2011 Ford Mustang may get up to 30 mpg

[DynoTom]

New high-powered engine will give model nearly GT muscle
Scott Burgess / The Detroit News
The base model of the 2011 Ford Mustang will come with nearly GT power and could get up to 30 miles per gallon in highway driving, Ford Motor Co. announced today.

Ford will debut a new V-6 engine for the sports car this week at the Los Angeles Auto Show and says it will give the basic Mustang power to rival the performance-oriented Mustang GT, which has a V-8 under its hood.

The 3.7-liter powerplant, which replaces the 4-liter V-6 now in Mustangs, will produce 305 horsepower and 280 pound-feet of torque while also offering better gas mileage.


Ford projects the engine will get 19 mpg in the city and 30 mpg on the highway. The 2010 Mustang's 4-liter engine creates 210 horsepower and 240 pound-feet of torque, while achieving 18 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway.

The new Mustangs will be available at dealerships in the spring.

Stephanie Brinley, an automotive analyst at Southfield-based consulting firm AutoPacific Inc., said the additional power catches the Mustang up to the V-6 Chevrolet Camaro and should help it stay at the top in pony car sales next year.

"The V-6 Mustang is Ford's best-selling Mustang and this is a lighter car, so it should feel faster," she said. "For people looking for these kinds of cars, Mustang is still the place to go."

According to Autodata Corp., which compiles car sales statistics, Ford sold 56,469 Mustangs through October, down 32.4 percent from the same period last year.

The Mustang remains about 8,000 units ahead of the Camaro, which was reintroduced this year by General Motors Co.

The new powertrain suggests that the GT will have to show some big improvements soon, Brinley added.

The 2010 GT with a 4.6-liter V-8 produces 315 horsepower and 325 pound-feet of torque. It gets 16 mpg in the city and 24 mpg on the highway.

By raising the base model's vitals and performance level, Ford likely will have to do the same to the 2011 GT, though the carmaker has not announced a new powertrain for that car.

The V-6 Mustang will come with a six-speed automatic or manual transmission, dropping its well-used five-speed.

Ford has promised to include six-speed transmissions on 90 percent of its vehicles by 2013 in another effort to make its vehicles more fuel efficient.

The new Mustang V-6 engine, built in Cleveland, boasts a number of high-tech features such as variable camshaft timing and variable valve overlap to improve the car's emissions, fuel economy and power. Ford has dubbed the system Ti-VCT.

"Drivers are going to notice improved low-speed torque and increased fuel economy and peak horsepower," Jim Mazuchowski, Ford's manager of V-6 powertrain operations, said in a news release. "Plus, there are benefits they won't notice, too, such as reduced emissions overall, especially at part-throttle."

Ti-VCT can lower the engine's emissions by controlling the NOx -- nitrogen oxide -- and hydrocarbons.

Ford will also announce at the Los Angeles show that it will introduce a performance package for the V-6 Mustang.

It will include a different rear axle for faster off-the-line acceleration, struts, stabilizer bars and brakes from the GT, unique badges and other features.

The performance V-6 Mustang will be available at dealers in the summer.

[GTSLOW]

Well that had to come up with some kind of V6 to compete with the 305HP version in the Camaro. 2010 V6 Camaro would RAPE a 2010 V6 Mustang.

[Reverend Cooper]

^ True but for isn't owned by Obarfma either,Touche'

[07ROUSHSTG3]

i wanted to see the ecoboost.

[Irish]

...

[Reverend Cooper]

You say tomato ^ I say Obarfma

[STANMAN]

Well that had to come up with some kind of V6 to compete with the 305HP version in the Camaro. 2010 V6 Camaro would RAPE a 2010 V6 Mustang.

How did the 2003-2009 V6 Camaro's do against same year V6 Mustangs:stare












:rolf

[Irish]

...

[STANMAN]

Another :confused mustang owner :goof

I know, others are likely to read this thread, and whenever I can get a jab in on Camaro owners, I take it. Just like Camaro owners take every jab at Mustang owners they can, it's all in fun.

