Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated.

Go Back   Australian Ford Forums > General Topics > The Pub

The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-03-2010, 05:59 PM   #31
jpd80
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
jpd80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,412
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Thoughtful contributions to our community 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boosh Brus
Am I missing something here?
"Ford’s confirmation of an EPA-rated 31 highway mpg rating to go along with the 305 horsepower rating makes the 2011 Mustang the most fuel efficient car with over 300 hp ever produced. "

A Mustang with 224kw and a highway fuel use of 7.6 liters per 100 kilometers
A BMW 550i has 270kw with highway fuel use of 7.2 liters per 100 kilometers


Its still impressive but not ground breaking.
Hang on,

you're talking steady state highway driving, not the EPA figures

EPA highway cycle for 2010 Mustang 4.6 Auto = 23 mpg or 10.2 litres/100klm
EPA highway cycle for 2010 BMW 550i Auto = 22 mpg or 10.7 litres/100klm

EPA highway cycle for 2011 Mustang 5.0 Auto = 25 mpg or 9.45 litres/100klm

Not bad for a 400 hp car.....

Last edited by jpd80; 10-03-2010 at 06:12 PM.
jpd80 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 10-03-2010, 07:00 PM   #32
Franco Cozzo
Thailand Specials
 
Franco Cozzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Centrefold Lounge
Posts: 49,815
Default

Also remember, a US Gallon is 3.78L compared to the normal imperial gallon which is 4.4L I think.

Remember that if you calculate manually
Franco Cozzo is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 10-03-2010, 07:09 PM   #33
Road_Warrior
Pity the fool
 
Road_Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wait Awhile
Posts: 8,997
Default

Even so, the online calculators which are quire clearly US-based, give a result that shows the V6 Mustang to be no-that-brilliant compared to the I6 in terms of fuel efficiency. It has the wood over it in power, that is about it.
__________________
Fords I own or have owned:

1970 XW Falcon GT replica | 1970 XW Falcon | 1971 XY Fairmont | 1973 ZG Fairlane | 1986 XF Falcon panel van | 1987 XFII Falcon S-Pack | 1988 XF Falcon GLS ute | 1993 EBII Fairmont V8 | 1996 XG Falcon ute | 2000 AU Falcon wagon | 2004 BA Falcon XT | 2012 SZ Territory Titanium AWD

Proud to buy Australian and support Ford Australia through thick and thin
Road_Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 10-03-2010, 08:02 PM   #34
jpd80
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
jpd80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,412
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Thoughtful contributions to our community 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road_Warrior
Even so, the online calculators which are quire clearly US-based, give a result that shows the V6 Mustang to be no-that-brilliant compared to the I6 in terms of fuel efficiency. It has the wood over it in power, that is about it.
There's no direct comparison between US EPA city/highway/combined fuel economy and our
Urban/Extra urban/combined fuel economy figures, he test loops are completely different.

Our Falcon I-6 has yet to prove its fuel economy to Euro VI, the US tier 2 Bin 5 regulation actually
exceeds Euro VI emission specifications so the Duratec 37 is already there, the I-6 has to get there.....

Some European makers are notorious for fooling the Euro test loops,
that's why the US EPA tests emissions outside the test loops to
catch auto makers trying "funny tricks".

Last edited by jpd80; 10-03-2010 at 08:07 PM.
jpd80 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 11-03-2010, 12:59 AM   #35
Falc'man
You dig, we stick!
 
Falc'man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpd80
There's no direct comparison between US EPA city/highway/combined fuel economy and our
Urban/Extra urban/combined fuel economy figures, he test loops are completely different.

Our Falcon I-6 has yet to prove its fuel economy to Euro VI, the US tier 2 Bin 5 regulation actually
exceeds Euro VI emission specifications so the Duratec 37 is already there, the I-6 has to get there.....

Some European makers are notorious for fooling the Euro test loops,
that's why the US EPA tests emissions outside the test loops to
catch auto makers trying "funny tricks".
There lies the reality of the situation when trying to compare the two motors: Very hard thing to do. Thanks for pointing that out John.

In other words... lets not compare the Barra 4.0 to the D37.
It's better to poke fun at the alloycrap, anyway.


Ultimately the longer stroke and inline configuration would be a plus with bottom end and smoothness. Not so good for packaging, and consequently chassis balance... although the SV6 still lags 2 seconds per lap behind XR6 around a particular circuit. That's embarrassing.


