19th Apr 2009, 01:46
99HP is laughable performance for anything bigger than a subcompact, even by 1970's standards. That old Ford I-6 was a strong durable engine, just like GM's old "stovebelt" 4.1 liter (250) and Chryslers 227 Slant 6. In the mid 1970's cars were choked to death with ridiculous emissions equipment and heavy safety bumpers, and forced to lower their compression to meet CAFE standards, which on the fuel economy part they usually failed miserably at.
A 175 horsepower engine in a 3100 car is plenty powerful enough for any driving situation. And how does an engine "make up for the power of a V-8"??
A small engine does not make up for the power of a V8. Unless it has a turbo or a supercharger, it overworks itself trying to. This is the point I'm trying to bring across.
For a perfect example of this, look at Buick's 3.8 Liter V6 in the 1970's to early 1980's. A strong, durable, fuel efficient motor for its era. 110 HP, 190 Lb/Ft of torque in its early days. The problem is, GM put this motor as standard in many full size rear wheel drive cars in the late 1970's to early 1980's, including the Oldsmobile Delta 88 and Buick Le Sabre. Some of these V8's are still on the road today. The V6's were gutless dogs that usually had their piston rings shot well before 100,000 miles. Dealers couldn't give them away. Plenty of power as the standard engine in a mid size car, but this dinky motor had no business trying to lug 3700 pounds around.
You're right, 175 HP is plenty of power to move a Mustang. The amount of torque the 4-cyl puts out, however, is not satisfactory by today's standards. You would need faster gears just to get adequate performance from the motor, forcing the engine to run faster at highway speeds. This would burn more fuel, defeating the purpose of the 4-cyl in the first place.
19th Apr 2009, 01:50
In case you don't remember, the Probe was introduced as an eventual replacement for the mustang. After a lot of screaming from some loyal Mustang customers, Ford thankfully reconsidered. And today, they still build a fuel efficient, reliable Mustang GT capable of at least 15 MPG City/23 MPG Highway.
19th Apr 2009, 02:07
So I never use 30% of the power in my car? Is there a police officer on every city block waiting for me to break the law? I would have no problem humiliating your Fusion or Mustang with the hard earned bucks I wisely spent my money on.
"As for 175 horsepower being too little for a Mustang, try telling that to the guys with the first GT's, which had a whopping 160 hp. One of my 5.0's was rated at about 175-180 (I forget the exact figure) and at the time it was considered very fast. 175 Horsepower is plenty for the current Mustang regardless of the weight. One of our 2.3 4 cylinder Mustangs was rated at about 100 horsepower and performed flawlessly for 150,000 miles."
Those 160-180 HP 5.0 Mustangs also put out anywhere from 250 to 270 pounds of torque, something the 4-cyl isn't even close to, and something the 4.0 V6 just recently surpassed. There's more to a cars performance than horsepower. There are many motorcycle and snowmobile engines that put out well over 100 HP spinning at high RPM's, but they have no place under the hood of a car.
"People have some pretty bizarre ideas about power. 1) If you can't USE it, why pay for it? and 2) What dictates that a lower horsepower engine will wear out sooner. My experience has been the exact opposite."
I can't use it? Again, who's going to stop me from using it. You said yourself you had your Fusion going 100+ MPH. But hey, you can't do that, that's illegal!
Trust me, I have no problem making full use of what I paid for. The Mustang looks fast, it should also be fast. 0-60 in 6.5 seconds for a V6 is not that fast by today's standards. Sorry. So have fun getting eaten alive by every V6 Accord, Camry and Altima out there, just for starters...
19th Apr 2009, 21:48
My nephew sold my late brother's 1977 Buick LeSabre V-6 a few months back. The car had 277,000+ miles on that "overworked" V-6 and had never had a single repair.
My sister-in-law bought a brand new 1975 Ford Granada with the I-6 and drove it 40 miles a day to work (and everywhere else) for 17 years. It was traded (for another Ford) at 325,000+ miles. It had had nothing in the way of repairs except a starter, carburetor and muffler.
I'm a mechanic, and where the idea that pulling a heavy load wears out PISTON RINGS came from is beyond me. That's a new one on me. Pistons go up and down inside the cylinders in the exact same manner whether the engine is a Viper V-10 or a 4-cylinder Aveo.
As for 175 horsepower being ample for normal driving in a 3100 pound car, of course it is. Only in the past 30 years have most average cars had more than 200 horsepower regardless of size. The old Ford V-8 60 powered cars weighing a ton or more for over a decade. One of those 60 horsepower V-8's made 1,000,000 miles, as did a 150 horsepower Cadillac. 210 horsepower is more than ample and 300+ is simply overkill unless you race. Americans are entirely too obsessed with horsepower they'll never use.
19th Apr 2009, 21:58
Gee, I'm SOOOOO embarrassed. Now I have to actually go around worrying that some old lady in a Camry might beat me at a redlight. Gosh, what a horrible thought!! Maybe I should go hide under my bed.
I bought my V-6 Mustang for LOOKS. I no longer street race. I even made the comment on the Fusion site a couple of years back (when car shopping) that if Ford made a SPORTY TWO-DOOR Fusion, I'd BUY IT. They DON'T. The only sporty looking car Ford makes is the Mustang. I DO have a Fusion I-4. I don't lose any sleep worrying about getting beat out at redlights in it either. If all you want is faster 0-60 times, why not just pass up the Mustang altogether and go for the Nissan GTR, Viper or Corvette. Or maybe an Air Force surplus rocket sled? If all I wanted was speed, I could have it. We aren't poor. I just have no desire to race with every driver I stop beside at redlights anymore. I grew out of that stage a decade or two ago.
21st Apr 2009, 15:11
I was averaging around 27 mpg on trips in my two 5.0 Mustangs from the 80's and 90's, and they both had the larger traction lock axle. I can't imagine the newer 4.6 would be less than that, so why go the V-6 route? If you can afford it, the sound alone is enough to justify the V-8, and then the power is there when you want it. For a couple mpg less, I would always opt for the V-8. I just can't see getting a Mustang with an Explorer derived V-6 in it... the sound is horrendous. The V-8 is smooth and sounds like a muscle car should.
The other thing that is much different is the suspension. The GT has the tighter, better handling suspension, which makes the driving experience so much more fun. It's not always just about the power.