I bought a new 2007 Mustang

[Jeff7181]

Hmmm... Ford should have put the Duratec 35 in it.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: RichUK
Only 210Hp from a 4.0L V6 ..... WTF!!!!!!!!!

Seconded. My Accord V6 pulls almost that at 200hp, and it's around 3.0L I think.

 

[krunchykrome]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: RichUK
Only 210Hp from a 4.0L V6 ..... WTF!!!!!!!!!

Seconded. My Accord V6 pulls almost that at 200hp, and it's around 3.0L I think.

Yea, that is a bit sad. My girlfriend's TSX 4 banger puts out 200hp.

Maybe the RWD adds a new dimension to the car, thus compensating for the 210HP. I've never driven a Mustang.

 

[fire400]

Originally posted by: lupi
I'm sorry.

if you had bought a used v8 mustang for cheaper, it would dust your 'new' car. who buys new cars these days... "especially new from Ford?"

it's like buying a new Geforce 7800GTX over a used Geforce 7900GTX

good luck man

 

[DaTT]

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: SolMiester

Originally posted by: amdforever2
The cost of the vehicle after rebates and everything was 17,590.

Add in taxes at 1358.88, extended warranty at 1695.00, gap insurance at $399.

Total cost: 21042.88


V6 manual, 4.0l 210hp.


*waits for anandtech to tell me I should have saved thousands on a 1995 honda civic with the maxwell house package*


I love my car. It has plenty of power despite being the V6.

Now supercharge it and own V8 models...LOL

yeh good luck with that... base model V8 is now 300HP.. change exhaust and add supercharger ort Turbo or dual turbo to a GT for 450HP+ for less money than he paid new for a POS v6..

V6 needs an dual exhaust change as well as a new rearend and fuel system as well as a different tranny gearing to get any serious power outa it..

please Learn2Stang

V8 Stangs are the flat out cheapest key to wild performance in the V8 world..

Stock they are clogged like Al Bundys Toilet... unclog that exhaust and get it breathing and the horsepower just flows out... CHEAPLY

I Seriously hope you are not speaking of the current Stangs....2 1/2" is hardly "clogged" I did an exhaust job (Bassani cats, X pipe, axle back) and only gained 5hp at the wheels....and that was probably with the hi-flo cats. Ford did a great job with the stock exhaust this time around.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: krunchykrome

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: RichUK
Only 210Hp from a 4.0L V6 ..... WTF!!!!!!!!!

Seconded. My Accord V6 pulls almost that at 200hp, and it's around 3.0L I think.

Yea, that is a bit sad. My girlfriend's TSX 4 banger puts out 200hp.

Maybe the RWD adds a new dimension to the car, thus compensating for the 210HP. I've never driven a Mustang.

I think you all missed the point of 240ft/lbs@3500. Neither of your honda's can do that. I'm not a fan of Ford exactly, but you can't argue that. I have yet to drive a new one to really comment on it's handling (which is my first preference for a car)

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: krunchykrome

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: RichUK
Only 210Hp from a 4.0L V6 ..... WTF!!!!!!!!!

Seconded. My Accord V6 pulls almost that at 200hp, and it's around 3.0L I think.

Yea, that is a bit sad. My girlfriend's TSX 4 banger puts out 200hp.

Maybe the RWD adds a new dimension to the car, thus compensating for the 210HP. I've never driven a Mustang.

I think you all missed the point of 240ft/lbs@3500. Neither of your honda's can do that. I'm not a fan of Ford exactly, but you can't argue that. I have yet to drive a new one to really comment on it's handling (which is my first preference for a car)

dyno


200 ft-lbs at the wheels at 3500 rpm, ~15% dynojet/drivetrain loss is ~235 ft-lbs at the crank, from a 3.2L engine.
It just happens that peak torque for this engine is at a higher rpm, but rev per rev it will about match.

Before anyone cries about this being an expensive car, the engine is a J series, a simple single cam design, same as what is used in pretty much all current V6 honda products.

 

[natto fire]

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: senseamp
What's with all the 6 cylinder hate? I hate the foglights on the V8 stang. I think the V6 grille looks much better.

Because 210hp from a 4.0L V6 is akin to a pussy cat.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on what a torque curve is.

It still surprises me that people make car threads here, knowing that there are only a handful of users that don't just spout the same BS over and over. Getting an opinion is even worse, even as bad as the "technical" threads get.

OP: Glad you like your car, that is obviously the most important thing. Hope you didn't get the pony package, because IMO the grill of the V6 is more stylish. (I know the foglight grille is paying homage to the older Mustangs, but that is the great thing about opinions)

 

[MasterAndCommander]

V6's are fun - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rijVW_2FEc

Enjoy!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: amdforever2
4.0l 210hp.