Back on topic. To achieve this is well worth bragging about, it's a definite draw-card for those in that pricing bracket. The order books are full, not deterred by the higher price rise for this upcoming model, so it's another sweetener for those who've ordered.
I'm waiting for the reviews on this motor and hoping it's as smooth as it is powerful.
Falc'man is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 11-03-2010, 08:45 AM   #36
mik
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
mik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Melb north
Posts: 12,025
Default

some good points made, it should be interesting to compare the 2 engines in flesh.
mik is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 15-03-2010, 03:40 PM   #37
Quicksand
Lucky, lucky bastard!
 
Quicksand's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney, NSW
Posts: 1,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mik
it should be interesting to compare the 2 engines in flesh.
I'd imagine it wouldn't taste very good.
__________________
2015 Mondeo Trend 2.0T Diesel, Deep Impact Blue
2012 FPV GT-P 6spd Auto, Lightning Strike
Quicksand is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 15-03-2010, 04:29 PM   #38
388cube_edxr8
Nutty Professor
 
388cube_edxr8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inducted_Breeze
I'd imagine it wouldn't taste very good.
lol smart a$$
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Clarkson
If you buy a rubbish car, what you are saying is "I have no interest in cars." If you have no interest in cars, you have no interest in driving, and if you have no interest in something, it means you're no good at it, which means you must have your driving license taken away.
388cube_edxr8 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 15-03-2010, 08:01 PM   #39
ebxr82nv
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 606
Default

ok so it makes power and torque, but where in the rev range? an I6 motor will always make both earlier and better than a v6.
__________________
9/98 AU1 XR6hp-about to retire from the road and be reborn on the race track.
86 ZL mint grandpa spec with premo sound and 150000km
07 TTG XForce, PLAZMAMAN, IDYNO TUNED, 349KW@all 4!
97 el futura MOCKed up with a 2500 stall, heaps of fun!
ebxr82nv is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 15-03-2010, 08:38 PM   #40
Stav
Smile
 
Stav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Merrylands Sydney
Posts: 8,541
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Always ready to help others over the years on AFF with advice and tips along the way 
Default

Fuel smuel!!! What 1/4 mile times are these anchors pulling?
__________________
Stingray Car Security ph 0414445444

Single din radio fascias for fg to fgx fords Australia wide .

FG 1 2 and 3 gauge holder in stock now! https://stingraycar.com.au/shop/
Site Sponsor See Sponsor Stingray Car Security 😍👌✌

AU wagon 6 14.241@96.75 1/4 mile sold.Octane fg xr6 turbo!! 12.312 112.21 mph home tune f6 injectors gone ..now in nitro fgxr6t ready to go again
Stav is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 15-03-2010, 08:53 PM   #41
Chilliman
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Chilliman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stav
Fuel smuel!!! What 1/4 mile times are these anchors pulling?
We'll find out for sure on the official test day in L.A. - March 29.

But in the meantime a perusal of Mustang and US Ford enthusiast forums, for what its worth, have people punting anywhere from an optimistic 13.6seconds to a more conservative 14.4 seconds for the Mustang V6 with the middle ground falling around 14.0seconds dead.
__________________
Quote:
From www.motortrend.com

"Torque is the new horsepower"
Chilliman is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 15-03-2010, 09:01 PM   #42
FPV GTHO
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,331
Technical Contributor: For members who share their technical expertise. - Issue reason: Sharing his knowledge of performance exhaust setups for the NA 6 cyc Barra Falcon from BA to FG. 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebxr82nv
an I6 motor will always make both earlier and better than a v6.
:

So a 3L I6 will be better than a 4L V6?
FPV GTHO is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 16-03-2010, 12:20 PM   #43
Falc'man
You dig, we stick!
 
Falc'man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stav
Fuel smuel!!! What 1/4 mile times are these anchors pulling?
They have'nt been tested yet. I estimate 13.7 to be quite achievable.
Falc'man is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 16-03-2010, 02:33 PM   #44
Wally
XP Coupe
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilliman
We'll find out for sure on the official test day in L.A. - March 29.

But in the meantime a perusal of Mustang and US Ford enthusiast forums, for what its worth, have people punting anywhere from an optimistic 13.6seconds to a more conservative 14.4 seconds for the Mustang V6 with the middle ground falling around 14.0seconds dead.

