2011 Mustang V6 with 300+HP versus Camaro V6
01-03-2010, 04:51 AM
#1
Registered Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2011 Mustang V6 with 300+HP versus Camaro V6
Hearing a lot about Fords new Modular V6 that puts out 300+ horsepower...
The 2011 Ford Mustang V6 will get a "Camaro-beating 315 HP V6", according to leaked info posted on The Mustang Source. The new "Coyote" V8, however, will only make 400 HP, slightly behind the Camaro SS (this is a quote from JALOPNIK).
3.7L V6 to be rated at 315 horsepower: Same as 2010 GT; 15 hp more than Camaro V6... No immediate plans for EcoBoost V6 Mustang due to small horsepower gap between EcoBoost and 5.0L V8 (365 vs 400)
Has anyone else heard this?
The 2011 Ford Mustang V6 will get a "Camaro-beating 315 HP V6", according to leaked info posted on The Mustang Source. The new "Coyote" V8, however, will only make 400 HP, slightly behind the Camaro SS (this is a quote from JALOPNIK).
3.7L V6 to be rated at 315 horsepower: Same as 2010 GT; 15 hp more than Camaro V6... No immediate plans for EcoBoost V6 Mustang due to small horsepower gap between EcoBoost and 5.0L V8 (365 vs 400)
- 2011 Mustang GT to be rated at 400 horsepower, will get increase in 2012
- 2011 Mustang GT to get 6-speed transmission and variable valve timing
- 2011 Mustang GT Track Pack to include Brembo brakes
- 2011 Mustang GT 5.0L V8, 6-speed, track pack, Brembo brakes ran even with 414-hp BMW M3, which is 200 lbs lighter, at GingerMan Raceway in South Haven, Michigan (hard to believe it ran even with a BMW M3)
- 2011 Shelby GT500 to get Aluminum Block
- Next special edition: 2012 Boss
Has anyone else heard this?
01-03-2010, 05:36 AM
#3
VaDriven Mayhem
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Where the faggles are.
Posts: 21,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2011 Mustang V6 with 300+HP versus Camaro V6
Yea..about 3 weeks ago.
Nice job with the repost
https://www.vadriven.com/forums/automotive-discussion-8/2011-mustang-v6-has-300-hp-gets-30-mpg-322140/
Nice job with the repost
https://www.vadriven.com/forums/automotive-discussion-8/2011-mustang-v6-has-300-hp-gets-30-mpg-322140/
01-03-2010, 06:33 AM
#6
Registered Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2011 Mustang V6 with 300+HP versus Camaro V6
My Acura:
- 3,210 cc 3.2 liters V6 front engine with 89 mm bore, 86 mm stroke, 11 compression ratio, overhead cam, variable valve timing/camshaft and four valves per cylinder
- Power: 201 kW , 270 HP SAE @ 6,200 rpm; 238 ft lb , 323 Nm @ 5,000 rpm
BTW - You all make a good point... so the other incorrect stats are now gone. Damn Wikipedia (this is a joke... I am joking... sarcasm does not translate well in print) on a hung over Sunday morning... My bad.
So this was not so much of a "I think Ford is great for finally doing what other manufacturers have been doing"; it was more of a "if they can do it why haven't they done it already" thread. Taking a 4.0L from the Ranger and stuffing it in a Mustang with a different fuel management system is one thing, but coming out with a real screamer in a V6: save the weight, save the insurance premium, and giving the V6 crowd another option, is another.
I have had 4 cylinders, straight 6's, V6's, many V8's from 289's through 427's, rotary engines (yes, I had a 1982 RX7) and all the cars performed pretty much as advertised - some good, some bad. Still in the process of restoring a 1967 Mustang coupe with a 70 351C-HO, but that is another story.
I have been told there is an ass for every seat... guess that is true. Sorry for the dumb post. Hope it is fixed now.
Last edited by Mustang_Mike_VA; 01-03-2010 at 05:19 PM.
01-03-2010, 08:01 AM
#7
formerly Black_Man
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2011 Mustang V6 with 300+HP versus Camaro V6
What? - complete sentences make for better reading (take your time when you type).
Although I agree... my daily driver is an '05 Acura TL, very comfortable, very nimble, and fast. The 3.2L 200hp SOHC 24v V6 is peppy and runs well... it finally makes sense for Ford (with a "d" at the end and a capital F) to put some guts in a car that has traditionally either been overkill (remember the 70 Boss 429) or so lame (remember the 4cyl Mustang II). Even the current 4.0L Ford only makes 215hp, more than a base TL or TSX(?) - but not the Type S, which coax 200+hp out of a 3.2L (versus the 4.0L ). But the 07 Mustang I have is as fast (and noisy) as the TL (maybe because it is much lighter) so we have a conundrum.