Congratulations on making gas prices higher for the rest of us.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: RichUK
Only 210Hp from a 4.0L V6 ..... WTF!!!!!!!!!

240 ft-lbs at 3,500 RPM. I'll take that every day over a smaller engine with 80 fewer ft-lbs of torque and the same hp rating.

Show me a naturally-aspirated engine with the same torque characteristic that's significantly smaller.

ZV

Not quite what you were asking, but same displacement, superior numbers at marginally higher RPMs:

Originally posted by: BouZouki
VQ40DE ? 4.0-liter DOHC 24-valve V6 engine
261 hp @ 5,600 rpm
281 lb-ft of torque @ 4,000 rpm

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: SVT Cobra

Originally posted by: RichUK
SVT Cobra, you?re like a plague in this thread.

Aww mr BMW engineer trolling me again.

Are you really that inane?

My guess is that if you're saying anything that isn't singing the praises of the mustang, he's going to call you a tool.

He's so blinded by his idealistic vision of 'American Muscle' that i'm sure he'd claim that with the right tweaking, the mustang can outperform anything thrown at it.



To the OP, i simply don't understand the point of a V6 mustang. With that said, i'm glad you like it, its a good car for the $.

Actually yes with a 3.2L whipple and the supporting mods I could take a C6 Z06 from a dig.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: mariok2006
Ward's doesn't seem to agree with you...

I don't see why not if the VQ has made it for the past 12 years. I guess they like to stick to mainstream. Nevermind the fact that it's probably one of the most reliable engines above 350hp.

Now where the fvck did I say that the VQ wasn't a good engine? It's a great engine. But it does not have the same torque characteristics as the Ford 4.0 V6. The peak torque comes on later and is lumped towards the high-RPM side of the powerband, not the low-RPM side.

Seriously, when did taking a rational view of the pros and cons of something become equated to saying that everything else sucked? I haven't said a single negative thing about any of the engines that the Ford is compared to. I've only pointed out that the other engines mentioned have been designed for a high-RPM powerband, an approach that differs from the design requirements of the Ford 4.0 and are thus only slightly comparable at best.

Reading comprehension people.

ZV

 

[natto fire]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: mariok2006
Ward's doesn't seem to agree with you...

I don't see why not if the VQ has made it for the past 12 years. I guess they like to stick to mainstream. Nevermind the fact that it's probably one of the most reliable engines above 350hp.

Now where the fvck did I say that the VQ wasn't a good engine? It's a great engine. But it does not have the same torque characteristics as the Ford 4.0 V6. The peak torque comes on later and is lumped towards the high-RPM side of the powerband, not the low-RPM side.

Seriously, when did taking a rational view of the pros and cons of something become equated to saying that everything else sucked? I haven't said a single negative thing about any of the engines that the Ford is compared to. I've only pointed out that the other engines mentioned have been designed for a high-RPM powerband, an approach that differs from the design requirements of the Ford 4.0 and are thus only slightly comparable at best.

Reading comprehension people.

ZV

This is ATOT. A magical place where opinion and conjecture has more bearing on a car's engine than things like volumetric efficiency, R/S ratio, compression ratio, and the like.

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: mariok2006
Ward's doesn't seem to agree with you...

I don't see why not if the VQ has made it for the past 12 years. I guess they like to stick to mainstream. Nevermind the fact that it's probably one of the most reliable engines above 350hp.

Now where the fvck did I say that the VQ wasn't a good engine? It's a great engine. But it does not have the same torque characteristics as the Ford 4.0 V6. The peak torque comes on later and is lumped towards the high-RPM side of the powerband, not the low-RPM side.

Seriously, when did taking a rational view of the pros and cons of something become equated to saying that everything else sucked? I haven't said a single negative thing about any of the engines that the Ford is compared to. I've only pointed out that the other engines mentioned have been designed for a high-RPM powerband, an approach that differs from the design requirements of the Ford 4.0 and are thus only slightly comparable at best.

Reading comprehension people.

ZV

This is ATOT. A magical place where opinion and conjecture has more bearing on a car's engine than things like volumetric efficiency, R/S ratio, compression ratio, and the like.

And Honda Civic's are more desired than a Ferrari Enzo.

 

[NFS4]

BTW, the Camaro is likely to have the 3.6 liter V6 in addition to the 6.0 liter V8 (as is the case with the Pontiac G8).

3.6 liter V6
261HP @ 6300 RPM
250 lb-ft @ 3200 RPM

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: amdforever2
4.0l 210hp.