[STANMAN]

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

What does your comment have to do with my post? Can you answer the question I posted? If so, maybe you can dictate the price of tea in China, wouldn't that be dandy?

[Irish]

...

[STANMAN]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_High_Feature_engine

That should answer your question(s).

You sound like a dick in your post.

I don't see a 2003-2009 Camaro in the link you posted?

[Reverend Cooper]

Again Irish its all moot when the gubment owns da shizzy now

[Irish]

...

[Reverend Cooper]

^ you say tomato I say correct.

[wrath]

How did the 2003-2009 V6 Camaro's do against same year V6 Mustangs:stare


:rolf

Didn't need any such thing, from 2005-2009 Pontiac G6s were beating V6 Mustangs.

[1320PNY]

The Mustang is always better stock. You can always mod a Chevy cheaper to kill a Ford. Now that the gov't owns GM it will be fun to see if they make a play in the horsepower wars or turn to mileage numbers and legislate to get the advantage in the market.

I still can't say the Camaro has grown on me yet. I still think the Mustang body style looks better, but if they ever made the Trans AM I saw at SEMA I would have to buy it!

[STANMAN]

Are you going to cry about what you "take" in almost every fucking thread that you post in? Frankly I am tired of reading it. Maybe if you let whatever "it" is go, "they" will let it go to. You proliferate 99.9% of what you get on yourself. Kinda sound like a kid that got burned after their parent already told them not to play with fire.

To answer your first question, it was to illustrate the life of the 3.6 that currently resides in the camaro. So you can see that it, for the most part, has been out for a while.

I didn't ask about GM's V6 vs. Fords V6 in those years. I was very specific, how did the 2003-2009 V6 Camaro stack up against the same year V6 Mustang. Again, it's the oldest joke in the book between Camaro and Mustang owners. Just like they rip on 2 valve non PI 4.6's being, well, 2 valve non PI 4.6's:rolf

[Waver]

This is defanatly the beginning of the remedy to the camaro problem for Ford....First come out with a high horsepower v6 and then come out with a high horse v8 (5.0 modmotor 420hp?) for the gt, and then stick a variant of the 6.2 that is comming out in the raptor this spring into the gt500, but boost it.....that gt500, with irs, WILL be the zr-1 killer

[Irish]

...

[WhatsADSM]

This is defanatly the beginning of the remedy to the camaro problem for Ford....First come out with a high horsepower v6 and then come out with a high horse v8 (5.0 modmotor 420hp?) for the gt, and then stick a variant of the 6.2 that is comming out in the raptor this spring into the gt500, but boost it.....that gt500, with irs, WILL be the zr-1 killer

No friggen way. Suspension setups aside (which is another can of worms for the GT500) the GT500 has a huge amount of weight to shed to be truly competitive.... In a straight line, and ESPECIALLY in the twisties. The C6 chassis is just WAY better than the GT500.

Take a look at the performance difference between the equal horsepower C6 Z06 and GT500. Night and day.

IMO the vette is a much better all-arounder, and is truly in the exotic league when it comes to a true sports-car. If you are looking for something to modify and care more about the straight line performance, get the GT500.

EDIT:
Side note. Kudos to Ford for stepping up their game on the v-6 stang. The new Camaro has the current v6 stang HANDILY covered, in fact it wasn't even a competition. However if Ford really comes through with this V6, I think the edge goes back to Ford for the V6s.

[07ROUSHSTG3]

saying that the gt500 is going to be a zr1 killer....kind of retarded also IMO.

[Prince Valiant]

At the end of the day, who here would buy a V6 'stang? V6 camaro? V6 challenger?

Even as a cover "Maybe I'd get one for the wife...." but then, was your purchase based on HP? No, not really...

As of the '11 model year, all three will have very nice v6's, all putting out 300+hp, all backed by really nifty trans. But I don't think there is any link to how much performance the base models possesses and the amount sold...these things will just end up as cars for high school kids 10 years from now to pose around for the most part.

