New Mustang V6 name?

What is the new 300hp v6 called? I could never figure it out

"Hairdresser mobile"?

Is it the Cyclone?

EDIT: No, no it isn't.

RE-EDIT: Or maybe it is. But I'm going by Wikipedia and even if it decides to pick one answer, you can probably get better from someone else here... Are you asking about the name of the engine, or are you looking for a Mustang option-package name like "GT" but for the 300-hp six?

I think you're right, in your own link it says the 4.0 305hp version is in the 2011 Mustang.

ransom wrote: Is it the Cyclone?

yes.

Remember when the 225-horsepower 5.0 V8 was totally hot stuff?

And people think the 80's were great

Keith Tanner wrote: And people think the 80's were great

Things are better now? I'm not buying it. A 1987 Mustang LX 5.0 could get into the thirteens in the quarter mile, stock. With a short belt and drag-oriented wheels/tires out back, twelves were possible. Many of those cars weighed under 3,000 pounds. They were more of a true performance car than what Ford sells today.

Fox bodies also managed to look good without relying on a bunch of eye-catching "retro" details. And if you buy something new, yeah, it's easy to get 300hp. But you've also got to worry about getting saddled with a bunch of disposable crap like a touchscreen, apps, or "Sync" (and the associated embarrassing curb weight).

b13990 wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: And people think the 80's were great

Things are better now? I'm not buying it. A 1987 Mustang LX 5.0 could get into the thirteens in the quarter mile, stock. With a short belt and drag-oriented wheels/tires out back, twelves were possible. Many of those cars weighed under 3,000 pounds. They were more of a true performance car than what Ford sells today. Fox bodies also managed to look good without relying on a bunch of eye-catching "retro" details. And if you buy something new, yeah, it's easy to get 300hp. But you've also got to worry about getting saddled with a bunch of disposable crap like a touchscreen, apps, or "Sync" (and the associated embarrassing curb weight).

Things are better now. I'm buying it. A 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 can get into the twelves in the quarter mile, stock. With drag radials, elevens are possible. And then it can get 27 mpg on the way home from the strip.

I'm sorry; what were you saying again?

Fox bodies. Haha not even going there. At least in the 80's you could still buy a decent older muscle car without paying more than new car price like today.

I'm convinced that the new low cube high hp engines are just leaving the factory tweaked closer to the ragged edge than the low hp big cube smog wheezers.

Sky_Render wrote:

b13990 wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: And people think the 80's were great

Things are better now? I'm not buying it. A 1987 Mustang LX 5.0 could get into the thirteens in the quarter mile, stock. With a short belt and drag-oriented wheels/tires out back, twelves were possible. Many of those cars weighed under 3,000 pounds. They were more of a true performance car than what Ford sells today. Fox bodies also managed to look good without relying on a bunch of eye-catching "retro" details. And if you buy something new, yeah, it's easy to get 300hp. But you've also got to worry about getting saddled with a bunch of disposable crap like a touchscreen, apps, or "Sync" (and the associated embarrassing curb weight).

Things *are* better now. *I'm* buying it. A 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 can get into the twelves in the quarter mile, stock. With drag radials, elevens are possible. And then it can get 27 mpg on the way home from the strip. I'm sorry; what were you saying again?

And they turn quite well with the stick axle. Fox cars take a lot of work to do that.

FranktheTank wrote: I'm convinced that the new low cube high hp engines are just leaving the factory tweaked closer to the ragged edge than the low hp big cube smog wheezers.

I'd say yes and no. There's less easy hp left available, but I'd say it's more that there's less low hanging fruit left because so much of the design, machining, and casting is better.

Seems like a lot of more modern designs do much better not just at peak power, but also in the low and midrange, without even getting into variable valve timing.

But I'm a long way from an expert on either era. Just my impression.

b13990 wrote: Things are better now?

Yes.

You were asking, right? ;-)

Really though, how could a bone stock '87 LX "get into the 13's?" The '87 GT was only good for 14.4 stock and I doubt the weight savings of the LX was enough to knock almost a half second off. And going from 14.4 to 13.7 - which is what a current bone stock V6 is good for - takes a decent amount of work. And comparing modified vs stock is dirty pool.

FranktheTank wrote: I'm convinced that the new low cube high hp engines are just leaving the factory tweaked closer to the ragged edge than the low hp big cube smog wheezers.

Reliability says no, they're every bit as reliable or more so than the smog wheezers were. Ragged edge tuning would result in ragged edge results...

A 1987 Mustang LX 5.0 could get into the thirteens in the quarter mile, stock. With a short belt and drag-oriented wheels/tires out back, twelves were possible.

Those are both close enough to bullE36 M3 that you could say the same thing about the current stock v6 mustang with the same degree of accuracy. Ive driven and raced stock 5.0s. They are NOT stock high thirteen cars 99.9% of the time. Add a few more digits behind the decimal for how often they ARENT 12 second cars even on slicks launched from the rev limiter with a dead hook.

it's funny how some people are now saying that the Fox Mustangs weren't as good as people remember them being when they were new... go back 25 years when the Mustang GT was just starting to get a reputation, and everyone had forgotten that the big cube, high compression, deep geared cars of the musclecar era were lucky to be 13 second cars when they were new..

i guess what i'm saying is that technology marches on, and the "good old days" were never as good as they are remembered as being..

Wonder how much it would cost to acquire one these days

b13990 wrote: A 1987 Mustang LX 5.0 could get into the thirteens in the quarter mile, stock, then fail to stop at the end because it had no brakes from the factory.

Fixed that for you.

David S. Wallens wrote: Remember when the 225-horsepower 5.0 V8 was totally hot stuff?

Remember when Mustangs didn't weigh 2 tons?

Aeromoto wrote:

David S. Wallens wrote: Remember when the 225-horsepower 5.0 V8 was totally hot stuff?

Remember when Mustangs didn't weigh 2 tons?

mustangs have always been heavy since i've been alive. Though I think any 3200lb+ car is heavy.

kanaric wrote:

Aeromoto wrote:

David S. Wallens wrote: Remember when the 225-horsepower 5.0 V8 was totally hot stuff?

Remember when Mustangs didn't weigh 2 tons?

mustangs have always been heavy since i've been alive. Though I think any 3200lb+ car is heavy.

3200 pounds is a light car in my world.. i used to bug my one friend about taking his 89 LX notchback that started life as a 4 cylinder/auto car that we swapped a carbureted 302/T5 into across a scale to see what it actually weighs.. he seems to think it's about 3400 pounds for some reason, i'm guessing more in the area of 3200...

The current GT isn't that heavy. At around 3600 LBS curb weight, It's only about 350 LB more than the Vette. You add in some lighter wheels and tires to the GT and it's a pretty easy 60-70 LB weight loss. With around 370 WHP, it's still easily better than anything offered from the factory except the current GT500.

I love me some Fox Body Mustang. But saying that they're better than the current S197 chassis is just lame. I'm sick of hearing the "blah, blah, heavy, blah, blah, new technology bad, blah, blah" argument from luddites.

The Fox Body Mustang was a dated chassis even during the '80s. It wasn't that light, the four-link suspension earned the name "Quadra-Bind" for a reason, and the rigidity of its chassis was rivaled only by moist balsa wood.

The new Mustangs, while heavier, have a drastically stiffer chassis, are much more comfortable and safer, handle better, have better power-to-weight ratios, and get pretty damn good fuel economy. Also, the newest Mustang really isn't that much larger than the originals. I've got a picture of mine next to a '67, and it surprised me how much bigger it wasn't.

S197 vs. Fox...

AKA, Lincoln vs Fairmont.

you choose.

(although, the relative age of the Fox between '79-93 to it's original chassis is pretty close to the current Mustang and it's original chassis. It came out back in the late 90's, I think the degree of updates between '79 and up is close to what we see today)

Sky_Render wrote:

b13990 wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: And people think the 80's were great

Things are better now? I'm not buying it. A 1987 Mustang LX 5.0 could get into the thirteens in the quarter mile, stock. With a short belt and drag-oriented wheels/tires out back, twelves were possible. Many of those cars weighed under 3,000 pounds. They were more of a true performance car than what Ford sells today. Fox bodies also managed to look good without relying on a bunch of eye-catching "retro" details. And if you buy something new, yeah, it's easy to get 300hp. But you've also got to worry about getting saddled with a bunch of disposable crap like a touchscreen, apps, or "Sync" (and the associated embarrassing curb weight).

Things *are* better now. *I'm* buying it. A 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 can get into the twelves in the quarter mile, stock. With drag radials, elevens are possible. And then it can get 27 mpg on the way home from the strip. I'm sorry; what were you saying again?

Not to mention that the interiors these days are actually fairly nice places to be.

b13990 wrote: Fox bodies also managed to look good without relying on a bunch of eye-catching "retro" details.

Yeah, no eye-catching extra details saddled on here. Nothing but clean, pure styling.

I worked at a Ford dealership for a short while in the mid-90's in the used car lot. I remember driving a car a lot like this one. I can't say it made me want to ever get in one again. And as JG said - 225 hp from 5.0 liters, later corrected to 205. That's some pretty sorry specific output, really. And you can't claim it's emissions related, the Miata was making more than half as much power out of an engine less than 1/3 the size - and it wasn't anything spectacular.

Sure, there are a lot of big, heavy cars now (hello Camaro!). But there are some reasonably light ones as well. For example, the BRZ weighs about 2700 lbs and makes 200 hp out of a 2.0. Compares pretty well with that 1980's Mustang.