2011 Ford Mustang V6 Specs

Marty Howard · **Posted:** Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:32 am

high points for the 2011 V6 Mustang

305 hp at 6,500 rpm and 280 pound-feet of torque at 4,250 rpm
Getrag/Ford MT82 six-speed manual
12.4 inch front brake rotors
18 mpg city/29 mpg highway
standard limited-slip differential

2011 Ford Mustang V6 First Look
No More Sorority Girl Jokes?
By Daniel Pund, Senior Editor, Detroit | Published Nov 30, 2009

Man, do we ever hate to see a good joke die.
And, make no mistake, the V6 Mustang has been a joke for — oh, as long as weve been alive. It served admirably as the car enthusiasts go-to vehicle for ridicule. Want to make a joke about dudes who idolize Huey Lewis and the News? Bam! Theres the Mustang V6 convertible oozing 210 horsepower from its 4.0-liter of superannuated iron-block V6. Want to stereotype someone as a certain variety of sorority girl? That small-wheeled, weak-kneed Stang was at the ready.
If Ford manages to follow through with its plan for the 2011 Ford Mustang V6, these jokes could all go away, as massive powertrain improvements could not only lift the lesser Mustang out from the land of ridicule but also actually put it in direct competition with the excellent 2010 Chevrolet Camaro V6.

Admission
Perhaps all of this is why, when we asked Ford to test a 2010 Ford Mustang V6, our usual contact seemed to keep conveniently forgetting our request. Or he did until we threatened to rent one — a nice white one with mismatched tires and stained seats. Then a Mustang V6 materialized, but only after we were required to drive both a Shelby GT500 and a special Mustang GT with the Track Pack that had been specially optioned for competing in comparison tests by the media.
And when we asked for a 2010 Ford Mustang V6 out on the West Coast to take to the test track to run performance numbers, we were told that the one Mustang V6 available there was in for repairs. And then later everything went silent from Ford HQ on the matter.
Its as if the Mustang V6, which makes up the bulk of Mustang sales, is an embarrassment to people who actually like cars, which includes quite a number of people at Ford. Of course, our contacts were at the distinct disadvantage of knowing that a much-improved Mustang V6 is on the way for 2011 (and knowing that we knew it, too) but couldnt say anything about it.

Marty Howard · **Posted:** Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:32 am

One More Better, Innit?
That much-improved power plant for the 2011 Ford Mustang V6 is the 3.7-liter version of the all-aluminum, 60-degree Duratec V6. Youll recognize this as the same displacement Duratec V6 that powers the Lincoln MKS (other Ford brand vehicles make do with the slightly less powerful 3.5-liter version of this engine). For duty in the Mustang, Ford has pumped up the peak output of this motor to 305 hp at 6,500 rpm and 280 pound-feet of torque at 4,250 rpm. The DOHC V6 has a compression ratio of 10.5:1, features cylinder heads with four valves per cylinder and uses variable camshaft timing for both intake and exhaust.
Lets put that in perspective, shall we? In a vehicle that weighs almost exactly the same as it did last year (somewhere just north of 3,400 pounds), the 2011 model brings 95 hp more. What is that, a 31 percent improvement? That speaks well of the new motor, which makes 82 hp per liter of displacement. But it speaks even more loudly about the straight-up suckitude of the ancient 4.0-liter V6, which has an output of some 53 hp per liter — only 53 hp per liter more than our office desk.
More to the point, the 3.7-liter V6 produces 1 hp more in peak power than the well-regarded 3.6-liter V6 in the Camaro V6. OK, so 1 hp is meaningless on the street and falls well within the normal variation from one ostensibly identical engine to the next. Still, 1 hp means everything in the showroom and in bragging done on online forums. Besides, what was Ford going to do; rate its engine at or below the Chevy?
Oh, and thanks in part to its aluminum block, the new 3.7-liter V6 is 41 pounds lighter — always a nice thing, especially when that weight happens to be sitting over the front axle.

Efficiencies Add Up
Thanks to a variety of improvements large and small, Ford estimates that the 2011 Mustang V6 will get 19 mpg in the city and 30 mpg on the highway. These figures are achieved with the new six-speed automatic transmission, which Ford says is good for a 3 to 5 percent improvement in fuel economy over the outgoing five-speed automatic. Meanwhile the old five-speed manual transmission has also been swapped out for the Getrag/Ford MT82 six-speed manual. With the manual in place, Ford says the Mustang will achieve 18 mpg city/29 mpg highway. And, yes, this highway mpg for the new Mustang V6 is one better than the best the Camaro V6 can do.
Throw in polished valvetrain tappets that the company says bring a 0.8 percent improvement in fuel economy, aggressive deceleration fuel shutoff and an engine architecture designed after the Eisenhower administration and things look pretty good for V6 efficiency. The old 4.0-liter, mated to an automatic, eked out 16 mpg city/24 mpg highway, not really any better than a 4.6-liter V8.
Oh, and the 3.7 V6 is not only 2 dBA quieter than the old motor but also it sounds decidedly less like the bleating of a dying donkey.

