22nd Jul 2010, 08:11

@20th Jul 2010, 21:16.

Sorry, but you partly mistaken about some of these issues. I've driven both the old 4.0 and the new Duratec 37, and I'm very little impressed with the claimed 305 hp on this engine. Frankly it doesn't seem much more powerful than the 'stone age' 4.0 sporting 210 hp. If blind folded, nobody would have guessed that there's a 95 hp difference between these two engines.

And I'm not alone. People testing various cars fitted with the new Duratec 37 says it seems gutless for a 305 hp engine, and I'd guess mid range acceleration for the 4.0 and the 37 are about the same. 0-60 is barely better for the 37, compared to the 4.0, as illustrated by Mustang reviews.

The problem with the 37 is that it has the 305 hp at revs you don't normally use, and the shifts in the transmission is too far apart, so you get a power 'blind spot' when accelerating. Torque for the 37 isn't much higher than the 4.0 either, so driveability for these engines are about the same. Just look at the torque and power charts for these two engines and you'll see where the problem lays. The 37s curves are very steep, indicating low driveability.

Going back to the 'good old' Modular 4.6 V8, this is a very well balanced engine with a flat torque and power band, making it feel much stronger than the figures say. How do you explain that a Modular equipped Mustang can run in circles around a Duratec equipped Mustang? Acceleration is just much better in every range, even if max power is about the same.

The Duratec 37 simply isn't a very balanced engine design, and even the old 2valve Modular 4.6 ten years back could easily outgun the 37, even sporting 45 fewer hp on paper (260 vs 305 hp). Even a 23 (twenty three!!) year old Windsor 5.0 V8 equipped Mustang will outgun a 37 equipped Mustang even having 80 hp less (225 vs 305 hp). The 37 simply isn't a very good engine, in the performance department.

22nd Jul 2010, 12:11

Model T maybe. Not Model A unless built as a modern street rod. Originals are worth less than street rods due to the fact they are slow only up to 50 mph stock, and bare bones old tire and braking technology. And saying any Mustang is not true. Bosses Machs Shelby 60s; no way Model A is worth more. Stock 8-12k I have seen . They are so limited to drive on modern roads unless it's cruise night locally.

22nd Jul 2010, 15:45

Yeah, but check the torque numbers. The old 302 was way higher than your I4. Torque gets you to 60 faster, not HP.

22nd Jul 2010, 16:17

I think the point is that the old V6 is outdated like the Model T. Also, go find your best running Model T and I'll put it against my '70 Boss 429 in concourse condition and we'll see which one is worth more. There is also the original Shelby Mustangs that get into the $100k's easily. Haven't seen a Model T go for that lately.

22nd Jul 2010, 18:57

I was very excited about the new 305 HP V-6 Mustang, so I asked my friend at a local Ford dealership if I could take one out for a spin. I came away strongly questioning if the horsepower rating is exaggerated. I own a 4.0 now and I could feel very little real difference in the power and performance. Since I hate the grotesque new styling, I think I'll stick with what I have.

23rd Jul 2010, 21:22

One of my fellow Mustang club members has a gorgeous 2006 Mustang 4.0. Since he is very turned off by the new styling, he opted to keep his 2006 and add a supercharger. The supercharger cost $4000 (way less than a new Mustang) and the power rating (according to the shop that installed it) is now close to 280 horsepower. I drove the car today, after recently driving the new 2011 V-6, and my friends 2006 4.0 with the supercharger will run rings around the new V-6. I think I'll take that route with mine as well.

24th Jul 2010, 10:39

Some people get excited over the Turbo Grand National except for the 80 mph dash. It's still a 6. I drive to shows and cruise nights in a V8; nothing less. My son's Viper is number 2 on the Dyno Board below a Supra. I prefer the Viper as well. Even with no cats and 100 shot, he's 2nd on HP. On the track though the Supra's left.

24th Jul 2010, 11:38

I drive a V8, my son a V10. Who wants a 4?

24th Jul 2010, 11:48

Well it tested at 5.4 to 60, and the 4.0's best is 6.5, so I am thinking it isn't too exaggerated. The refinement and smoothness of the new engine probably makes it feel less powerful than it is. It's like when you drive a Cadillac, and look down and see you're doing 80, when you thought you were doing 45. I'm not sure why anyone thinks the newer style is grotesque. I think it makes the last run look old and outdated.

24th Jul 2010, 11:52

Of course the new 2011 will have a warranty, which you will void on your car by adding a supercharger. Also 280 hp is still no match for the new V6 that you can get for the base price on ANY new Mustang. The 2011 also outhandles the older style Mustang by a longshot.

24th Jul 2010, 15:33

The GN is much more of a muscle car than any V6 Mustang. It is 240 HP, which was more than most V8 cars in its day. As far as driving "nothing less", I would be more than happy with a GN. The GNX at 280 HP was even better!

25th Jul 2010, 16:53

If a turbo 6 makes your day, fine. There are so many cars today with better HP, and I still prefer a V8 or V10, that you don't have to crank the boost up and blow up. Even 6 cyl SUVs are 300 hp today.

26th Jul 2010, 12:09

"The GN is much more of a muscle car than any V6 Mustang".

100% agreed.

26th Jul 2010, 15:32

I do not think any 6 is a muscle car and that includes the first Corvette with the Blue Flame Six. In fact my later Vettes are not muscle cars with V8s as well. They are sports cars and exotic as defined by my insurance agency. The GN GNX are not either, but the earlier GS and GSX are from Buick. I would say it's safe to call a 60s Mustang 6 a classic, however not a muscle car. I have had spartan 6 donor cars for parts to complete some muscle car projects.

26th Jul 2010, 15:42

One question... Do you consider the Trans Am a muscle car? If you answered yes, as you should have, then consider the FASTEST version ever made stock was the 1989 Pace TA with a 240 HP V6 engine in it. 0-60 in less than 5 seconds. I would consider that a muscle car. Also the GN and GNX Buicks of the 80's put out as much or more HP than even the Corvettes of the same years. Cylinders don't dictate muscle as much as pure power does. Muscle cars changed in the 80's, and the Buicks along with the '89 Turbo pace TA are definitely muscle cars by any definition of the term.