Chris V. Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Not only is this a good step up but also they are finally putting a real V6 in it from the MKS. Yeah the 2011 V6 will make as much hp as the 2010 GT V8. And they finally got rid of the aging 4.0 liter for the much more potential-having 3.7 liter Duratech. The V6 Mustang shoudl now be a decent daily driver sport coupe. It's also getting the GT's suspension setup standard. So the $22k cheap Mustang is itself a worthy competitor to other V6 RWD sport coupes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elite_Deforce Posted February 3, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2010 Yeah the 2011 V6 will make as much hp as the 2010 GT V8. And they finally got rid of the aging 4.0 liter for the much more potential-having 3.7 liter Duratech. The V6 Mustang shoudl now be a decent daily driver sport coupe. It's also getting the GT's suspension setup standard. So the $22k cheap Mustang is itself a worthy competitor to other V6 RWD sport coupes. Imo, it is one of the best cars in the market right now. Like GTI/Mustang V6, like no competish. If people can get past the fact that Mustangs should be V8-powered, then it's golden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr. joint Posted February 3, 2010 Report Share Posted February 3, 2010 Imo, it is one of the best cars in the market right now. Like GTI/Mustang V6, like no competish. If people can get past the fact that Mustangs should be V8-powered, then it's golden. I really hope that Ford would sell the Mustang here. I just read on local TG that the Camaro might be sold here. Chevrolet brought in a V6 powered Camaro for local testing and to gauge market reaction, but the editor of TG found the Camaro wanting of a proper V8. Now IF and WHEN Chevrolet decides to sell the Camaro, I wonder if Ford will finally sell the Mustang. Ford says selling the Mustang here would be impossible coz projected sales of 25 units/year is not enough to sustain parts supply to the buyers. But Chevrolet's plan is to give the potential Camaro buyer a parts package that consists of all the spare parts your Camaro would need in 5 years. Eniwei just some info i want to share. I love muscle cars. I love the Camaro. But the Mustang is the Holy Grail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfeeney Posted February 3, 2010 Report Share Posted February 3, 2010 Has anyone seen what manual tranny is going in the new 'Stang? Is it a 5 or 6 speed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2007DBR9 Posted February 3, 2010 Report Share Posted February 3, 2010 Has anyone seen what manual tranny is going in the new 'Stang? Is it a 5 or 6 speed? 6 speed I think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elite_Deforce Posted February 3, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2010 6 speed I think Then that would be new cause it has a 5 now. Which is stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2007DBR9 Posted February 4, 2010 Report Share Posted February 4, 2010 Then that would be new cause it has a 5 now. Which is stupid. I am sure I read somewhere they are replacing it with a 6... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris V. Posted February 4, 2010 Report Share Posted February 4, 2010 Then that would be new cause it has a 5 now. Which is stupid. They're replacing it with a 6 speed for marketing reasons. NONE of the musclecars needs a 6 speed. Hell, I've built stuff quicker and faster with just a 3 speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2007DBR9 Posted February 4, 2010 Report Share Posted February 4, 2010 They're replacing it with a 6 speed for marketing reasons. NONE of the musclecars needs a 6 speed. Hell, I've built stuff quicker and faster with just a 3 speed. But consumers in the modern market want more economical cars - a 3 speed will give you considerably worse fuel economy than a 6 speed. There is more to a modern car than speed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris V. Posted February 4, 2010 Report Share Posted February 4, 2010 But consumers in the modern market want more economical cars - a 3 speed will give you considerably worse fuel economy than a 6 speed. There is more to a modern car than speed! You don't buy a muscle car for economy. If you do, you're stupid. And if the top gear ratio is the same, then you really aren't gaining anything. The 6 speed is going in because the Camaro has one, and that's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2007DBR9 Posted February 4, 2010 Report Share Posted February 4, 2010 (edited) You don't buy a muscle car for economy. If you do, you're stupid. And if the top gear ratio is the same, then you really aren't gaining anything. The 6 speed is going in because the Camaro has one, and that's it. Well of course not, but with the price of fuel being so high the poor mpg figures of a 3 speed car would put a lot of buyers off. Better fuel efficiency is always a bonus regardless of the car, and if it can be achieved without compramising performance, then why not? Top gear ratio being the same is fine for the motorway, but if you have a 3 speed then when driving in town you will have to stick to lower gears therfore increasing your fuel consumption. In a 6 speed