I mean, how many mustangs have been sold with 4 cylinders?

[shoooo32]

At the end of the day, who here would buy a V6 'stang? V6 camaro? V6 challenger?

Even as a cover "Maybe I'd get one for the wife...." but then, was your purchase based on HP? No, not really...

As of the '11 model year, all three will have very nice v6's, all putting out 300+hp, all backed by really nifty trans. But I don't think there is any link to how much performance the base models possesses and the amount sold...these things will just end up as cars for high school kids 10 years from now to pose around for the most part.

I mean, how many mustangs have been sold with 4 cylinders?

You forgot about rental cars! Now when I rent a mustang it might have a chance at turning the tires over. Also, I read the '11 V6 is faster around Fords test track than a 2010 V8.

[BAD LS1]

This is defanatly the beginning of the remedy to the camaro problem for Ford....First come out with a high horsepower v6 and then come out with a high horse v8 (5.0 modmotor 420hp?) for the gt, and then stick a variant of the 6.2 that is comming out in the raptor this spring into the gt500, but boost it.....that gt500, with irs, WILL be the zr-1 killer

You sir, are fucking high.

[Josepy]

You sir, are fucking high.

Yeah he is. He said in chat that he didn't know what he was thinking when he typed that.

[jakedrew]

Is a 10' ss camaro faster then a gt500(with a blower)?


nice to see the v6's stepping it up. Will be interesting to see.

[Waver]

Don't count on it! :rolf


No friggen way. Suspension setups aside (which is another can of worms for the GT500) the GT500 has a huge amount of weight to shed to be truly competitive.... In a straight line, and ESPECIALLY in the twisties. The C6 chassis is just WAY better than the GT500.

Take a look at the performance difference between the equal horsepower C6 Z06 and GT500. Night and day.

IMO the vette is a much better all-arounder, and is truly in the exotic league when it comes to a true sports-car. If you are looking for something to modify and care more about the straight line performance, get the GT500.

EDIT:
Side note. Kudos to Ford for stepping up their game on the v-6 stang. The new Camaro has the current v6 stang HANDILY covered, in fact it wasn't even a competition. However if Ford really comes through with this V6, I think the edge goes back to Ford for the V6s.


saying that the gt500 is going to be a zr1 killer....kind of retarded also IMO.


You sir, are fucking high.


Yeah he is. He said in chat that he didn't know what he was thinking when he typed that.


yes I wasnt thinking when I wrote this!

Is a 10' ss camaro faster then a gt500(with a blower)?


nice to see the v6's stepping it up. Will be interesting to see.

I dont believe so....around a road course yes, however in the 1/4 mile there hasnt been anything consistant

[BAD LS1]

Is a 10' ss camaro faster then a gt500(with a blower)?


nice to see the v6's stepping it up. Will be interesting to see.

New SS M6's are high 12's capable out of the box. but run around 13.1-13.2 consistently from 110 -113 mph. Faster than a GT500 stock for stock? no... the LS3 with a blower you ask? Ones with box stock TVS kits, headers and a custom tune with traction are flirting with tens.

[Irish]

...

[jakedrew]

ya, i was reading about them in some car mag and was curious what other people have found about it ( ss vs gt500). thanks

[07ROUSHSTG3]

v6s suck. who cares.

when chevy announced big numbers from their v6, all the ford people blew it off because it was a v6. now that ford has something to compete in the class the mustang network is all worked up.

v6 mustangs suck.

an ecoboost v6 mustang would suck a lot less, but still suck nonetheless.

[Prince Valiant]

v6 mustangs suck.
Actually, I think the Mustang guys are so worked up about the v6 'stang not because it's awesome....but becuase it'll obsolete many of their 4.6 GT's.

[BOSS LX]

The new GT 500 with the 6.0 will be one bad mother.

Nothing will compete with it dollar for dollar.

Doesn't the zr-1 sticker for 40k more? I think Greg@GLD's 2007 500 is going 11.30's with very minor upgrades.