Marty Howard · **Posted:** Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:33 am

Performance Package? Really?
Need any more proof that Ford is trying to get serious about the Mustang V6 being much less laughable?
Well, there will be a 2011 Ford Mustang V6 Performance Package, a model that will come with the same stiffer, more aggressive suspension as the Mustang GT. Itll wear 19-inch wheels with summer tires and the brakes will have heavy-duty pads from Performance Friction. The car will have a strut tower brace, a 3.31.1 rear axle ratio (2.73.1 is standard), and its stability control system will have a specific sport mode for performance and track driving. The Performance package will be available late next summer.
This Mustang V6 Performance package will be ideal for the inevitable comparison tests against the Camaro V6, with all the stuff thatll help post the best possible performance at the test track. Something tells us that we wont have as much trouble getting hold of a 2011 Mustang V6 Performance Package model as we did a plain old 2010 Mustang V6.
Clearly, all of the upgrades to the 2011 Ford Mustang V6 are going to cost Ford some money, so expect that the company will be passing it along to you, the customer. And dont expect that the thing will start at $21,845 as the 2010 model does. Still, with the price tag of the Camaro V6 hovering only a couple thousand bucks higher ($23,530 in 2010), Ford cant go crazy on the price, either.

DickRasmussen · **Posted:** Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:03 pm

More info on the 2011 6 and 8.

305 HP, 280 ft-lb Torque, 3.7 liter, V-6
412 HP, 380 ft-lb torque, 5.0 liter V-8

Despite early specs, including the current ones for the 6, the corrected GT weight is now 3603 for the manual. The 6 is probably about 3500.

Highway fuel mileage numbers are very high, especially considering the system got more conservative in about 2008.

http://media.ford.com/article_display.c ... e_id=31645

http://media.ford.com/mini_sites/10031/2011Mustang/

http://media.ford.com/product-information.cfm

And, according to a quote on Corral.net

Redline is now 7,000 RPM and according to Mike Harrison, “it’ll stay there all day, it LOVES it!” With the increase in power comes a bump of the speedometer numbers as well, and now 160 MPH is stamped on the instrument cluster. Naturally the tach now shows 8,000 RPM with a 7,000 RPM red line. We were told that the 7,000 RPM limit was mandated for Ford's 150,000 mile durability schedule but that engine speeds of 8,000 RPM were possible without additional modifications.

Dick
2001 Mustang GT (for sale next summer

I wish)

Michael Westerfield · **Posted:** Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:37 pm

The increased weight is troubling. Steve weighed my GT at the 2009 NCAC and it was 3360. Where are they putting all this weight?

DickRasmussen · **Posted:** Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm

Michael Westerfield wrote:

The increased weight is troubling. Steve weighed my GT at the 2009 NCAC and it was 3360. Where are they putting all this weight?

Bigger brakes for sure. Bigger wheels maybe. Maybe more gas when weighed. Did you have Hoosiers (light weight). More sound deadening (2010's are heavier than 2005 - 2009 due a claimed stiffer chassis). Trans appears to be the same per Tremec/Getrag web sites. The rear bar is thicker/heavier. Exhaust may be bigger (412 HP requires a LOT of flow). It might be psychologically "better" to compare with the weights of "real" high end sports cars/sedans which tend to be even heavier (other than Vettes, of course).

One of the many things that impress me about both the 6 and 8 are the redlines for these large displacement high volume "cheap" engines. I don't recall where GM is at the their best engines but it is probably similar.

Michael Westerfield · **Posted:** Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:35 pm

DickRasmussen wrote:

Michael Westerfield wrote:

The increased weight is troubling. Steve weighed my GT at the 2009 NCAC and it was 3360. Where are they putting all this weight?

Bigger brakes for sure. Bigger wheels maybe. Maybe more gas when weighed. Did you have Hoosiers (light weight). More sound deadening (2010's are heavier than 2005 - 2009 due a claimed stiffer chassis). Trans appears to be the same per Tremec/Getrag web sites. The rear bar is thicker/heavier. Exhaust may be bigger (412 HP requires a LOT of flow). It might be psychologically "better" to compare with the weights of "real" high end sports cars/sedans which tend to be even heavier (other than Vettes, of course).

One of the many things that impress me about both the 6 and 8 are the redlines for these large displacement high volume "cheap" engines. I don't recall where GM is at the their best engines but it is probably similar.

