rather have a moonroof or a hard-top convertible. The camaro has a moonroof but the dash is hideous. The first one to meet our demands(I'm not the only one that wants this) will get my business.
eye1em 1 year ago
I am bout to get my driver license in a few month and im around 5ft 3in or so and i been thinking about get a mustang but i dont know if its a good car for my height. plz help
0SpyderScope 1 year ago
@0SpyderScope You would be fine. at 5'3"
Metalhead852 1 year ago
@0SpyderScope Sit on some books and tie boxes to your shoes. Sorry, couldn't resist :)
luminaeus 1 year ago
@0SpyderScope I'm 5'4", you can easily adjust the seat to feel comfortable, I test drove a fully loaded (even had nav) 2011 v6 Mustang today, it was a damn nice car.
joshnc101 1 year ago
@skippys70 you said always. What about the shitty ass 4.8 in the last gen GTs. Sorry but when it comes to engines GM is a step ahead of Ford. Also VTEC is still a superior system to Fords even with how dated it is. Honda continually gets better HP/L ratios than Ford. This is fact.
Metalhead852 1 year ago
@Metalhead852 Yeah, that's why the Camaro's performance can't beat the new GT's performance.
undertake782 1 year ago
@undertake782 This is true currently. However with the upcoming zeta platform and the large reduction in weight expected with the next gen Camaro you will see GM either equal with or slightly ahead. Its a back and forth deal with GM and Ford. Sadly the Mopar guys use to have a fighting chance but the only thing close is the Challenger SRT8 which cost a very large chunk of change more than the better performing 5.0. Just don't say "always" because Ford has made plenty of embarrassing Mustangs.
Metalhead852 1 year ago
About time something amazing like this came from america. I admit I have driven nothing but japanese cars my whole life....no longer will I purchase a japanese car after seeing this! valve timing mated with a 6-spd cranking out 305hp for a 3.7 Liter? That's what you call efficiency! But not only that, an american car that handles great as well?? America finally did it! I am shocked this day finally came.
boostAWD 1 year ago
if the 5.0 revs to 7k rpm, then couldn't they make the smaller 3.7 rev higher? unless it does and I don't know
AnonymoussourceL0L 1 year ago
@AnonymoussourceL0L V6's are more difficult to balance than V8's. More cylinders there are the more power strokes there are which allows for generally (nothing is black and white) higher Rs. Think Ferrari, Lambo ect.
jkheslekrants 1 year ago
@jkheslekrants
OMG were you serious with that statement? High revs has almost nothing to do with the cylinder count. How about valve train, stroke, and bore? I got a 2 cylinder VTWIN that can safely rev to 12000 RPMs and a V6 that goes to 7000. A pushrod V8 can not safely rev to a high RPM because you risk valve float and damage.
Metalhead852 1 year ago
@Metalhead852 haha thats funny. Nascar anyone? 9,000rpms for hours on end. Regardless of your sarcasim like i said nothin is black and white but comparin Small engines to large is simply stupid. We were discussin production engines. Chev, Ford, Lambo, BMW. shit like that not VTWINS and shit. Chev Pushrod 7.0 no problem singin at 7k ALL day. Numurous production V6's with DOHC and whatever else can not compete with that. Really no need to be a tool.
jkheslekrants 1 year ago
@jkheslekrants I only made that statement because the guy didn't know what he was talking about. I was only saying that the amount of pistons does not determine safe engine operating RPM limits. But yes I was being sarcastic. My main point is that quality valve train components along with your bore and stroke play the largest role. There is a formula but I don't remember it off of the top of my head.
Metalhead852 1 year ago
@jkheslekrants yep but those pistons you mention are the size of a wet noodle --- no wonder they rev to 15000 rpms .low mass --- low inertia -- super solid engine cradle ---- other little things.But like they say --- the light that burns the brightest also burns out the quickest
All car builders constantly weigh power against reliability -- and warranty repaoir costs .
Most people drive like idiots --- take little care of machinery ----- and are basically stupid .
Look around the roads ??
millwrightman99 1 year ago
whats 0-60 on the V6 and 0-60 V8?
