1 2
RexSeven SuperDork
11/8/11 5:09 p.m.
Lugnut wrote: Is it just a weight thing? I mean, I haven't driven the new V6 Mustang, but it is more powerful than any of my old Mustangs ('92 GT, '95 GT, '98 Cobra x2). A bit less torque than my old 32v SVTs but the same 305hp. And I know the SVT was 3400lbs and the new V6 is 3700lbs. But... gutless with the standard gearing? I mean, I hear gutless, and I think of the old NA 2.3s. Those were pretty gutless. These V6s have more horsepower than the old GTs and everybody loved them. Is it just a question of gearing and torque? What is it?

I don't think it's gutless, but the new V-6 is definitely happier at the upper part of the rev range, at least stock. As everyone else here said, it's most likely tuned this way from the factory. Plus, you have to remember that I'm coming from a Mazdaspeed3, which makes more torque than horsepower and does it all the way to 5500rpm.

motomad1 New Reader
11/8/11 6:20 p.m.

It's a V6.

Lugnut Dork
11/8/11 9:23 p.m.

I got my figure from MSN Autos. I thought it sounded high but no high weight really surprises me anymore. :)

I guess mid-14s is supposed to be what my old Cobra did, yeah?

BoostedBrandon HalfDork
11/8/11 9:51 p.m.
Javelin wrote: GM soooo missed the boat when they didn't make the LS1 Solstice into a production car. Hot Rod's LS7 one is just so freaking *right*.

But that would have been faster than the Vette, and nothing could be faster than the halo model.

That said, an aluminum version of the 4.8 that revved to like 8500 rpm, would have been stellar. Not that the LS7 isn't, but a smaller, less torquey engine would have worked I think. Hell the turbo four cars were good I've heard.

novaderrik Dork
11/9/11 5:51 a.m.
Javelin wrote: GM soooo missed the boat when they didn't make the LS1 Solstice into a production car. Hot Rod's LS7 one is just so freaking *right*.

i saw that car run out of gas at the Car Craft Summer Nats because they never bothered to make the gas gauge work.. but other than that- yes, that car was pure WIN..

dj06482 HalfDork
11/9/11 11:39 a.m.

Most engines today don't have the low-end punch of the older ones they replaced. The Chevy 5.3, for example, doesn't have the off-idle torque of an old TBI 350. My old truck made its maximum torque at 2400 RPM, not many new trucks can claim that (aside from a diesel).

The same is true of the Mustang, the old 5.0 had tons of torque off idle, whereas the newer motors have more torque than the 5.0 (along with a ton more HP), but it's higher up in the RPM range. Couple less low-end torque with a heavier vehicle, and you very quickly realize why many of the cars don't feel faster off the line.

Another good example is my Dad test-drove a Camaro SS with the 6spd and was completely underwhelmed. He has an LT1 Vette with 330 ft-lbs of torque not to far above idle. And the irony is that the L98 that was replaced by the LT1 had even more torque (345 lb-ft) at a lower RPM than the LT1. The jump from the LT1 to LS1 was more of the same, more HP, but the torque was shifted higher in the RPM range. I'm not saying that the LS1 is inferior to the LT1, I'm just pointing out that they're different.

Personally, I love a lot of torque down low, but I will say that the newer motors rev much better than the older ones!

Teggsan New Reader
11/9/11 1:07 p.m.

Yeah. Not sure what the torque curve on the Coyote 5.0 is but I feel that it really wakes up above 4K RPM.

mad_machine SuperDork
11/9/11 3:48 p.m.
motomad1 wrote: It's a V6.

that's more powerful than the fox body's 5.0 v8

Curmudgeon SuperDork
11/9/11 3:58 p.m.

The Performance Package V6 got my attention a while back because I saw that (as madmachine says) it's punchier than the old 5.0 in a car that weighs roughly the same. I haven't driven it but I would have to think that with better weight distribution than the V8 car it would probably handle better.

red5_02 Reader
11/9/11 4:20 p.m.

You said the steering feels numb. Did you set the steering to Sport Mode?

ProDarwin Dork
11/10/11 8:53 a.m.
dj06482 wrote: Most engines today don't have the low-end punch of the older ones they replaced.

I think most of them do... they just don't fall on their face up top. The disparity between power up top and down low makes the low end feel less significant. The old 5.0 vs the new 3.7 - probably a low end gap. But the TBI chevys? I'd like proof. Just because peak torque comes in higher doesn't mean there isn't any down low.

It's like the S2K vs. the 2.5RS motor discussion from a while back. One feels like a "torquey" 4 banger, one feels like you need to rev it to the moon. Graph the power curves on top of one another and look at what happens:

The difference in low end power is almost non-existent.

1 2
Our Preferred Partners