Ford has announced that its 3.7-liter V6 will power the base (in the entry level sense of the word) Mustang for the 2011 model year. The Mustang Source reports that the mill will produce 315HP, which represents a 105 horsepower boost over the current V6-powered Mustang. That’s also 11 horsepower better than the Chevrolet Camaro V6, for those of you who think the term “Pony car wars” doesn’t sound like something you’d see on Cartoon Network. There’ll also be a 400 horsepower “Coyote” 5.0-liter V8 on offer, mated with a six-speed manual transmission, s’il vous plait. As for an EcoBoost (nee Twin Force) option, fuhgeddaboutit. Apparently, a 365HP EcoBoost powerplant wouldn’t leave enough marketing daylight between the base V6 and the Coyote-powered GT. One thing: Coyote, Road Runner, inevitable failure. Anyone else see a marketing problem here? Nope, didn’t think so. Carry on.
The only thing I care about Mustangs is watching the beautiful girl mount it. Mmmm…..the visuals I am having right now…oh yeah…I wish I was that motor..
And there goes the Camaro’s sales lead.
Fun while it lasted.
Wow. I’d love to pick up a V6 with 315 hp used after 3 years for 50% off msrp. RWD, 315 hp…..assuming it isn’t geared for mpg!
Wow. I’d love to pick up a V6 with 315 hp used after 3 years for 50% off msrp. RWD, 315 hp…..assuming it isn’t geared for mpg!
if it comes with a stick too – then very tempting
I’m pretty sure the “Coyote” name is strictly an internal code name for this new engine series.
esg :
September 4th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
The only thing I care about Mustangs is watching the beautiful girl mount it. Mmmm…..the visuals I am having right now…oh yeah…I wish I was that motor..
2 different worlds. I see her scratching my fender with her ring, and scuffing my alloy with her boots, not to mention she’ll probably drop the screw driver right on top of the fender when she moves.
Assuming weight advantage stays the same everything except Vettes and or stronger/pricier loses. Automatically. Even more so if Ford finally puts in an IRS option to make all the schmucks quit complaining about it.
toxicroach, we’ll see about that.
The Mustang still looks tame and old sitting next to the Camaro (as does the Corvette). It still drives like an old car too (nervous, jiggly and the axle bumps around in the back just like my old Grand National, it’s especially bad in corners).
The Mustang also has a neglible weight advantange over the Camaro. Road and Track weighed their test 2010 GT with Track Pack and it tipped the scales at 3,755lbs. In comparison the Camaro SS owned by LG Performance weighed in at 3,822lbs bone stock. Not a night and day difference, at all. Though the dynamics of SRA vs IRS sure is. So is almost 100 horsepower and a recently engineered structure and body shell vs one Ford stuck in the microwave from years ago (and charges you out the rear for).
The biggest thing that will sink the Camaro is that dealers are still treating them like the chariot of God. Around here you can’t drive off in one without paying well over MSRP or waiting a long time. Hopefully that changes by next summer.
Still, I’ve seen more Camaros on the road here than 2010 Mustangs in the Valley of the Sun and RWD.
Sit a 2010 Mustang next to a 2010 Camaro and I’d give the styling nod to the Mustang, perhaps a bit more reserved than the Camaro, but more polished and refined. Sit a 2010 Mustang next to a 2009 Mustang and the styling tweaks, while initially appearing minor, become more noticeable and pronounced the longer you look, and the interior on the Mustang is worlds better.
I can sort of see what you are saying about driving like an old car, but I don’t think it is necessarily a bad thing. Part of the Mustang charm is the RWD bruiser ‘super connected but always acutely aware the rear axle might hop’ handling experience.
I’m sure both standards and automatics will be offered with both the V6 and the V8. What I’d love to see, althought I admit it would be against the character of the car, and will likely not be coming anytime soon, is a DSG gearbox option for the Shelby GT500 and perhaps even the regular GT.
I don’t really see a huge number of 2010 Mustangs or Camaros around the roads here, in the land of sun, RWD, and hurricanes, but I think a lot of enthusiasts who would have otherwise been early adopters of 2010 Mustangs knew the performance bumps were coming and are waiting for either more power or to snag a pre-owned 2010 cheaply when the early adopters bail for more horses.
in Vanouver a few weeks back, saw so many Mustangs. 1 Challenger and nil Camaro.
i like the new Mustang in real life far better than pictures, though i think the roofline/pillar treatment lets it down a bit.