MangoSmoothie16 1 year ago
@MangoSmoothie16 V8 does 0-60 in 4.3 - 4.8 seconds. V6... I don't know
AnonymoussourceL0L 1 year ago
@AnonymoussourceL0L damn. i think the v6 is under 6. this is fast to say the least
MangoSmoothie16 1 year ago
@frank55656 Just a last little note, really shouldnt "dumb" yourself down and start making accuations as to who i may be or what goes on during the course of my typical day haha. Just for you . Im a Technician. 6ft, 21yrs old, weigh 195 and can run a mile in 6.80 comfortably. Haha. Stop being a punk and lets keep the topic to just car talk shall we?
jkheslekrants 1 year ago
@frank55656 how am i being a bully? haha And did you honestly just reference Fast Fords and Muscle Mustangs as a legit source? You Ford guys are all the same. That is a bull shit biased magazine that you folk praise like gospel The fastest that i have heard/witnessed a stock 2011 5.0 run is 13.1 at 110 and he was fitted with the 3.73 rear diff Another guy i talked to ran 13.7 Call it driver error or whatever you like regardless that is far from a 12.6. Damn simply cant understand people like you
jkheslekrants 1 year ago
@frank55656 -- right on frank -- Internet bullies are just like internet sex -- very little real satisfaction --- just in ones own mind ----If you got to say something , think about it first --- cutting people up cus of car preferences is just crap . Its like thinking your tax money is used for good reasons and not just corrupt politicians and their contractor friends .
I say who cares about a second or two unless she's making dinner and it;s getting cold .
millwrightman99 1 year ago
High power v-6 is the best thing that;s ever happened --- and we have Ford to thank .Now the Challenger has to smell the Bacon or get out of the kitchen .The Camaro just needs to go to weight watchers -- ok and maybe a few more ponies.
How about a dual clutch for the v-8 Stang ---- cus I'm just lazy .
Well if they can stuff it in the Fiesta --- why not a good looking car .
What's next a v-6 in a Corvette ??
Ok I'll take the dual clutch in the v-6 Mustang ---- but just cus you forced me .
millwrightman99 1 year ago
@frank55656 You are an idiot and are pulliin shit outta your ass so please you can Go to hell. Stock Mustang GTs Can NOT run 12's until now with the God like 5.0. The 4.6 is Lethargic unless its boosted or extensively modified. You truly arent worth my time to discuss this shit with
One last note. I highly doubt Even a 5.0 with 3.31 will be able to touch 12.9. Take this 12.6 shit to bed with you. . .Moron
jkheslekrants 1 year ago
any word on direct injection for the future???
Sirvalorsax 1 year ago
Finally a good American V6.
WTFGUY956 1 year ago
"It's only 305 horsepower"... actually it's closer to 308 and it gets 31mpg. You'll have to mod a civic si to just get past the 300hp mark, but then you're 29 mpg goes down the shoot. And seriously, $22k for a 2.0L rice burner? You can buy the v6 mustang for that much money, have better fuel economy, have more fun and get the attention you want in addition to compliments. You can't beat it, you just can't!
LogoRifle 1 year ago
look at these powerful mustangs!!
youtube.com/watch?v=UGDNYziOb4s
rawestman 1 year ago
The 3.7 gots a little more of the twisty force though (torque for those of you who haven't taken physics yet), probably more important than a measly 1hp. But apples to apples, hardly relevant, 1 more hp, 7 more ft lb tq, .1 liters. I have better things to argue over like how Chrysler's 3.5L is a revolting steaming pile of fail.
Reaper87xx 1 year ago
@Reaper87xx Dodge has always amazed me --- so slow to react even in the late sixties .Last ones in the fracas first ones out when the going got rough .That;s why I have always admired Ford --- stuck with the Stang all the way through the lean years when the Insurance bastards screwed the public as well as the safety Nazis
But I digress as usual.V-6 Mustang in the works very soon then a supercharger when the divorce comes final.'
millwrightman99 1 year ago
and another thing, the mustang v6 makes 2 more lb ft of torque. take that, camaro!
EatmyDust1311 1 year ago
autos.aol.com/article/mustang-camaro-horsepower-wars/
that article quotes a mustang engineer letting some info out about edging the camaro. and its generally acepted that the camaro has horrible visibility. also the interior, while striking to look at, is not so functional as i would like every day. guages behind the shifter are retro, and great in a concept car but that died out a while back for a reason
EatmyDust1311 1 year ago
looks like ford took ferrari's piston design? and why variable cam timing what good will that do? it's not going to change how far the valves open like v-tech? why would this add power?
superfunnyman123 1 year ago
@superfunnyman123 it has a lot more to do with adjusting the timing based on throttle input. Mostly its to conserve fuel so the engineers can juice the engine up in other areas. and to hell with v-tech...
DaBluedude100 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This too is sick as Fuck. But sorry ford fans. the Chevy 3.6 is superior
jkheslekrants 1 year ago
@jkheslekrants yeah, its just less powerfull and sucks more fuel. but def superior. yeah. sure.