car you can keep the revs lower in town and improve your mpg figure. Edited February 4, 2010 by 2007DBR9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfeeney Posted February 4, 2010 Report Share Posted February 4, 2010 They're replacing it with a 6 speed for marketing reasons. NONE of the musclecars needs a 6 speed. Hell, I've built stuff quicker and faster with just a 3 speed. Wouldn't faster cars than any 'stock factory' Mustang like a 'Vette and the other 180mph+ cars benefit from a 6 speed? A 3 speed could max out way before the cars potential, so wouldn't you add gears to get to a greater tranny redline or drag limit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris V. Posted February 4, 2010 Report Share Posted February 4, 2010 Well of course not, but with the price of fuel being so high the poor mpg figures of a 3 speed car would put a lot of buyers off. Better fuel efficiency is always a bonus regardless of the car, and if it can be achieved without compramising performance, then why not? Top gear ratio being the same is fine for the motorway, but if you have a 3 speed then when driving in town you will have to stick to lower gears therfore increasing your fuel consumption. In a 6 speed car you can keep the revs lower in town and improve your mpg figure. A 3 speed car with the V8 has enough torque that it drives around in top gear the same as if it had 4, 5, or 6 gears. Fuel economy comes in choosing a gear ratio to cruise in that is matched to the engine's most efficient rpm (which is not always near idle) That's just the point, if you gear the final drive and the top gear the same it doesn' tmatter. a lot of closely spaced gears are necesary for a small engine car that has a very narrow powerband up high, or for a diesel engine car/truck that has a very narrow powerband down low. if you only make power in a narow rev range, you need a lot of gears in order to make up for that. A car with a wide, useable powerband needs fewer gears to accomplish the same thing. More than that just means time used up in the act of shifting. Mercedes is putting a lot of gears in an automatic trans now becasue they don't want much change in rpm so that the driver of their luxury car can't feel/hear the progression of gears. But the larger engine could get away with a gear to take off in, and a top gear to cruise in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2007DBR9 Posted February 4, 2010 Report Share Posted February 4, 2010 (edited) A 3 speed car with the V8 has enough torque that it drives around in top gear the same as if it had 4, 5, or 6 gears. Fuel economy comes in choosing a gear ratio to cruise in that is matched to the engine's most efficient rpm (which is not always near idle) That's just the point, if you gear the final drive and the top gear the same it doesn' tmatter. a lot of closely spaced gears are necesary for a small engine car that has a very narrow powerband up high, or for a diesel engine car/truck that has a very narrow powerband down low. if you only make power in a narow rev range, you need a lot of gears in order to make up for that. A car with a wide, useable powerband needs fewer gears to accomplish the same thing. More than that just means time used up in the act of shifting. Mercedes is putting a lot of gears in an automatic trans now becasue they don't want much change in rpm so that the driver of their luxury car can't feel/hear the progression of gears. But the larger engine could get away with a gear to take off in, and a top gear to cruise in. It does stand to reason that if you had 2 identical cars, one with a 3 speed and one with a 6 speed the 6 speed would be more fuel efficient? With the 6 speed you can keep the revs lower all the time which you can't with a 3 speed, and if the engine is working at a lower rpm then it will be using less fuel. My theory also works in reverse - if you are driving round a track, or pushing the car hard you can stay in higher rpm ranges with a 6 speed and therfore stay in the "peak performance" area of the rpm range for longer than you could in a 3 speed car. This would mean the car with the 6 speed box would be faster round a track than the car with the 3 speed box. When you shift up in a car with long ratios your revs drop so you have to make your way up the rev range again. When you shift up in a 6 speed car with shorter ratios you have less distance to go until you reach the higher rev ranges so can stay on the power for longer. You do make a good point with the power bands though, but given the choice I personally would buy the car with the 6 speed box over the car with the 3 speed box. Edited February 4, 2010 by 2007DBR9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elite_Deforce Posted February 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2010 This argument is stupid. More gears = more usable power for engines with stupid powerbands, save if you have 3984 gears and are wasting more energy shifting gears than getting power down Any different arrangement of gears with the same final drive and top gear ratio = probably match cruising speed economies Competition has more gears = we must have more gears too! I'm sorry old friend, but Chris is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.