We will need to be a bit wary the times and economy are for the stock V-6 2011 Stang, not the "Performance Package" option (strut brace, shocks, sway bars, diff, wheels, etc) which is 1588kg compared to 1700kg standard.
Wally is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 16-03-2010, 02:45 PM   #45
4Vman
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
4Vman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 14,654
Default

Yes... not sure you can really translate the mustang results into theoretical Falcon results.....

The vehicles are different shapes, different weights, use different fuels, have different transmissions etc etc....



__________________
335 S/C GT: The new KING of Australian made performance cars..
4Vman is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 16-03-2010, 03:14 PM   #46
Wally
XP Coupe
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falc'man
They have'nt been tested yet. I estimate 13.7 to be quite achievable.

I'll throw a punt, purely based on tractive effort: 14.13
Wally is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 29-03-2010, 11:56 PM   #47
Falc'man
You dig, we stick!
 
Falc'man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,461
Default

:rolleyes:




0 to 60 in 5.1 seconds and the quarter mile in 13.7!!! at 102.0 mph.
:sm_headba
Falc'man is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 30-03-2010, 12:05 AM   #48
Wally
XP Coupe
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,098
Default

Fess up, they had been tested yet hadn't they!
Wally is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 30-03-2010, 12:27 AM   #49
Falc'man
You dig, we stick!
 
Falc'man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,461
Default

They obviously had, but there was no word or results in the public domain, afaik.

I was guesstimating.
I don't punt.

It was obvious to me.
The 2010 Mustang, 4.6 litre 315hp (13.5s)
...vs...
The 2011 V6 Mustang, with a little less power & weight, and missing a fair chunk of torque. Even I figured that one out.

Last edited by HSE2; 30-03-2010 at 04:22 PM.
Falc'man is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 30-03-2010, 01:52 PM   #50
outback_ute
Ute Forum Moderator
Contributing Member
 
outback_ute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melb
Posts: 7,227
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falc'man
13.7!!![/B] at 102.0 mph. :sm_headba
This will include roll-out though, so I'd suggest the real/raw figure would be 14.0sec
outback_ute is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 30-03-2010, 04:24 PM   #51
HSE2
7,753
 
HSE2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Tasmania..... Moderator: Tas FPV club
Posts: 5,128
Default

Play nice everyone
__________________
BREAKING NEWS: The Pity Train has just derailed at the intersection of "Suck It Up & Move On" after it crashed into "We All Have Problems" before coming to a complete stop at "Get the Hell Over It." Reporting LIVE from Quitchur Bitchin'
HSE2 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 30-03-2010, 05:14 PM   #52
FG XR
Custom FG XR6!
 
FG XR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Perth - N.O.R
Posts: 1,094
Technical Contributor: For members who share their technical expertise. - Issue reason: Always keen to get on board and help others along the way 
Default

was this the v6 engine drive.com.au rumored was to have twin turbo in the F6?
__________________
2009 FG XR6
BUILT BY FORD, TWEAKED BY ME!
FG XR is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 30-03-2010, 05:40 PM   #53
Falc'man
You dig, we stick!
 
Falc'man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote V8
was this the v6 engine drive.com.au rumored was to have twin turbo in the F6?
Back then it was what Ford had actually planned (more than rumour) but it fell through. It was the 3.5 ecoboost currently found in some Ford models in the US.
Falc'man is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 30-03-2010, 05:46 PM   #54
FG XR
Custom FG XR6!
 
FG XR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Perth - N.O.R
Posts: 1,094
Technical Contributor: For members who share their technical expertise. - Issue reason: Always keen to get on board and help others along the way 
Default



what a weapon that would have being! :

hopefully ford aus deliver the goods with i6 euro iv
__________________
2009 FG XR6
BUILT BY FORD, TWEAKED BY ME!
FG XR is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 30-03-2010, 08:54 PM   #55
Ghiadude
FORMERLY TX3DUDE
 
Ghiadude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: "THE GONG"
Posts: 2,487
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outback_ute
This will include roll-out though, so I'd suggest the real/raw figure would be 14.0sec
but rollout happens only on a dragstrip which is generally accepted as the standard for measuring 0-400m. AFAIK this whole rollout thing came about when wheels and motor couldnt get the same times as the guys at the dragstrip and then perpetuated the myth that drag strip times are inaccurate...
:
Ghiadude is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 31-03-2010, 11:40 AM   #56
outback_ute
Ute Forum Moderator
Contributing Member
 
outback_ute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melb
Posts: 7,227
Default

I know that, and it is the standard for magazine testing in the States (some even quote a 0-60 figure with rollout...) but it is not the standard for magazine testing here as you point out. I don't think they say actual strip times are inaccurate, just different. As for 'accuracy', that depends if they (US magazines) time the cars with an onboard system or use the christmas tree - which brings the issue of grip levels of a strip vs. 'normal' bitumen, and ultimately whether you want to know how fast a car is on a road or dragstrip.
outback_ute is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 31-03-2010, 10:43 PM   #57
Falc'man
You dig, we stick!
 
