An UNFAVORABLE review for the 2011 Mustang V6

[JJ#48Racing]

That review was unfair and biased towards V8's for sure. It's like he expected the V6 to act like the GT500.

[fielderLS3]

Its interesting how Ford has completely reversed itself on its engines. Until recently, they seem to build for low-end torque (4.0L, 4.6L, 5.4L), not power. Thier new engines seem to be more like the Japanese, no torque, but big power coming at 6-7000 RPM.

I've driven a Ford Edge on long family vacations in the mountains (3.5L version of same Duratec engine the Mustang has), and I couldn't agree more. Looks fast on paper, but lack of torque and tall gearing (2.73 rear, same as the standard Mustang) makes it feel like a dog under normal driving. It has to downshift up even the slightest hill (sometimes 2 gears on steeper hills), and can't even get into overdrive on a flat surface in a strong head wind. The "less powerful" and much heavier Explorer we had previously did much better, and 4.6L Mustang GT we took one year went up the passes in overdrive with room to spare.

As a side note, the 5.0 Mustang suffers a bit from this too (at least compared to the LS3), which is why I'd rather have the Camaro SS, even if it is slightly slower at a race track than the Mustang.

[Sax1031]

I use to love torque till I got a sport bike. After that give me a high rpm motor and gear and you can have the low end torque.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Its interesting how Ford has completely reversed itself on its engines. Until recently, they seem to build for low-end torque (4.0L, 4.6L, 5.4L), not power. Thier new engines seem to be more like the Japanese, no torque, but big power coming at 6-7000 RPM.

I've driven a Ford Edge on long family vacations in the mountains (3.5L version of same Duratec engine the Mustang has), and I couldn't agree more. Looks fast on paper, but lack of torque and tall gearing (2.73 rear, same as the standard Mustang) makes it feel like a dog under normal driving. It has to downshift up even the slightest hill (sometimes 2 gears on steeper hills), and can't even get into overdrive on a flat surface in a strong head wind. The "less powerful" and much heavier Explorer we had previously did much better, and 4.6L Mustang GT we took one year went up the passes in overdrive with room to spare.

As a side note, the 5.0 Mustang suffers a bit from this too (at least compared to the LS3), which is why I'd rather have the Camaro SS, even if it is slightly slower at a race track than the Mustang.

Overhead cam engines are usually like that.. peak power is higher up on the RPM range, and not quite as flat a Torque curve... High tech yes, but sometimes Low tech is better...
it's the same for our V6 engines...

[Stew]

Man, I don't know what world they are living in wheres 80s 5.0 Mustangs did the 1/4 mile in the 13s and Civics hit 0 in under 6 seconds....... If this engine was in something from Japan or Germany they'd be raving about it.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by masterofpuppets

As much as I like an unfanboy review, this is BS. They're missing the entire point of the high powered 6. Quick, affordable daily driver. Bashing on a 6 for low torque is stupid

You think this isn't a fanboy review? He's basically saying, "Yeah it's just as fast as they say it is, but it isn't as fast as the v8 so it's crap." What an idiot.

Just to clarify, I am not calling you an idiot I am calling the author an idiot.

Originally Posted by Skyman 08

Overhead cam engines are usually like that.. peak power is higher up on the RPM range, and not quite as flat a Torque curve... High tech yes, but sometimes Low tech is better...
it's the same for our V6 engines...

I'm just adding to your statement here - OHC is just more efficient. If you have the same displacement in an OHC engine you will make more power and torque than the OHV. You will always make more HP than TQ above 5252 RPM, that's just math. HP = (TQxRPM)/5252 The higher you rev, the larger that gap becomes.

As for comparing a Ford Edge and Explorer to the Mustang and making assumptions about them before you've even been in one... Come on. Literally the only thing shared with the Edge is the BASIC design of the 3.7. It is a very different engine, uses a different transmission with different gearing, is a far lighter car and I mean seriously, you're comparing an Edge to a Mustang, this is insane.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Its interesting how Ford has completely reversed itself on its engines. Until recently, they seem to build for low-end torque (4.0L, 4.6L, 5.4L), not power. Thier new engines seem to be more like the Japanese, no torque, but big power coming at 6-7000 RPM.