Ford also probably discovered that the EcoBoost powered Mustang would get the same EPA figures as the V8
The Mustang has been winning every comparison test due to superior driving position, steering, and handling–even with the live rear axle and old engines. With the new engines it should be way ahead in track testing.
TriShield: aren’t R&T’s weights also high? Don’t they include, for example, a full tank of gas? Might want to check the curb weight they have for the Camaro SS.
Cars.com
Mustang Camaro
3,483 3,860
Car and Driver
Mustang Camaro
3580 3880
Not that it matters a whole lot until the updated Mustang powertrains make it in there, but I really hope GT pricing stays where it is so I can afford it.
@TriShield @Michael Karesh: The Road & Track reported weights are indeed heavy. Not only do they include the weight of a full tank of gas, but they also include the driver, and whatever the driver brought with them. I’m not sure what LG Performance did to their Camaro or what trim it is, but according to Car & Driver, the Mustang GT’s curb weight is 3590 lbs compared to the Camaro SS’s 3860 lbs. It’s not night and day, but it’s a significant difference.
‘Bout time. This should have happened for 2010.
I don’t feel sorry for the fools that bought a 2010 though…they can waste their money any way they want.
Near 300lbs is night and day difference. We’re not talking Bentley vs. Festiva weight but it is significant. If the Camaro weighed the same as the Mustang it would blow the doors off. As is it the top trim Camaro barely beats the mid line ‘Stang. This doesn’t even consider the Cobra.
Been a long-time Mustang fan…had a used ’79 in the mid-eighties right out of high school…total ‘Fix Or Repair Daily’ 4cyl/4spd base P.O.S, but it looked decent, and was still fun at 18.
Good to hear about the upcoming improved powertrains, but sorry if this is heresy, when is the SVO successor coming?…a H.O. ecoboost-4cyl with the track pack?
Lighter weight, track pack handling, and better mpg could all be winners in today’s marketplace, and keep the Mustang viable with future mileage standards.
Even more so if Ford finally puts in an IRS option to make all the schmucks quit complaining about it.
Some of us regularly drive on roads where the lack of IRS is a major issue. I love Mustangs, but I really don’t enjoy driving driving them on these roads. I can push an IRS car much harder without as many issues.
when is the SVO successor coming?
I wonder if they’ll call it the SHO(w)?
I hope they sold the last of the 4.0L V6s before making this announcement.
So this is why Ford is doing better than GM and Chrysler. They’re making cars people WANT. Ford makes powerful variants of the F-150, Flex, Taurus, and rumor has it a Focus. GM and Chrysler? Nada. All I ask is that Ford charge the same price for the new V6 variations as they did the old ones.
If Ford keeps this up and doesn’t let CAFE stand in their way I’ll be happy to give them my business. Kudos to Ford.
King Bojack:
I haven’t read a review yet that said a midline ‘Stang could come even relatively close to a Camaro SS. I believe most reviewers are waiting for the 500GT 2010 edition for that, and until then, the ‘stang doesn’t really compare to a Camaro SS in a straight line.
Unless you have numbers otherwise, I think you are pulling this imaginary comparison out of your hat!
Now, with the green lobby in control of GM now (via the current administration), if there is no Z28 Camaro (and right now, there isn’t), then the 500 GT may be the king-of-the-hill muscle car for some time to come (but at a steep price differential).
The big question… price?
The hoary old V6 in the previous Mustang is probably a lot cheaper to build than the newer one… which might raise the price of the base Mustang a few bills, unless Ford does some creative cost-cutting… or admits that the base model was overpriced, maybe, and keeps the price similar?
The price will go up. The base Camaro is $2k more. Ford has at least that difference above them, and they’ll probably take it if they feel they can.
As for this pitiful attempt at “oh, it’s still live rear axle,” I’ve finally had the chance to throw both the Camaro and Mustang around a bit on varying quality roads. The new Mustang is really solid. During 95-ish% of hard driving the Mustang track pack is superior. It loses a little only in the most agressive maneuvers on rough pavement.
And for the rest of the times that you aren’t driving like you’re trying to win Milan, the Mustang was a better vehicle than the Camaro. This was a far more significant update of the Mustang than I initially gave them credit for.
mcs – what road surfaces do you notice that on?
I must admit I think a well sorted live axle is generally as good as a cheap IRS, with the exception that if you are running over kerbs, or running on unmade roads with potholes and corrugations, then even a cheap IRS provides better stability and traction.