Other manufactures (other than GM with the 300hp V6 in the new Camaro) typically sit in the 170 to 290 range (for may reasons - emissions, racing, economy... to name a few):
Acura 3.2L V6 w/o S type = 200hp - great grocery getter
Acura 3.2L V6 Type S = 286hp out of the same engine - chipped differently
VW 1.8L V6 Turbo = 178hp - and very fast when the Turbo kicks in
Mazda 2.5L V6 = 130hp - nimble, but much like its Ford counterpart
Nissan and Infinity 3.7L V6 = 300hp - quick cars
So this was not so much of a "I think Ford is great for finally doing what other manufacturers have been doing"; it was more of a "if they can do it why haven't they done it already" thread. Taking a 4.0L from the Ranger and stuffing it in a Mustang with a different fuel management system is one thing, but coming out with a real screamer in a V6, save the weight, save the insurance premium, and giving the V6 crowd another option, is another.
I have had 4 cylinders, straight 6's, many V8's from 289's through 427's, rotary engines (yes, I had a 1982 RX7) and all the cars performed pretty much as advertised - some good, some bad. Remember the 80's with those really lame excuses for performance cars - I'm thinking Chrysler (wow) K-cars... There is more to the performance game than brute horsepower... hey maybe a new thread?
Performance versus Raw Horsepower: Thoughts and Opinions? Will a turd of a car with lots of horsepower kill a finely tuned and balanced car with less horsepower... come on VADRIVEN chime in on this.
Although I agree... my daily driver is an '05 Acura TL, very comfortable, very nimble, and fast. The 3.2L 200hp SOHC 24v V6 is peppy and runs well... it finally makes sense for Ford (with a "d" at the end and a capital F) to put some guts in a car that has traditionally either been overkill (remember the 70 Boss 429) or so lame (remember the 4cyl Mustang II). Even the current 4.0L Ford only makes 215hp, more than a base TL or TSX(?) - but not the Type S, which coax 200+hp out of a 3.2L (versus the 4.0L ). But the 07 Mustang I have is as fast (and noisy) as the TL (maybe because it is much lighter) so we have a conundrum.
Other manufactures (other than GM with the 300hp V6 in the new Camaro) typically sit in the 170 to 290 range (for may reasons - emissions, racing, economy... to name a few):
Acura 3.2L V6 w/o S type = 200hp - great grocery getter
Acura 3.2L V6 Type S = 286hp out of the same engine - chipped differently
VW 1.8L V6 Turbo = 178hp - and very fast when the Turbo kicks in
Mazda 2.5L V6 = 130hp - nimble, but much like its Ford counterpart
Nissan and Infinity 3.7L V6 = 300hp - quick cars
So this was not so much of a "I think Ford is great for finally doing what other manufacturers have been doing"; it was more of a "if they can do it why haven't they done it already" thread. Taking a 4.0L from the Ranger and stuffing it in a Mustang with a different fuel management system is one thing, but coming out with a real screamer in a V6, save the weight, save the insurance premium, and giving the V6 crowd another option, is another.
I have had 4 cylinders, straight 6's, many V8's from 289's through 427's, rotary engines (yes, I had a 1982 RX7) and all the cars performed pretty much as advertised - some good, some bad. Remember the 80's with those really lame excuses for performance cars - I'm thinking Chrysler (wow) K-cars... There is more to the performance game than brute horsepower... hey maybe a new thread?
Performance versus Raw Horsepower: Thoughts and Opinions? Will a turd of a car with lots of horsepower kill a finely tuned and balanced car with less horsepower... come on VADRIVEN chime in on this.
01-03-2010, 09:21 AM
#9
Needs more poke.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brunswick, ME
Posts: 6,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-03-2010, 11:10 AM
#10
Function > Form
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: West End/VCU
Posts: 1,063
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 2011 Mustang V6 with 300+HP versus Camaro V6
Other manufactures (other than GM with the 300hp V6 in the new Camaro) typically sit in the 170 to 290 range (for may reasons - emissions, racing, economy... to name a few):
- Acura 3.2L V6 w/o S type = 200hp - great grocery getter
- Acura 3.2L V6 Type S = 286hp out of the same engine - chipped differently
- VW 1.8L V6 Turbo = 178hp - and very fast when the Turbo kicks in
- Mazda 2.5L V6 = 130hp - nimble, but much like its Ford counterpart
- Nissan and Infinity 3.7L V6 = 300hp - quick cars