EatmyDust1311 1 year ago
@EatmyDust1311 Im not here to bicker. Chev 3.6 makes more power per liter than the 3.7 (do the math yourself. . if you can) and it sucks more fuel because the chevy is a heavy ass mother fucker. put the 3.6 chev in a car the weighs 3500lbs instead of 3800lbs and watch the epa surpass the fords. With that said i am not taking anything away from ford;s 3.7. it is a respectable powerplant
jkheslekrants 1 year ago
@jkheslekrants dont give me that ricer bullshit. yes, the camaro is a fatty which would explain why its slow and sucks fuel. but the mustng is lighter, more powerfull, faster, gets better gas mileage, better visibility, better interior... the only thing the camaro has is its styling, and only until everyone gets thier fill of it. remember 2005?
EatmyDust1311 1 year ago
@EatmyDust1311 Yes the mustang IS lighter. yes it makes ONE more HP. Interior and visibility being better in the Ford is a personal opinion. I think the Chevy's interior is Nicer and the visiblity is fine. For me they are both easy to drive. There isnt anything 'ricer' about my comment. Chev makes more power/liter but is a pig which explains its 2 mpg epa less and its slower ets. Now on a post note the 6 speed manual mustang V6 gets epa 29hwy = to the Chevy which is 300lbs heavier. Get over it.
jkheslekrants 1 year ago
@jkheslekrants one more hp is about the same, but you cant argue with 300 pound weight loss, ferrari would kill all the children in the world to save 300 pounds on any of thier cars. im not entirely sure about the v6 mustang engine, i think they just barely edged the camaro on purpose. bith engines have more in them, its just a question of how much. and the 5.0 in the gt make more hp per liter than the 6.2 in the ss, and since both engines were developed at the same time i cant help but think...
EatmyDust1311 1 year ago
@jkheslekrants As far as interiors go, they're equally as shoddy but we're not talking about a 70G Benz either. But how can you say that the Camaro can have as good visibility as the Stang even by opinion? Have you even driven a new Camaro or 6th gen Stang for that matter? Camaro's visibility is EASILY EASILY the most garbage of all the three pony cars. When visibility is the #1 reason why I won't buy a car (and many motoring journalists as well) that's pretty serious problem.
Reaper87xx 1 year ago
@Reaper87xx I have driven both cars dude. My Momma owns a 2006 stang and i work at wilsonville chevrolet in portland oregon (i have driven many a used vehicles including a 2010 trac pack 4.6 M5 Stang). I have driven numerous 2010 Camaros as well. and i honestly (no bull shit) dont have any problem with visibility. i can see everything that i need to see when manuvering a vehicle without any stress of any kind. I like the chevy bruh even though its a heavy ass bitch. She's fuckin beautiful
jkheslekrants 1 year ago
@Reaper87xx And fuck journalists bruh. They are paid to creat hype. you honestly believe a stock 3.7 mustang is gonna run 13.7? Fuck no, how bout 5.0 runnin 12.7? Yeah ok. Ive talked to fellas who own these cars. the consistent spread is good run = 13.1 and typical run =13.7 for the 5.0
jkheslekrants 1 year ago
Comment removed
1992talontsiawd 1 year ago
@1992talontsiawd You are so dumb I dont even know what to say.
hondavteclover 1 year ago 2
The new junkstang v6 :P
Anthony4378 1 year ago
@Anthony4378 the new idiot
aaronchungrulez 1 year ago
@aaronchungrulez #FAIL
Anthony4378 1 year ago
@Anthony4378 i dont like being in a a camaro *AKA* cramped yellow junk box with joke rear seats, 0 visibility, and an interior worse then in the challenger (GASP!*), nor a challenger with the steering wheel feel vaguely connected to the wheels to compensate for its massave weight... whats you're definition of a sports car? a civic?
aaronchungrulez 1 year ago
@aaronchungrulez #OMG #FAIL
Anthony4378 1 year ago
@Anthony4378 lol OMG FAIL
aaronchungrulez 1 year ago
@aaronchungrulez #LOL #OMG #FAIL #FTW
Anthony4378 1 year ago
The new junkstang v6 :P
Anthony4378 1 year ago
Dynoed at 308hp at flywheel and 287 ft. lbs of torque. 13.7 in the quarter mile.
sirhuggybear 1 year ago
Hm, I always side with ford, but that engine looks like it has a lot to break. Anyone know the est life? or is that one of those, only time will tell things?
idontknow5858 1 year ago
@idontknow5858 It's the same engine as the 3.5L and 3.5L has been around for a while now. One of the most reliable engines out now.
sweetwater88 1 year ago