[CATNHAT]

Ford should have figured out how to squeeze the Ecoboost SHO engine in the V-6 stang. 365 Hp for a 6 cyl mustang would be all right. I would not buy it b/c of the sound of the 6, but I bet it would perform pretty good and get good mileage.

I have been looking at the 2010 Roush's and if Ford is going to announce a bigger V-8 for 2011, then I am waiting for that!

[07ROUSHSTG3]

and if Ford is going to announce a bigger V-8 for 2011, then I am waiting for that!

that is coming. 4 valve 5.0 for 2011.

[Prince Valiant]

but I bet it would perform pretty good and get good mileage.Why would it get good mileage? Everything the ecoboost is in, it's get's v8 like mileage.

Heck, in the SUV of the year for MT, the ecoboost ford flex scored worst in the test in mileage...even the more traditional SUV with larger all-terrain tires like the 4runner beat it by 20+% in fuel mileage.

Even in a comparison to an AWD Hemi 300C, the ecoboost scored less than 0.5 mpg better better mileage over 400 miles...a difference that would easily be explained by having a more aerodynamic shape and the electric steering booster.

IF we don't see the "ecoboost" make it's way to the mustang it'll be because ford figured out that it'll cost more to produce and warranty an ecoboost 'v6 stang vs. that of a v8 stang; however, they won't be able to sell for the same or higher price, driving down the profits...and ultimately ecoboost sales will just eat away from the more profitable v8 sales.

Don't get me wrong...ecoboost is a good engine; it just has a poor, misleading name.

[CATNHAT]

Heck, in the SUV of the year for MT, the ecoboost ford flex scored worst in the test in mileage...even the more traditional SUV with larger all-terrain tires like the 4runner beat it by 20+% in fuel mileage.

Even in a comparison to an AWD Hemi 300C, the ecoboost scored less than 0.5 mpg better better mileage over 400 miles...a difference that would easily be explained by having a more aerodynamic shape and the electric steering booster.

Don't get me wrong...ecoboost is a good engine; it just has a poor, misleading name.

Where did u see these stats? Just curious? Maybe I drank too much KoolAid?? I just like the 365 HP since the 1993 SHO i had only had 220hp, which my wifes minivan puts out now!

And I am sure you are right about the expense issue, if the numbers worked, I think they would have done it.

[Prince Valiant]

Where did u see these stats?
Popular mechanics 300C vs. SHO (http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4322127.html) and read the text, not the graph for the fuel mileage since one rounded up...small difference for all the supposed differences (more aerodynamic, electric steering, 6 speed auto...) but my bad...it's a little over 1mpg, or 5.5% difference, again a difference that could be explained by the gearing advantage alone, much less the aero/less mechanical drag...

And quite a bit of reading for the for the Licoln MKT...in the motor trend SUV of the year (http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/suv/112_0912_2010_sport_utility_of_the_year_contenders/index.html), but you'll see, while the ecoboost was a liked engine, it was by no means efficient or deserving of a name "ecoboost."

[CATNHAT]

I think I would take an SRT-8 over the SHO. The interior of the SHO is :drool:, but I would prefer the V-8.

[STANMAN]

I think I would take an SRT-8 over the SHO. The interior of the SHO is :drool:, but I would prefer the V-8.

Yeah, but no AWD in the SRT, you can get AWD with the "small" Hemi though in a non SRT 300. If I have a "gripe" about the SHO, it's the price. Awesome car, great drivetrain (it needs a stick), fit and finish is awesome (not Mopars strong suite), great looks......but it's pricey for a Taurus. The non SHO Taurus at 263 HP remains a pretty good deal.

[Waver]

Yeah, but no AWD in the SRT, you can get AWD with the "small" Hemi though in a non SRT 300. If I have a "gripe" about the SHO, it's the price. Awesome car, great drivetrain (it needs a stick), fit and finish is awesome (not Mopars strong suite), great looks......but it's pricey for a Taurus. The non SHO Taurus at 263 HP remains a pretty good deal.