I've driven a Ford Edge on long family vacations in the mountains (3.5L version of same Duratec engine the Mustang has), and I couldn't agree more. Looks fast on paper, but lack of torque and tall gearing (2.73 rear, same as the standard Mustang) makes it feel like a dog under normal driving. It has to downshift up even the slightest hill (sometimes 2 gears on steeper hills), and can't even get into overdrive on a flat surface in a strong head wind. The "less powerful" and much heavier Explorer we had previously did much better, and 4.6L Mustang GT we took one year went up the passes in overdrive with room to spare.

As a side note, the 5.0 Mustang suffers a bit from this too (at least compared to the LS3), which is why I'd rather have the Camaro SS, even if it is slightly slower at a race track than the Mustang.

I don't think that is quite a fair comparison as the Edge lacks displacement, 50 HP and weighs around 1000 pounds more, that is like comparing the Traverse with the 3.6 to the Camaro, BIG difference. High RPM motors can be fun imho. I just think that review is way skewed, when I drove the V6 Camaro the motor seemed pretty torquey to me (just was not a fan of the auto wich kept wanting to take off in 2nd gear). To say they are not fun cars is just crazy, what about a car that makes all it's power down low and feels like hitting a brick wall at 4500 RPMs? Sounds like their speed to me.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

I'm just adding to your statement here - OHC is just more efficient. If you have the same displacement in an OHC engine you will make more power and torque than the OHV. You will always make more HP than TQ above 5252 RPM, that's just math. HP = (TQxRPM)/5252 The higher you rev, the larger that gap becomes.

Not necessarily. Example: Ford's 5.4L (OHC, 3-valve) engine makes less power than GM's 5.3L (OHV, 2-valve).

The 5.4L makes more low-torque, which shows that OHC and multi-valve doesn't necessarily have to be biased for high RPM power. A lot has to do with the intake, design of the heads, etc....The OHC design of the new Ford engines hasn't forced them to have peaky engines, they chose that because the lofty high RPM numbers sound good in an ad.

[fielderLS3]

Just to clarify my earlier posts. I am not comparing the Mustang to the Edge and the Explorer. I know that would be foolish. I was using the example of the Edge and Explorer to compare engine designs and torque characteristics.

Also, the Edge and base V6 Mustang have very similar gearing, and the exact same 2.73 rear end (the only way they could get to a 31 MPG highway rating), which means Ford has a sports car that is biased toward efficiency, not driving pleasure.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Also, the Edge and base V6 Mustang have very similar gearing, and the exact same 2.73 rear end (the only way they could get to a 31 MPG highway rating), which means Ford has a sports car that is biased toward efficiency, not driving pleasure.

Kind of like a L99 auto SS.

[BackinBlackSS/RS]

Originally Posted by Stew

Man, I don't know what world they are living in wheres 80s 5.0 Mustangs did the 1/4 mile in the 13s and Civics hit 0 in under 6 seconds....... If this engine was in something from Japan or Germany they'd be raving about it.

There were no stock 5.0's running 13's in the 80's. No way.

[masterofpuppets]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

You think this isn't a fanboy review? He's basically saying, "Yeah it's just as fast as they say it is, but it isn't as fast as the v8 so it's crap." What an idiot.

Just to clarify, I am not calling you an idiot I am calling the author an idiot.

HAHA, thanks for the clarification. I was like "damn that's a little harsh what did I do?!".

Maybe I should re-clarify fanboy to new car bandwagon.

[ron10]

[Stew]

Originally Posted by BackinBlackSS/RS

There were no stock 5.0's running 13's in the 80's. No way.

Yeah, i think must be looking at the 80s through some funky rose colored 80s style sunglasses lol