I'm not sure if Steve weighed it with my street 17s or Art's 18's with hoosiers. I believe the new v6 has the same brakes as my GT now. Mine is also a 2008 that supposedly is slightly stiffer and heavier than the 2005-2007.

The new GT with a track pak seems very attractive though.

Arthur McDonald · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:54 am **Posts:** 2052

Michael Westerfield wrote:

I'm not sure if Steve weighed it with my street 17s or Art's 18's with hoosiers.

I found my 18x8.5" Kazeras + Hoosiers weigh about 45 lbs each, the factory 17x8s + OEM Pirellis weigh a bit over 50 lbs. Which may explain why I'm so grumpy when changing tires, especially at the end of the day.

JamesMilko · **Posted:** Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:31 pm

Here are some numbers I worked for another forum. Figured it would have some appeal here too. These are for the 2011 GT version.

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2011 ... _Specs.pdf is where the GT ratios and redline are from. Interestingly 5th gear is 1:1 not 4th gear.

Here are the effective ratios for a 2011 Mustang and 2006 GTO. Both cars have similar weight/power numbers. 4th gear is 1:1 on the GTO's T-56. Engine torque seems to be pretty similar to the LS2 with the numbers provided but there are an extra 500rpms to play with on the GT.

Final gear ratios (Diff gear * Trans gear)

Code:

Gear GT     GTO
1    12.11  10.28
2     8.04   7.16
3     5.59   4.95
4     4.37   3.46
5     3.31   2.91
6     2.15   1.97

Stock tire rev/mile (Theoretical sizes the calculator used, real tires will be bigger)
GT - 737
GTO - 790

7% difference between them.

Corrected for Tire difference (Above GT numbers * .93)

Code:

Gear GT     GTO
1    11.26  10.28
2     7.47   7.16
3     5.19   4.95
4     4.06   3.46
5     3.07   2.91
6     1.99   1.97

Top speed per gear (Low because of fake tire sizes)

Code:

Gear  GT    GTO
1     47    48
2     71    69
3     101   100
4     130   144
5     172   171
6     264   252

75MPH cruise RPM
GT - 1990
GTO - 1935

Shift speeds @ 2,000rpm

Code:

Gear  GT    GTO
1     13    15
2     20    21
3     29    31
4     37    44
5     49    53
6     75    78

http://www.grimmjeeper.com/gears.html is the site I used to get the numbers. Let me know if my math looks bad or overly fuzzy.

Vincent Keene · **Posted:** Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:58 pm

A V6 muscle car is just plain wrong no matter the HP rating IMO. Next thing you know they will be making a V6 Z06. :roll:

Marty Howard · **Posted:** Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:08 pm

Vincent Keene wrote:

A V6 muscle car is just plain wrong no matter the HP rating IMO. Next thing you know they will be making a V6 Z06. :roll:

The Mustang was a I6 before it was a V8.

clinehall · **Posted:** Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:06 pm

Marty Howard wrote:

Vincent Keene wrote:

A V6 muscle car is just plain wrong no matter the HP rating IMO. Next thing you know they will be making a V6 Z06. :roll:

The Mustang was a I6 before it was a V8.

That's when it was a pony car.

Marty Howard · **Posted:** Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:14 pm

the point is there has always been a 6 cylinder version, without it there probably wouldn't be a v8. certaintly not one at the current price.

Vincent Keene · **Posted:** Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:40 pm

Marty Howard wrote:

the point is there has always been a 6 cylinder version, without it there probably wouldn't be a v8. certaintly not one at the current price.

Translation: Would YOU buy a V6 Mustang, or a V6 Camaro, or a V6 Corvette? I sure as hell wouldn't.

DickRasmussen · **Posted:** Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:12 pm

Marty Howard wrote:

the point is there has always been a 6 cylinder version, without it there probably wouldn't be a v8. certaintly not one at the current price.

Actually there wasn't always a 6. The Fox versions had 4's and 8's many years. The SVO version was a turbo 4.

FYI, the new six has a better power to weight ratio and almost as good a power to torque ratio than either my 97 or 01 GT (assuming the six weighs about 3500 lbs since the posted specs are clearly wrong. The updated 8 weight is 3603 and the six will be lighter).

It is a viable option to replace our 97 GT auto daily driver. My wife and I have been Mustang lovers and owners off and on since 1964. We really don't even want a 412 HP car to drive "just off idle" most of the time.

Now if we could just find a good "sporty 2 door hatch" to replace our 1984 Nissan 200 SX hatchback that carried a LOT of stuff home for various home improvement projects. Heck it even carried Hoosiers to Kansas for the 1986 Nationals (used on my ASP Europa).

THSCC Forums

2011 Ford Mustang V6 Specs

Who is online