For that you get a significant weight saving, and a more robust system.
niky – The current 4.0, which has been in production for over ten years since its last significant update, is made in Germany. The 3.7 liter is basically just an increased displacement version of the 3.5 liter that is currently used in tons of Ford and Lincoln products, although I don’t know what modifications were needed to set it up for RWD mounting and to bump up the power to 315hp. In any event, just the savings from building it in the US vs Germany and savings on import costs could minimize the cost impact on the V6 models.
RobertSD: “And for the rest of the times that you aren’t driving like you’re trying to win Milan, the Mustang was a better vehicle than the Camaro.”This is the reason the Mustang (with few exceptions) has always managed to handily stomp the f-bodies in sales.
I remember reading an old Car and Driver article decades ago where a 3rd gen f-body was compared with a Fox-chassis Mustang. Although the Camaro should have come out on top, it was flatly stated that the Camaro was “one of those cars that were all numbers and not much fun”. That pretty much sums up the traditional difference between the two.
Wow….stop the presses..Dr. Doom P71 actually said Ford is doing something right !!!!!!!
Also….thanks for some positive Ford news RF (aka Prince of Darkness).
Agree with both of you…good news for the Mustang V6
Coyote, Road Runner, inevitable failure.
Good thing for Ford that Plymouth isn’t around any more….
Kudos Ford for updating the entry Stang.
Now let’s all openly admit that both the Mustang and Camaro are grossly overweight like the average American. Shouldn’t the target be about 3,000 lbs or less for these pony cars?
When recent decade Accord and CR-Vs weigh less than the current ponies shouldn’t it be shameful that these “performance” ponies weigh more???????
It doesn’t look like Ford offers the “Track Pack” on the base Mustang. You have to step into a V8 powered GT to get that as an option. I hope they change that with the new engine. I mean, 315HP is serious business, they should offer you some better suspension and brakes to cope with that level of shenanigans.
Nice headlights!
Twotone
Aqua255:
According to Popular Mechanics,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4309423.html
Motortrend also claims a better quarter mile and 0-60 time here,
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0904_2010_ford_mustang_gt_test/index.html
The SS is faster. It is. I never claimed otherwise. But it’s not head and shoulders faster than the GT. It’s 0-60 and 1/4mi ET is not indicative of a car with a 100+hp advantage and more advanced powertrain/suspension. Which means the next year Mustang should wreck the Chevy any way you slice it except maybe styling.
Perhaps there is more to the story? I thought they continued to use the 4.0 because it was designed for rear-wheeled drive (the Mustang and the Ranger). Does this engine change require a change in transmission(s)?
One thing: Coyote, Road Runner, inevitable failure.
I don’t see this happening since Plymouth is dead. The Coyote wins by default.
I should also note that according to a poster at The Mustang Source, the 5.0 V8 will also get a pair of six-speed transmissions- the automatic from the Explorer Sport Trac and the manual from the GT500, to be precise. It also sounds like the Track Pack option will also get the GT500’s Brembo brakes.
The GT500 will apparently also get an aluminum engine block to shave some weight off of the front.
If the Camaro weighed the same as the Mustang it would blow the doors off.
It already does. In the latest Road and Track, the numbers came out like this:
Camaro:
0-60 – 4.6
1/4 Mile – 12.9@110.2
Handling (STOCK) – .89g
Cost – $32,390
Mustang:
0-60 – 5.3
1/4 Mile – 13.8@104
Handling (WITH $1500 handling package) – .93g
Cost – $34,130
So, the Mustang is slower, costs more money, and needs special enhancements to put up decent handling numbers.
Ford screwed the pooch (AGAIN!) with the 2010 Mustang. It is last years junk in a different wrapper. It always takes Ford a couple of years to get something even remotely right. Look at the Taurus…Look at the Mustang…etc.
It’s 0-60 and 1/4mi ET is not indicative of a car with a 100+hp advantage and more advanced powertrain/suspension.
Have you seen the pitiful numbers for the GT500…with it’s claimed 540 HP (with it’s 225 HP advantage over the Mustang GT)?
0-60 – 4.6
1/4 Mile – 12.9 (SAME as a Camaro SS)
Handling – .88g
That GT500 is a joke.
Who cares? It will also be a POS with a solid rear axle and weigh over 3,800 pounds and be priced over the market value.
Who cares? Ford isn’t at the mercy of the federal government on product decisions, that’s all that matters. At the moment, at least…
P71:
Some of your numbers are wrong.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/0609_rt_camaroSS_comp.pdf
This shows that yes, the car with the significantly larger engine and power output does win quite a bit down the line vs. a car with a decade old powerplant at the drag strip but largely gets nailed any other time. (see slalom times and g numbers) Ford has acknowledged this weakness and has/is working to address it with new powertrain.
What it also shows is that the Mustang is much less expensive up front. Even adding track pack you’re still cheaper than the Camaro by a few hundred bucks. This also ignores the tons of other reviews saying the Mustang is a better car to actually drive in but I’ll keep it to the performance numbers for right now.
Ford hasn’t mucked anything up in the real world. No pooches have been screwed. Next year they will ensure no pooches are screwed.
I can’t help but notice the cost comparisons between the SS Camaro and the Mustang GT. I work for a combined Ford and Chevrolet dealer. Every SS Camaro I have seen and looked at online has a MSRP between 38000 and 43000 BEFORE any dealer markups. The Mustang GT premium with the track pack does have an MSRP of around 34000. So come on guys… whats the old saying about apples? If you’re going to look at a fully equipped GT, how about pricing a fully equipped SS? If you can find a GM dealer willing to sale a Camaro for list, that is.
Glad Ford is finally planning to upgrade the base engine in the Mustang.
Imagine an alternate car market where you could buy a Ford car with a GM engine, transmission, and HVAC. Not sure how they do it, but GM engineers achieve excellent power output and efficiency out of their drivetrains while making the interior look cheap. Meanwhile, Ford designs cars that are more desirable overall, but are a step behind in drivetrain performance.
Its about time we had a high output V6 from Ford that is actually in a performance car. Looking forward to getting one of these for my 2000 Mustang, where it should have been ten years ago.
TriShield :
September 4th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
The Mustang still looks tame and old sitting next to the Camaro (as does the Corvette).
The Camaro’s unique and interesting to look at, but to my eyes, it looks like Chevy tried too hard with that one. Not that I’d kick one out of my garage, mind you…but I prefer the looks of the Mustang.
However, I’d give the definite edge to the Mustang inside. The Camaro has that high beltline, and you feel like you’re sitting in a cave. I also don’t like the Camaro’s instrumentation and ergonomics – the Mustang is more user friendly.
I have spent some driving a ’10 Mustang, and it feels great to me. I’m sure independent rear suspension would help it in at-the-limit speeds, but at 7/10ths around town, it feels just fine.
Then there’s the Challenger, which I fell in love with until I drove one. The power is great, and the room and comfort are best in class, but the handling is just not up to snuff, and the interior is hatefully cheap.
(by way of full disclosure: I have not driven the new Camaro, but was able to get quite a bit of “seat time” in one at a dealer’s lot on a Sunday, so my observations are limited to the interior)
Uh, P71, you also left a few things out about that Road and Track test:
First, you neglected to mention that two of the three editors preferred the Mustang over the Camaro.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=10&article_id=8313&print_page=y
You also neglected to mention that the Mustang won a similar comparision test in Car and Driver.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/09q3/2010_chevy_camaro_ss_vs._2010_ford_mustang_gt_2009_dodge_challenger_r_t-comparison_tests/2010_ford_mustang_gt_page_4
Second, you neglected to mention that the Mustang significantly outhandled and outbraked the Camaro.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/1009_rt_ponyExpress_comp-chart.pdf
You also neglected to mention that the Camaro tested was a basic model with no options but a sunroof, while the Mustang came with a $3,000 luxury package.
Comparing Camaro to Mustang, Mustang wins. 2009 or 2010.
Wow….stop the presses..Dr. Doom P71 actually said Ford is doing something right !!!!!!!
I will always give Ford credit when credit is due.
you neglected to mention that the Mustang significantly outhandled and outbraked the Camaro.
Significant? Hardly.
Handling difference was .04G…despite the Mustang having a $1500 handling package. Lets see what the Mustang pulls without it’s (needed) enhancements.
And braking was only a difference of 6 feet. Not significant.
you neglected to mention that two of the three editors preferred the Mustang over the Camaro.
I was discussing the performance of the Camaro and Mustang. Not the opinions of a few journalists.
You also neglected to mention that the Mustang won a similar comparision test in Car and Driver.
I also neglected to post what Automobile thought of the Camaro:
And topping it all off, the Camaro essentially blows away its competition – the Ford Mustang and Dodge Challenger seem positively primitive in comparison, a couple of rough-edged, cost-cut, sedan-derived chunks of ordinary.
And why did I do that…because it is irrelevant to the performance of the Ford appliance or the Camaro.
