An UNFAVORABLE review for the 2011 Mustang V6

[a_Username]

http://www.insideline.com/ford/musta...gination_top_1

Don't be faked out by all the hype. Don't believe everything you've been reading about the new 2011 Ford Mustang V6 being the greatest thing since the Victoria's Secret catalog. You know what we're talking about. The numbers are all over the Internet: 305 horsepower. 31 mpg.

Don't be fooled. The truth is that guys who really love to drive (not like, love) will save up a few more months and buy a GT with the new 5.0-liter V8. It's even worth the higher insurance premiums.

Why? Torque.

Now you're lighting up your Twitter account typing out something like, "Come on, the new 2011 Ford Mustang's got 305 hp. That thing's got to move out. Car and Crack magazine said it's fast."

Don't misunderstand. The 2011 Ford Mustang V6 is not slow. With a good launch and a tight gearchange it hits 60 in just 5.6 seconds (5.3 seconds with rollout like on a drag strip). If you've been driving a worn-out Civic, a sub-6-second 0-60-mph will feel like you've strapped yourself to a bottle rocket.

But for the rest of us, out in the real world, away from the test track, the Mustang V6 just doesn't feel that fast. When you dump 2nd and punch it hard in the head, you're not going to be pinned against the seatback, eyelids peeling from the explosive burst of acceleration. Not in this Mustang.

Not with just 280 pound-feet of torque at 4,250 rpm. At 4,250 rpm!

Torque — or Lack of Same
That's not that much torque, and you've got to rev past four grand to get there. On the street, this makes it too easy to get caught at the bottom of the tach, out of the V6's lofty power band. Plus, those 280 lb-ft have to push around 3,500 pounds. You do the math.

....

Bottom line: This is not a high-performance muscle car that's going to give you 29 mpg. If you want balls-out performance, pop for the 412-hp 5.0 V8 in the Mustang GT. And the V6's 18 mpg in the city? Sorry, guys. The way readers of this Web site drive, it just ain't gonna happen. Not in the real world, anyway. We averaged 14 mpg driving this Mustang around Los Angeles with gumption.

Read more at the link, considering it is a long review. InsideLine seems to be hating on the new Mustang. Oh and lol at the Car and Crack magazine comment.

[Rogue Leader]

That was a lame reason to give it 2 stars. They talk about how good it is and all this stuff and then they knock it to the ground for not "feeling fast". Don't read this article expecting the mustang to get trashed, it doesn't.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Rogue Leader

That was a lame reason to give it 2 stars. They talk about how good it is and all this stuff and then they knock it to the ground for not "feeling fast". Don't read this article expecting the mustang to get trashed, it doesn't.

It doesn't get trashed per say, but it definitely doesn't get worshiped. Personally, I think the review is BS.

[1bad65]

How much torque does the heavier Camaro V6 have?

[FC_GIBB]

personally, i like the new stangs , i never had a bias either way, what made my decision was my opinion that Camaro was/is a hotter car. Their V6 still out performs ours, well let me rephrase that, their V6 car outperforms our V6 car.

I am not sure how these guys were only getting 14mpg's outta their V6 stang test subject. I get 24.5mpg outta my Gen5 6-Banger and i beat on it, on a daily basis. It's exactly what i was looking for, which is a "quick" daily driver.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

How much torque does the heavier Camaro V6 have?

273 @ 5200 RPMs

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by FC_GIBB

personally, i like the new stangs , i never had a bias either way, what made my decision was my opinion that Camaro was/is a hotter car. Their V6 still out performs ours, well let me rephrase that, their V6 car outperforms our V6 car.

I am not sure how these guys were only getting 14mpg's outta their V6 stang test subject. I get 24.5mpg outta my Gen5 6-Banger and i beat on it, on a daily basis. It's exactly what i was looking for, which is a "quick" daily driver.

Those extra couple tenths of a second doesn't make up for the styling to me IMO.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by a_Username

273 @ 5200 RPMs

278 certified...273 was the old rating.. it was from the CTS, The engine was just recently certified for the Camaro.....

That review sounds just like someone that thinks there shouldn't be a V6 in any Pony Car... They are all about power and Torque.. Not a fair test of the Mustang V6 in my opinion...

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Skyman 08

278 certified...273 was the old rating.. it was from the CTS, The engine was just recently certified for the Camaro.....

My B, I just took it off Chevrolet's website.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by a_Username

My B, I just took it off Chevrolet's website.

they won't change it until the 2011's come out.. no need wasitng money on web changes now...

[G8GT4now]

"When you dump 2nd and punch it hard in the head, you're not going to be pinned against the seatback, eyelids peeling from the explosive burst of acceleration."

Sorry, but even the V8 SS doesn't do this, why would a V6 Mustang?

[Revo1]

Sounds like opinionated BS to me... Hardly call this a review

[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

[1bad65]

I'm curious if these guys reviewed the 2010 V6 Camaro too, and if so, what did they say about it.

[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.