True, I would like the sho a lot better if it had a stick, however if I recall the stick option disappeared in what 95 (our sho experts can confirm this). Ford did a good job with the paddleshifters though. With the rev matching and the ability to hold the gears a little longer, it makes the SHO a little more fun....

[HITMAN]

New SS M6's are high 12's capable out of the box. but run around 13.1-13.2 consistently from 110 -113 mph. Faster than a GT500 stock for stock? no... the LS3 with a blower you ask? Ones with box stock TVS kits, headers and a custom tune with traction are flirting with tens.

Considering that a TVS is an upgrade for the GT500; adding that, headers and a tune should give the 'Stang equal capability with 46 less cubes. And the TVS is a true bolt-on for the GT500. No need to even remove the intake. Of course the same could be said for the up-and-coming 4.0l Whipple twin-screw...:devil

http://www.modularfords.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146715

[CATNHAT]

I bought a new 93 SHO and sticker was $27000. 16 years later and all the increased technology in the new SHO, plus an additional 145 HP seems like inflation did not harm the pricing of that car at all.

Still, $38K is a lot of money for a car.

[BAD LS1]

Considering that a TVS is an upgrade for the GT500; adding that, headers and a tune should give the 'Stang equal capability with 46 less cubes. And the TVS is a true bolt-on for the GT500. No need to even remove the intake. Of course the same could be said for the up-and-coming 4.0l Whipple twin-screw...:devil

http://www.modularfords.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146715

Yeah id be more interested to see what a twin-screw setup would produce, quite frankly im sick of seeing TVS's already... just about every new camaro you see gets one at the cost of $7500 for the kit:wooo Not mine! cant afford that shit!

[HITMAN]

Yeah id be more interested to see what a twin-screw setup would produce, quite frankly im sick of seeing TVS's already... just about every new camaro you see gets one at the cost of $7500 for the kit:wooo Not mine! cant afford that shit!

Yeah, IMO the TVS is pretty anemic. It's just a high-helix roots. And what they're charging for the Camaro kit? :puke For a little more you could get into the Twin-Screw and Twin-Screw is where it's at... 4 liters of T/S? Fuggetaboutit. :wow It's damned near the displacement of the mod motor itself. I imagine you could probably whistle up 30psi without too much trouble, and the twin-screws have an upper rpm pull that is much more like centrifugal than a roots. I loved that Whipple on my Cobra. Damned near as snappy down low as the Eaton with a top-end charge that didn't quit at 5500, it just kept pulling until the cams ran out of steam... :shades

[xxtremeteam]

Anyone else think this ecoboost motor is a way ford could drop the v8 in the mustang gt and replace with the v6 ecoboost and make it so you could only get a v8 in a special model like a gt500 or some other special model just to get you to spend more? Maybe i am the only one thinking this way so I hope I am wrong

[BAD LS1]

Yeah, IMO the TVS is pretty anemic. It's just a high-helix roots. And what they're charging for the Camaro kit? :puke For a little more you could get into the Twin-Screw and Twin-Screw is where it's at... 4 liters of T/S? Fuggetaboutit. :wow It's damned near the displacement of the mod motor itself. I imagine you could probably whistle up 30psi without too much trouble, and the twin-screws have an upper rpm pull that is much more like centrifugal than a roots. I loved that Whipple on my Cobra. Damned near as snappy down low as the Eaton with a top-end charge that didn't quit at 5500, it just kept pulling until the cams ran out of steam... :shades

Heh yeah thats been mostly the same kinda results ive seen from the "heaton" equipped stuff i tuned, it makes great off idle punch, but its start blowing fire part way through the pull you would think by the IAT's that went from 100 to 160 in 3 seconds lol. The T/S's do seem to maintain a linear, turbo like top end as you mentioned, where on the street the heatons seem to plain off way before redline, which i get bored with fast. Fortunantly for us heretics in the new camaro world that refuse to do a TVS, KB and whipple are now offering alternatives.

[Irish]

...