High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
Rules HDTV Forum Gallery LINK TO US! RSS - High Def Forum AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button Groups

Car Forum Talk about your favorite cars, setups, garages (got pics?)!

2011 Ford Mustang Gets New 305 HP V6, 30 MPG - 2011 Ford Mustang - Jalopnik

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-08-2010, 03:05 PM   #76  
AMD must survive
 
amdgamer's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hatt View Post
You have any F150 mpg numbers on the 3.5? I can't find any.

If this turns out to be a popular options you can guarantee the v8 version will be out soon and be more powerful and get better economy.
As of right now, there is only speculation. I don't think there are any official fuel economy numbers for the 2011 F150's yet, but it is believed that they are going to be released very soon. Speculation by car analysts are that the official EPA numbers could have the twin turbo F150's getting as high as mid 20's on the highway. This would be significant as these are full size trucks that weigh around 5000-6000lbs.

Do you mean a twin turbocharged v8? I havn't heard of Ford having any plans to bring their Ecoboost to their v8's, although that is always a possibility. I agree as that would be incredibly awesome when you look at how the current lineup of Ecoboost engines are getting fuel economy similar to their naturally aspirated counterparts while delivering intense performance.
amdgamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 04:58 PM   #77  
HD Elitist
 
hatt's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL
Age: 44
Posts: 6,300
Default

The 2011 numbers are out except the 3.5.

3.7 16/23
5.0 15/21
6.2 12/17

No reason not to make a v8 version if you have the technology figured out.

Or add the direct injection to NA engines.
hatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 08:10 PM   #78  
AMD must survive
 
amdgamer's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hatt View Post
The 2011 numbers are out except the 3.5.

3.7 16/23
5.0 15/21
6.2 12/17

No reason not to make a v8 version if you have the technology figured out.

Or add the direct injection to NA engines.
Yes, but the question then boils down to whether Ford needs that much power. I also remember reading some articles that forced induction isn't going to be possible on the new 5.0 as it wasn't built for that. I believe it was one of the major auto mags that wrote about how it would require some significant overhaul in order to support boost safely.

I think adding direct injection is going to be Ford's next step to their naturally aspirated engines. For instance, Ford will start with the 2012 Focus as it will come with a 2.0 litre direct injected I4 engine. I just think that Ford is leaving some stuff to have a "reserve" of stuff that they can pull out as needed to compete against the other manufacturers. Especially when looking at how incredible the new Ford trucks are compared to the competition, why bring all your cards to the table when what you have right now blows them away!
amdgamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 08:15 PM   #79  
Administrator
Thread Starter
 
rbinck's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 16,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hatt View Post
The 2011 numbers are out except the 3.5.

3.7 16/23
5.0 15/21
6.2 12/17

No reason not to make a v8 version if you have the technology figured out.

Or add the direct injection to NA engines.
The 3.5 ecoboost should be about the same as the 3.7 since they will test it without much, if any, boost. The SVO Mustang rated about the same as the 4 cyl back in '84-'86. Without the boost it is just a 3.5L engine.
rbinck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 07:15 AM   #80  
HD Elitist
 
hatt's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL
Age: 44
Posts: 6,300
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amdgamer View Post
Yes, but the question then boils down to whether Ford needs that much power. I also remember reading some articles that forced induction isn't going to be possible on the new 5.0 as it wasn't built for that. I believe it was one of the major auto mags that wrote about how it would require some significant overhaul in order to support boost safely.

I think adding direct injection is going to be Ford's next step to their naturally aspirated engines. For instance, Ford will start with the 2012 Focus as it will come with a 2.0 litre direct injected I4 engine. I just think that Ford is leaving some stuff to have a "reserve" of stuff that they can pull out as needed to compete against the other manufacturers. Especially when looking at how incredible the new Ford trucks are compared to the competition, why bring all your cards to the table when what you have right now blows them away!
Ford, or anyone else doesn't need the power. Modern trucks have plenty of power, IMO(I drove a Chevy with inline 6 for years and years lol). But everyone is a spec whore these days. Or think their truck is a race car.

Making the v8 version is simple. No need to mess with the 5.0. Add two more cylinders to the v6. The reverse of what Chevy did with their 4.3 years ago, cut off two cylinders from the 350. Chevy has always been more utilitarian than Ford however(a bellhousing from a 1960 small block will bolt up to a 2010 engine).

I'm much more interested in the DI tech than the turbo. Turbos add a whole lot of mess under the hood and potential trouble down the road. On a diesel, they are pretty much mandatory, you have little choice. Modern gas engines seem to do quite well without them.
hatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 07:40 AM   #81  
HD Elitist
 
hatt's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL
Age: 44
Posts: 6,300
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbinck View Post
The 3.5 ecoboost should be about the same as the 3.7 since they will test it without much, if any, boost. The SVO Mustang rated about the same as the 4 cyl back in '84-'86. Without the boost it is just a 3.5L engine.
Probably be a bunch of people(who like to hear the turbos spooled up all the time) disappointed when they find their 3.5 isn't getting 29 mpg.
hatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 12:10 PM   #82  
AMD must survive
 
amdgamer's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hatt View Post
Ford, or anyone else doesn't need the power. Modern trucks have plenty of power, IMO(I drove a Chevy with inline 6 for years and years lol). But everyone is a spec whore these days. Or think their truck is a race car.

Making the v8 version is simple. No need to mess with the 5.0. Add two more cylinders to the v6. The reverse of what Chevy did with their 4.3 years ago, cut off two cylinders from the 350. Chevy has always been more utilitarian than Ford however(a bellhousing from a 1960 small block will bolt up to a 2010 engine).

I'm much more interested in the DI tech than the turbo. Turbos add a whole lot of mess under the hood and potential trouble down the road. On a diesel, they are pretty much mandatory, you have little choice. Modern gas engines seem to do quite well without them.
All of Ford's engines are modular in design these days. They all share a common design theme, but the new Coyote 5.0 V8 is definately a new design. I actually find it very interesting that Ford chose to abandon their awesome 5.4 litre Triton V8. Ford could take the Ecoboost 3.5 and add two more cylinders, but they have no need to do that right now. It would mean that they have to spend a lot more time and resources designing and engineering it, not to mention a totally new engine would need to go through the red tape in getting emissions certified. I'm sure Ford is working on something like that as I expect Ford to offer a smaller displacement twin turbo v8 option in the Superduty in the next 5 years since fuel prices will continue to trend upward.

You are right though that a turbo adds a whole lot of mess under the hood, not to mention the insane amount of heat that is added. I do want direct injection technology, but Ford has little incentive to offer it at a point like now when they are so far ahead of their competition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hatt View Post
Probably be a bunch of people(who like to hear the turbos spooled up all the time) disappointed when they find their 3.5 isn't getting 29 mpg.
I will garentee you that we are going to hear a bunch of people get on the internet and start whining as soon as the twin turbo F150's hit the market. They will cry about how they are only getting in the low teens in fuel economy, while they drive around town prentending to be a Nascar driver. Since it will produce gobs more torque and at lower rpms than the 5.0, I expect this version of the F150 to be seriously fast too.
amdgamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2010, 05:27 PM   #83  
What is HD?
 

Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2
Default

I never really liked the look of mustangs since they updated it around the turn of the century. Primarily, the rims are not very attractive, and that's true with old gen mustangs, too. It's kinda a joke to have bland, star-shaped wheels on what SHOULD be a sportscar! I would check out streetdreams.org to get ideas from other mustang owners...
tbrocato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 10:38 PM   #84  
A couch and an HDTV to go please.
 

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 11
Default

good one....
how much it costs????
shivam is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:49 PM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands