2011 Ford Mustang V6 Specs Released Ahead of 2009 LA Auto Show Debut

Very impressive engine. Life just got harder for the Genesis Coupe. This car will be fast because it only weighs about 3500lbs- I can see 0-60 coming in under 5.5 secs.

It sounds like it might equal the acceleration times of my MS3- but that's not all that fast...

@7driver: No, the 3.0L was longitudinal in the Lincoln LS and Jaguar S-Type.

for a car weighing 3500lbs that is very fast. The MS3 is MUCH lighter and at a stop light you are unlikely to beat any 305hp Mustangs in a race. To get the times you see in magazines compact cars (especially with turbos) are revved like crazy and launched in ways most owners wouldn't dream of. Check out the 5-60 times for the MS3 to see how fast it would be in the real world.

It's crazy to think that Ford's V8 produced a mere 260hp 5 years ago. Ford really has come a long way.

I usually don't "magazine race", but I'll note that the MS3 CD tested in May 2007 weighed 3185 lbs. and did 0-60 in 5.4 seconds and 5-60 in 6.0 seconds. Contrast that with the June 2009 test of the 3492 lb. V6 Genesis Coupe, which did the 0-60 run in 5.5 seconds and 5-60 in 6.1. In my opinion
neither car is all that fast.

they are fast for the money. Not fast compared to a car like the M3 which costs many thousands more.

Hairdressers rejoice!

Okay, peeps, sub-6 seconds is pretty darn quick. Let's be real, here. That's quicker than nearly every muscle back in the day, and it's waaay quicker than Magnum's Ferrari, which I know most of us wanted at some point and would probably be happy with today.

Moving on, is it just me, or is the new Mustang's engine bay kind of attractive? Where's the plastic cover? It looks like I can recognize actual pieces on the thing!

About time, nothing remarkable. Just catching up the competition.
And oh boy, does ford really knows how to build VERY UGLY engines! LOL
Look at those pictures....ASCO!

I'm pretty excited to see how this car stacks up against the Genesis Coupe 3.8 and the V6 Camaro. It's great to see auto makers taking the "lesser" models seriously.

"Okay, peeps, sub-6 seconds is pretty darn quick. Let's be real, here. That's quicker than nearly every muscle back in the day, and it's waaay quicker than Magnum's Ferrari, which I know most of us wanted at some point and would probably be happy with today."

Back in the early '90s my E24 M6 was considered to be very fast(0-60 in 6.0 seconds, the 1/4 mile in 14.5), but now it would be considered an average performer. And yes, the V6 Camaro, Genesis Coupe, and Mustang are fast cars for the money. I'll also note that there are a number of far less powerful cars that are an absolute ball to drive- the 1st gen. Miata, 944, E30/E36 318i, and the MR2 are just a few examples. That said, I want my next daily driver/track toy to have a sub-5 second 0-60 capability at a minimum.

"This car will be fast because it only weighs about 3500lbs- I can see 0-60 coming in under 5.5 secs." -1487

@1487,

It probably weight less than 3400lb.
Isn't the new aluminum block 3.7 liter V6 lighter than the old cast-iron block 4.0 liter V6?

"Life just got harder for the Genesis Coupe."

...and the Camaro.

This is a perfect car for my mid-life crisis.

Fast to me = anything that traps higher than 99mph.

"Very impressive engine."

1487, nothing really all that impressive about it as there are plenty of large V6s making over 300hp. GM, Honda, Toyota just to name a few. Not saying it's NOT a good engine but it's nothing new.

I'm actually glad that Ford responded so quickly to the Camaro V6. Now if the FIVEpoint0 returns with at least 400hp/375tq and an IRS finds its way under the rear I'll be REALLY impressed.

"I'm actually glad that Ford responded so quickly to the Camaro V6."

@hondacura4,
I believe Ford was already developing the high-output 3.7 liter V6 even before the Camaro and Genesis Coupe were launched.

"Fast to me = anything that traps higher than 99mph."

With a base motor on an entry level sports car?

"nothing really all that impressive about it as there are plenty of large V6s making over 300hp. GM, Honda, Toyota just to name a few."

Which of them get 30mpg?

It's impressive for what it is. It's not game changing, but impressive. It's also a game of leapfrog. Ford is simply the most recent to leap.

"Fast to me = anything that traps higher than 99mph."

I'm holding out for 105+
:)

Good call Ford.

"1487, nothing really all that impressive about it as there are plenty of large V6s making over 300hp. GM, Honda, Toyota just to name a few. Not saying it's NOT a good engine but it's nothing new."

How many such engines are available in cars costing about $25k? Not many. Its very impressive considering the price of the car. To get a comparable engine in a Toyota you have to get an IS350 which is over $35k. To get such an engine in a Honda you have to get a $40k TL-SH-AWD. It is true that the Camaro and Genesis offer a similar engine for similar money but thats about where it ends. As BRN stated, no other car offers this much power and 30mpg on the highway. The 335i gets 26mpg on the highway on premium fuel.

Note that the N54 engine installed in the E9X is an inline six- just as God and Alexander von Falkenhausen intended.
:)

"The 335i gets 26mpg on the highway on premium fuel. "

However, in the real world the 335i can hit 28-29 mpg on the highway. Especially with the new Efficient Dynamics technologies now fitted.

"However, in the real world the 335i can hit 28-29 mpg on the highway."

In the real world any car can exceed it's rated mpg. The key is that the EPA ratings are the best means for comparing the relative mpg of one vehicle vs another. Real world claims are not.

The exception being alternatively powered vehicles (ex EVs). There is no good comparisons there.

"How many such engines are available in cars costing about $25k?"

1487, I commented on what you actually stated which was "very impressive engine". You mentioned nothing about price in that post.

I don't understand all the hand-wringing over cars needing premium fuel. If you drive 15,000 miles per year and your car averages 25 mpg you will use 600 gallons of gasoline. If the price differential between regular and premium is 25 cents then the added cost amounts to $150 annually. That's a whole $12.50 per month- or 41 cents per day. Big deal. If an additional expense of less than 50 cents per day is going to bust your budget I'd suggest that you had best confine your vehicle choices to used Aveos and Rios.

Without resorting to direct injection, too.

Ugly engine.

roadburner, it's for comparison sake. Around here, premium fuel costs about 10% more. If we're talking mpg and my regular fuel car gets 30mpg, your premium fuel car better get 33mpg. If your premium fuel car gets 30mpg, the regular fuel car is the clear winner. If your premium fuel car gets 33mpg, then great! It just needs to be made clear what kind if fuel is used, because we are comparing mpg.

"It just needs to be made clear what kind if fuel is used, because we are comparing mpg."

I see your point, but it still comes down to pennies per day. There's no way I'd pick one car over another because it used a fuel that's only 10% less expensive.

"It just needs to be made clear what kind if fuel is used, because we are comparing mpg."

I see your point, but it still comes down to pennies per day. There's no way I'd pick one car over another because it used a fuel that's only 10% less expensive.

"Without resorting to direct injection, too."

Good point Green. I personally think DI is overrated.