P71:
Some of your numbers are wrong.
No….I’ve got the article right here in front of me.
P71 says:
I also neglected to post what Automobile thought of the Camaro:
And topping it all off, the Camaro essentially blows away its competition – the Ford Mustang and Dodge Challenger seem positively primitive in comparison, a couple of rough-edged, cost-cut, sedan-derived chunks of ordinary.
Hmmmm…is this the same Automobile magazine whose editor shamelessly pimped Jeeps for Chrysler a couple of years back?
By the way, they neglected to mention that the Camaro is ALSO “sedan-derived,” unless the G8 has turned coupe without us knowing it.
Zero credibility there. Kind of like you, but I digress.
AdamYYZ: “It doesn’t look like Ford offers the “Track Pack” on the base Mustang. You have to step into a V8 powered GT to get that as an option. I hope they change that with the new engine. I mean, 315HP is serious business, they should offer you some better suspension and brakes to cope with that level of shenanigans.”It’s unlikely. The Big 2.8 have always been acutely aware of the primary market demographic for the base 6-cylinder models and it’s never been gearheads that want performance-level suspension/drivetrain enhancements. Even if offered (and it sold well), it would likely cannibalize V8 sales.
OTOH, it’s really nice to see GM putting a dual exhaust as standard equipment on the new V6 Camaro, as well as both Ford and Chrysler making it very easy to convert their base ponycars to duals. There’s now an inexpensive plastic trim piece with the V8 dual exhaust cut-outs that can easily be replaced on the base cars. If you wanted to put duals on a V6 Mustang in the past, you had to get out a Dremel and hack-up the V6 panel, or spend the money to get an entire rear bumper replacement fascia (which may or may not also need to be painted in the right color).
So although there probably won’t be a ‘Track Pack’ for the 3.7L Mustang, at least it will be relatively easy to put duals on it.
Joe ShpoilShport :
September 5th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Perhaps there is more to the story? I thought they continued to use the 4.0 because it was designed for rear-wheeled drive (the Mustang and the Ranger). Does this engine change require a change in transmission(s)?
Considering the 3.7 is an evolution of the old 3.0 engine shared with Mazda, it’s likely the engine was never designed with longitudinal mounting in mind… so it probably took some time to tool up new accessories for the new mounting position…
The old 3.0 v6 was mounted longitudinally in the Jag X Type/Lincoln LS and even shoehorned into a Miata prototype. Longitudinal applications were always a consideration throughout the development of the new v6 engines.
P71:
Yes you did get it wrong. Just because Road and Track optioned out their tester to be more expensive than the Camaro they were testing doesn’t mean the Mustang is more expensive. A brief check of Chevy and Ford.com confirms this as does a link to Road and Track.com I posted, Road and Track the same people who did the Stang/Maro comparo also admit elswhere that the Mustang is cheaper. And in general, cheaper cars are slower.
This also ignores the idea that Mustangs have typically been a bit slower here and there through the years but Ford engineers them to not suck the balls the Camaro/Transam sucked. But we are talking performance here so yes, for now the Camaro is faster. Whoopeedoo.
niky – Although both the 3.7 liter and the 3.0 liter V6s are 60 degree DOHC engines sold under the Duratec (and MZI) names, Ford and Mazda consider the 3.7 and 3.5 to be clean sheet designs, part of the Cyclone engine family whereas the 3.0 was part of the Mondeo engine family.
I’m sure certain design elements were shared between the two, and Ford used experience with the 3.0 in the 3.5, but the 3.5 and 3.7 are different enough to be considered more than just an evolution of the older V6s.
It’s unlikely. The Big 2.8 have always been acutely aware of the primary market demographic for the base 6-cylinder models and it’s never been gearheads that want performance-level suspension/drivetrain enhancements. Even if offered (and it sold well), it would likely cannibalize V8 sales.”
Yeah, that makes sense. It’s unfortunate though. Track pack or not, this V6 powered 2011 is on a very very short list of cars I’m considering retiring my 2002 Civic Si for in the next 2 years. I’m currently a bachelor and I would like a chance in life to drive something completely bonkers and impractical before I’m tied down in life. I love the rugged exterior. I love the interior redesign. I love the glass roof. This car would be badass to own.
It’s about time Ford replaced that ancient V-6 in the Mustang. There’s nothing like a little Camaro competition to make them get off their ancient engine, but maximum profits behinds. If it indeed makes 315hp, I’ll be really impressed. More so if it runs on regular unleaded.