Congratulations on making gas prices higher for the rest of us.

19/28 isn't exactly gas guzzler...

 

[overst33r]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: mariok2006
Ward's doesn't seem to agree with you...

I don't see why not if the VQ has made it for the past 12 years. I guess they like to stick to mainstream. Nevermind the fact that it's probably one of the most reliable engines above 350hp.

Now where the fvck did I say that the VQ wasn't a good engine? It's a great engine. But it does not have the same torque characteristics as the Ford 4.0 V6. The peak torque comes on later and is lumped towards the high-RPM side of the powerband, not the low-RPM side.

Seriously, when did taking a rational view of the pros and cons of something become equated to saying that everything else sucked? I haven't said a single negative thing about any of the engines that the Ford is compared to. I've only pointed out that the other engines mentioned have been designed for a high-RPM powerband, an approach that differs from the design requirements of the Ford 4.0 and are thus only slightly comparable at best.

Reading comprehension people.

ZV

Who the fvck said that YOU said it wasn't a good engine? I was referring to the 3.6 Porsche engine not making the list but the VQ engine making it consecutively for 12 years. Evaluate your reading comprehension before you insult others'.

 

[thomsbrain]

no offense, and i'm sure you're happy with your purchase, but: i just don't understand why anyone would buy that car. it's not cool. it's not fast. it's not well-made. it's not economical. it's not comfortable. it's not a good transportation appliance. the only thing it IS good at is making people assume that you're 16, blond, female, and have hibiscus-flower seat covers.

you guys can argue "displacement" all you want. the fact is this car, even with the manual, is slower than your average used V6 family sedan in the same price range, will suffer from weaker long-term resale values, and be less reliable. there's just no "win" to this car.

 

[Jeffwo]

:thumbsup:

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
no offense, and i'm sure you're happy with your purchase, but: i just don't understand why anyone would buy that car. it's not cool. it's not fast. it's not well-made. it's not economical. it's not comfortable. it's not a good transportation appliance. the only thing it IS good at is making people assume that you're 16, blond, female, and have hibiscus-flower seat covers.

you guys can argue "displacement" all you want. the fact is this car, even with the manual, is slower than your average used V6 family sedan in the same price range, will suffer from weaker long-term resale values, and be less reliable. there's just no "win" to this car.

:disgust:

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: NFS4
BTW, the Camaro is likely to have the 3.6 liter V6 in addition to the 6.0 liter V8 (as is the case with the Pontiac G8).

3.6 liter V6
261HP @ 6300 RPM
250 lb-ft @ 3200 RPM

I thought they were going with the 3.9L because of costs.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: NFS4
BTW, the Camaro is likely to have the 3.6 liter V6 in addition to the 6.0 liter V8 (as is the case with the Pontiac G8).

3.6 liter V6
261HP @ 6300 RPM
250 lb-ft @ 3200 RPM

I thought they were going with the 3.9L because of costs.

1) The 3.6 is already certified for use in that platform
2) I wasn't aware that the 3.9 was able to be used in a North-South arrangement... although I'm most likely wrong there

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: NFS4
BTW, the Camaro is likely to have the 3.6 liter V6 in addition to the 6.0 liter V8 (as is the case with the Pontiac G8).

3.6 liter V6
261HP @ 6300 RPM
250 lb-ft @ 3200 RPM

Now that sounds like an American V6 done right.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: SolMiester

Originally posted by: amdforever2
The cost of the vehicle after rebates and everything was 17,590.

Add in taxes at 1358.88, extended warranty at 1695.00, gap insurance at $399.

Total cost: 21042.88


V6 manual, 4.0l 210hp.


*waits for anandtech to tell me I should have saved thousands on a 1995 honda civic with the maxwell house package*


I love my car. It has plenty of power despite being the V6.

Now supercharge it and own V8 models...LOL

yeh good luck with that... base model V8 is now 300HP.. change exhaust and add supercharger ort Turbo or dual turbo to a GT for 450HP+ for less money than he paid new for a POS v6..

V6 needs an dual exhaust change as well as a new rearend and fuel system as well as a different tranny gearing to get any serious power outa it..

please Learn2Stang

V8 Stangs are the flat out cheapest key to wild performance in the V8 world..

Stock they are clogged like Al Bundys Toilet... unclog that exhaust and get it breathing and the horsepower just flows out... CHEAPLY

Yeah, well of course doing the same thing to V8 will nullify the same on a V6, but there wont be many V8 doing the same thing, and a Super6 will give most regular V8 a run for there money....mine does.
Anyway, it was just an left field rescue plan B for the V6 Mustang owner!!...LOL