Falc'man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,461
Default

Excuse the long ads...

This is a little review on the new 3.7 litre V6 2011 Mustang.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGZB4qe4d-M

It doesn't sound too bad from the inside.
Falc'man is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 09-04-2010, 10:51 PM   #58
Falc'man
You dig, we stick!
 
Falc'man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,461
Default

http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...ustang-v6.html


Quote:
Yes, these are both all-American muscle cars. No, neither one has a V8. Does that make this any less of a grudge match? Well...yeah, but consider the numbers for a moment.

Both the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT and the 2011 Ford Mustang V6 put out over 300 horsepower. That was a big number not too long ago. Still is. They also have six-speed manual transmissions, limited-slip differentials and at least 19-inch wheels and tires. That's some pretty decent equipment for what many consider "base" models.

And you know what? They turn some pretty good numbers, too. Nothing that will strike fear into anything with a V8, but certainly good enough to hold their own against a 370Z or Hyundai Genesis Coupe. How fast exactly? Click the jump to find what these two V6-powered American muscle cars can do at the track.







[PHP]Chevrolet Camaro LT Ford Mustang V6



0-30mph 2.5 2.2
0-45mph 4.1 3.8
0-60mph 6.1 5.6
0-75mph 9.0 8.1
0-60mph with roll out 5.7 5.3



1/4 mile 14.3 @ 98.0 13.9 @ 101.2



30-0mph 28.0 26.0
60-0mph 111.8 103.0



Skidpad 0.86 0.91
Slalom 68.2 68.6



As-tested weight 3790.0 3508.0[/PHP]


Camaro

Quote:
Acceleration Comments: There's good speed here, but the V6 doesn't do anything to satisfy from a sound or feel perspective. Shifts are met with an unpleasant wind-up in the powertrain. Shifter is high in effort and somewhat notchy, but finds gears without a fight.

Braking Comments: Very good stopping distance, but pedal feel is lacking. Hard to determine if ABS is active with a pedal this soft. Not confidence-inspiring at the limit.

Handling Comments: Largely the same less-than-inspiring feel of the V8 Camaro. Front tires wash out with little feel or feedback on the skid pad, and despite decent numbers, the V6 Camaro isn't terribly satisfying in these tests either. Again, it feels as if this chassis is constantly trying to manage a huge wheel and tire combo. Nothing here is truly bad, but it's also not truly rewarding.



Mustang

Quote:
Acceleration Coments: Holy crap, this is a hard-running V6, more than enough power to overwhelm its tires leaving the line. Managing wheelspin is key in this car to get good acceleration times. Also gets good rubber on the 2-3 shift. Tranny doesn't like to rush that shift, however. We missed 3rd gear several times. Otherwise, though, this is a powerful, free-revving, nice-sounding V6.

Braking Comments: 103 feet? From a Mustang? Wow. Pedal feel isn't anything special, but there's no sign of fade and the short distance is outstanding.

Handling Comments: Truly impressive manners from a live-axle car. Balance is good as is typical with recent Mustangs, but there's more than that. There's a true sense of what's happening at the wheels with this Mustang, which provides ample driver confidence. And it's better than the independently sprung Camaro in both tests. Ford is doing something right.
Falc'man is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 09-04-2010, 11:36 PM   #59
Nikked
Oo\===/oO
 
Nikked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tamworth
Posts: 11,348
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Long time member, loves Fords, sensible contributor and does some good and interesting posts. 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FPV GTHO
:

So a 3L I6 will be better than a 4L V6?
The I6 configuration would still be smoother.
__________________





Check out my Photo-chop page

T...I...C...K...F...O...R...D
\≡≡T≡≡/
Nikked is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 02-05-2010, 09:57 PM   #60
Falc'man
You dig, we stick!
 
Falc'man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,461
Default

V6 Mustang commercial.
Falc'man is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Reply


Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 06:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Other than what is legally copyrighted by the respective owners, this site is copyright www.fordforums.com.au
Positive SSL