Like Coke, the basic recipe for the Ford Mustang's success has remained relatively unchanged since its introduction: a low sticker price, some pretty sheet metal, a V8 (halo-ing for a V6), a live rear axle and an intangible sense of Americana. That hasn't stopped Ford from experimenting with "New Coke" every now and then– you'll recall the Mustang II and the SVO. Well, get ready for more: Motor Trend reports that Ford's suits are considering losing the V8 entirely and inserting the upcoming 3.5-liter V6-TT EcoBoost engine in the 2010 Mustang. The move is no doubt inspired by the same federal regs which have forced GM to consider slotting a turbo-four into the Camaro (and cancelling its DOHC V8 program). On the plus side, the V6-TT engine is slated to make 340hp and a very muscular 340 ft.lbs of torque. These figures easily blow the current V6 used in the Mustang out of the water. In fact, the TT's a match for the 4.6L-liter V8 currently inhabiting the 'Stang GT's engine bay. But can you have a "real" Mustang without offering a V8? And if the new six this becomes the Mustang's top-line engine, could an EcoBoost turbo-four in the base Mustang be far behind? BTW: all those Coke variants didn't up their total market share.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
The Mustang GT is getting a much more powerful V8 engine to replace the 4.6L so the very badly named Eco-Boost V6 won’t be the top dog powertrain.
The route Ford is going is vastly preferable to the news that GM is considering stuffing their little 260hp four cylinder turbo in the Camaro. News which has sent shockwaves throughout the GM community and Camaro faithful. That engine will be boosting and revving hard to move that beast if GM goes through with it.
As cool as turbo V6s are they tend to use just as much fuel as V8s when used as intended, for performance. As a former 3.8L turbo Grand National owner (hencE the screen name) I can tell you that the more you dip into the throttle and boost the more you need to prepare to dip into your wallet.
NO.
Ecoboost V6 for the now very fast secretaries.
Then make an ecoboost V8.
I know turbo reliability has vastly improved over the last decade, but I still don’t trust Ford to build one that will outlast the warranty for very long.
Sounds interesting. I’d be interested to see how it compares with the current V6 and V8 engines for fuel economy. Those hp and torque numbers blow the current 4.6L, V8 out of the water. It could be a means for Ford to slowly transition people to a turbo 4 base Mustang, a turbo 6 GT, and a V8 in the specialty Mustangs. On paper, it seems like a great idea to me. Unlike the introduction of the revived Camaro with a turbo 4. I still say people have an idea of what a muscle car is, and it doesn’t include a 4 cylinder engine. But, a high output, turbo 6 could be used to slowly transition people into the idea of a turbo 4.
Meh. Today’s real muscle cars are small sports compacts. American companies only still build muscle cars because they can capitalize on nostalgia and patriotism with subpar products.
Maybe moving to more reasonable drivetrains will help modernize them, but that would involve making them lighter, more aerodynamic, and with smaller engines. And then they wouldn’t be nostalgia/patriotism-inducing anymore.
There’s a reason why the old muscle cars died out… it’s called “physics”.
Why don’t they just put the 3.5 liter V-6 from the Ford Taurus in? Its horsepower and torque numbers are both higher than the current V6, and it gets 22 mpg in the basic Taurus. I figure it could get pretty close to that in the ‘Stang, aided as it is by the Mustang’s lower weight. Put that engine in and I’d buy one as fast as I could.
Was Ford and GM profitable in the 60’s? Yes and I think you had the choice of 9 different engines in the Camaro or Mustang at that time.
The Luigiian –
And that’s exactly what the Mustang is getting in early 2009. A 3.5 or 3.7 (it’s not confirmed what exactly, but it is a Hurricane).
The 3.5 EB in RWD configuration will be capable of closer to 400 hp/415 tq with the right transmission.
RobertSD:
Thanks for that. I was kind of thinking that would be what Ford was going to do, but I want to make this quite clear to Ford:
Ditch the 4 liter. Seriously, man. Good luck on the next Mustang. I probably couldn’t afford the EcoBoost in my wildest dreams, but 400 hp/415 lb. ft sounds really good.
Next gen SVO ahoy!
A V6 in the next Mustang? If it’s the TwinForce (Eco-Boost is way too lame a name), it’s about time.
Still…V6, next Mustang…where have I heard that before?
@ Landcrusher
I know turbo reliability has vastly improved over the last decade, but I still don’t trust Ford to build one that will outlast the warranty for very long.
That would be a good indication of the company’s right to survive. Dearborn should place a call to Göteborg and ask Volvo to pretty please with a cherry on top send over some of their powerplant engineers. They can’t afford to botch this.
In 1989 Nissan released a 3.0L TT that put out 300 HP and close on torque..
Nissan’s 3.5L NA puts out over 300.
Nissan’s 3.7L NA puts out 330HP.
And yes, I have to say it… the GT-R, anyone? Sure, it’s expensive as hell, but it’s also a 3.7L TT putting out shameful amounts of power compared to this.
IDK, maybe it’s a step in the right direction, all things in mind. But I don’t see how +40 HP and torque from TWIN turbos is anything to be proud of, when comparing the same displacement to the competition… especially since, almost 2 decades ago, twin turbos 80HP to the same engine.. by my math, a modern 3.5L tt should be capable of 380 HP. But what do I know, I’m only a hobbyist.
(smile) but maybe a twin turbo Ford will encourage forced induction from other manufacturers… (sees his new 370Z/G37 TwinTurbo around the corner).
The Mustang V-8 “legend” is just that, mostly legend. The Mustang as high performance car is a myth created by car rags back in the 80’s. The majority of original Mustangs were “secretary’s cars”.
1/3 of first gen Mustangs came with wheezy inline 6s(170, 200, 250 cube) single barrel carb and cylinder heads with integral cast intakes. I don’t think anyone of those 6s produced more than 120 real horses.
85% of the V-8 cars came with two barrel, small block V-8s that produced less than 200 real world horses.
An efficient practical new ‘Stang would only going back to its original roots.
Just as an aside….the current 4.0 v6 ,while not the most refined beast, still manages 0-60 in 6.3 when equipped with a manual. This is faster than my ’89 5.0 and hardly the secretary v6 of the past
its not the absolute power of the turbo that I don’t like, its the power delivery
nothing matches the power delivery, torque curve and smoothness of a v8, even if it makes less power
As a former 1999 Mustang GT owner and still a current 1984 Mustang SVO 2.3L Turbo owner, I urge Ford to go ahead with at least one EcoBoost option.
I don’t see any reason not to offer a larger variety of performance Mustangs with varied engine options. Of course, they MUST keep a V8 in the lineup, period.
There is no reason to shackle the Mustang to an overly-rigid ‘formula’ of what a Mustang is supposed to be. The concept needs to evolve, and the idea of an option sheet that would potentially give the choice of the 3.5L V6, EcoBoost 4, EcoBoost 6, and V8 would widen the appeal of Ford’s MOST appealing car. Why would product variety /choice a bad thing?