frankmarino

the MKZ weighs 3469 (only a little more than ours) and does 0-60 in 6.8, runs 15.2 sec @ 93.4 mph. 2/10ths of a second faster than ours claims at bone stock...its not that much of a better engine, considering it has 53 more hp. Lately I'm feeling like hp numbers are becoming what the ridiculous unrealistic EPA estimates were looking like a few years ago when every car was advertising 30/35.

GidyupGo

My 3.1 L V6 Buick engine had 175 HP and it blew the doors off our 4.0 Ranger engine, same used in the Mustang. Some due to weight, and some by design.

laserred02

You are incorrect sir. The Lincoln MKZ AWD model of which you post it's quarter mile times weighs 3813 lb and here is my source http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...7_lincoln_mkz/

So you get a faster car, with 4 doors, AWD, a far better interior, and a MUCH SMOOTHER ENGINE. The 3.5 is a superior engine in terms of power, noise, vibrations, and fuel efficiency it also costs more and it's reliability is unproven due to its recent introduction. However I can say it made Ward's top ten NA motors its first year of production a list the 4.0 would never make.

GidyupGo

Yea, engine size doesn't a hill of beans make. I view, as a previous owner, that the 4 L is a good,not great, not very efficient, generic engine. Nothing fancy, just a proven workhorse.

ODDYSEY

My wife has a new Ford Edge and the engine & transmission (6 speed auto) are great. It is a high RPM engine, so it does take some getting used too, but the Edge (4100lbs?) has some pick up to it. It wouldn't be a bad engine, but I don't see it sounding like the 4.0 does.

Overall I think the 3.5 is a great engine, we have had no issues with it, not even a little noise.

frankmarino

Your points are all valid, however that motor trend article didn't open up for me. MSN lists 3672 as the AWD weight:

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/sp...&trimid=-1

Which is a bit heavier than our cars. I'm not trying to compare car vs car, because it really is apples and oranges (muscle vs luxury)...so yeah, the interior is nicer, the engine is smoother, and its a sedan with AWD. Mustangs aren't really supposed to be any of those things; I think of rugged engines, 2 doors with RWD and interiors being an afterthought, even though ours are very nice... If you were gonna go car vs car, I could say that you'd get a Shelby GT for roughly the same price as an MKZ, not a base Sixer like we're talking about. I guess its my fault for bringing the Lincoln into this discussion, but I'm trying to have a crude point of reference, weight-wise, to compare how the 3.5 would perform in our cars. Obviously the car would be faster, but looking at a cost-benefit analysis, I'm very skeptical...it just doesn't seem like a good fit. If you're talking about adding 3 or 4 grand to the price tag of a base 6, that becomes pricey. As it stands now, a kid can buy the car for under 20 grand, spend that extra 3-4 grand on a blower and be dealing with over 300bhp. I just don't see the 3.5 being a smart option for Ford until it becomes older and less expensive to manufacture.

ODDYSEY

That is not necessarily true. Ford has been moving to a standard frame for their cars, such as the Edge, Fusion, Taurus, Focus. So if all those cars come with the 3.5, it would be cost beneficial to put the 3.5 in the Mustang as well. In the long run it would save them money in manufacturing. Don't you think?

GidyupGo

Yes it would, and I see your point, but are you saying it would be in the Ranger as well?

frankmarino

In a way, yes...but the Taurus MSRP starts around 23,500; the Edge about 25,500; and the Fusion and Focus are priced lower but don't use the 3.5. The common denominator is that the 3.5 costs more money. No matter how much you standardize it, its still going to inflate the Mustang price by a couple thousand. Which would also force them to drop a more powerful, more expensive V8 in the GT to justify its existance. That would screw the whole delicate balance that has led to the success of this car. If somehow the standardization of the 3.5 could allow them to sell it in the Mustang for close to the same base price, then that would be great. But they'd still have to rethink their GT engine, as 300 hp is not much more than 260 plus. Not enough to cost that much more, anyway.

ODDYSEY

Gidyupgo... I could see it going in the ranger at some point, it is a strong engine.

frankmarino.... look at all the talk with the epa, gas mileage standards etc. I can see them putting a 3.5 in the stang, and if they stick true to the article I think Sandy or Sally posted about the V8 getting a boost and them doing twin turbo V6.. who is to say it wont be a twin turbo 3.5L? Man you add twin turbo to a 265 HP motor, your talking 365+ HP which is a nice jump for the GT.