For those that don't keep up with the state of automotive news. Ford just released a new V6 motor for the 2011 mustang.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/30/2011-ford-mustang-v6-la-2009-preview/

All aluminum V6 that puts out 305 HP. This seems like it would be a great swap for a Merkur or 240 rally car. Plenty of power for the dirt. Would likely be fairly light with the aluminum / plastic construction. Since I know a SB chevy fits in a 240 I would think this motor would fit just fine. I wonder how much it weighs compared to a fully dressed 2.3L Turbo motor.

Thoughts?

Andrew_Frick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For those that don't keep up with the state of
> automotive news. Ford just released a new V6
> motor for the 2011 mustang.
>
>
>
> All aluminum V6 that puts out 305 HP. This seems
> like it would be a great swap for a Merkur or 240
> rally car. Plenty of power for the dirt. Would
> likely be fairly light with the aluminum / plastic
> construction. Since I know a SB chevy fits in a
> 240 I would think this motor would fit just fine.
> I wonder how much it weighs compared to a fully
> dressed 2.3L Turbo motor.
>
> Thoughts?

I'd imagine if it's not lighter, it's certainly not significantly heavier. You could set the front of the engine back further as well.

It really peeves me that auto manufacturers brag about alloy this and plastic that for weight savings, but never quote any actual numbers.. Weights of engines must not sell cars (who would have thought? )

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

Andrew_Frick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For those that don't keep up with the state of
> automotive news. Ford just released a new V6
> motor for the 2011 mustang.
>
>
>
> All aluminum V6 that puts out 305 HP. This seems
> like it would be a great swap for a Merkur or 240
> rally car. Plenty of power for the dirt. Would
> likely be fairly light with the aluminum / plastic
> construction. Since I know a SB chevy fits in a
> 240 I would think this motor would fit just fine.
> I wonder how much it weighs compared to a fully
> dressed 2.3L Turbo motor.
>
> Thoughts?


Physical dimensions come to mind. Oddly enough the old "normal" 3.8 V-6 was a touch wider at the heads than a 460 V8 while the standard 302 was narrower than a 350 chevy by a couple inches. We've done a couple Ford 5.0 swaps into Volvo and Mercedes because of the narrower bell housing.

It is really neat to see the old horsepower wars from the 60s and 70s reborn finally. Todays grocery getters will run away from the old muscle cars and at twice the gas mileage and even the crappy ones will run 150K miles further down the road.

Neat stuff coming our way indeed.

Andrew_Frick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For those that don't keep up with the state of
> automotive news. Ford just released a new V6
> motor for the 2011 mustang.
>
>
>
> All aluminum V6 that puts out 305 HP. This seems
> like it would be a great swap for a Merkur or 240
> rally car. Plenty of power for the dirt. Would
> likely be fairly light with the aluminum / plastic
> construction. Since I know a SB chevy fits in a
> 240 I would think this motor would fit just fine.
> I wonder how much it weighs compared to a fully
> dressed 2.3L Turbo motor.
>
> Thoughts?

Since when does a 2 wheel drive car on gravel need 305 hp?
Who is buying the tires?
Ever notice how uncommon anything other than 4 cylinder turbo cars have been in WRC in the last 25 years or so?

Some might suggest that it's just about the perfect combo in terms of how much torque they make and how and when it is delivered.....

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Yeah, the 4bang snail combo, *in conjunction with cubic piles of money*, works great for output to weight. But damn, a normally aspirated alloy lump that needs no hotrodding to make those power levels has rather a large appeal. I bet it costs a fortune to buy now but maybe by the time they're in the junkyards I'll have an appropriate gp5 car to put one in.

---

Jay Woodward
Snohomish, WA
'90 Mazdog Frankenprotege
Chronologically, 46...

john vanlandingham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since when does a 2 wheel drive car on gravel need
> 305 hp?

Never said it did. But with a stock output of that much, you can spend all your money going to events and buying tires without having to worry about the turbo or the spare turbo or the intercooler, etc , etc. I think Lurch and Utech seem to like their cars that put out more than 305 HP.

Arern't you the one that argues for Volvos because 300 HP is easy to get out of those motors with the right turbo?

> Who is buying the tires?

Tires are a consumable. All the money you save on not building, tuning or maintenance on a turbo motor will buy a lot of tires.

> Ever notice how uncommon anything other than 4
> cylinder turbo cars have been in WRC in the last
> 25 years or so?

> Some might suggest that it's just about the
> perfect combo in terms of how much torque they
> make and how and when it is delivered.....
>

The WRC budgets are a little more than what I can spend on rally. Heck a roughly 10 year old WRC focus still costs more than my house. But it comes with a spares package

http://www.m-sport.co.uk/cars4sale/80

And has the WRC even allowed a team to run anything other than a 4 cylinder turbo motor in the last 15 years?

Jay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, the 4bang snail combo, *in conjunction with
> cubic piles of money*, works great for output to
> weight.

Just gotta choose the right turbo 4.
I advise one or two around 2300cc that come with big strong parts inside.
(really set the parts down next to each other and you'll probably be shocked how weenie some shall was say weenier motors are---and hence the need for moolah)



But damn, a normally aspirated alloy lump
> that needs no hotrodding to make those power
> levels has rather a large appeal. I bet it costs a
> fortune to buy now but maybe by the time they're
> in the junkyards I'll have an appropriate gp5 car
> to put one in.

By the time they're in the junkyards they'll be dead---and/or extremely expensive to rebuild.
>
> Jay Woodward
> Snohomish, WA
> '90 Mazdog Frankenprotege
> Chronologically, 40...

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Andrew_Frick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> john vanlandingham Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Since when does a 2 wheel drive car on gravel
> need
> > 305 hp?
>
> Never said it did.

Implied it


But with a stock output of
> that much, you can spend all your money going to
> events and buying tires without having to worry
> about the turbo or the spare turbo or the
> intercooler, etc , etc. I think Lurch and Utech
> seem to like their cars that put out more than 305
> HP.
>
> Arern't you the one that argues for Volvos because
> 300 HP is easy to get out of those motors with the
> right turbo?

No, wrong. I suggest Volvos and Xratties becasue 200 to 230 is a snap, but ask anybody who talks to me and I ALWAYS say "Who's buying your tires?"
In anycase I neer get too excited about HORSEPOWER, torque in the right amounts and at the right time is what I harp on.
>
> > Who is buying the tires?
>
> Tires are a consumable. All the money you save on
> not building, tuning or maintenance on a turbo
> motor will buy a lot of tires.

I watched the GpB Celicas. 2wd cars with 300 bhp chew thru tires extremely fast.

There's no cost to running a stock motor, ecu for 205 bhp is a few buck, most guys I talk to aren't building their motors--key element in saving money.
In fact one guy pulled his pan and the crank and bearings were DEAD, so I GAVE him a crank and bearings.. I have more than I'll ever need.
I just "lifetime loaned" William Steel Solutions a set of cleaned pistons and rods since when we'd scheduled assembly, his weren't clean enough.

Maintenence of the turbo is easier when you're not "tuning for the max".

The beauty of 2wd.

>
> > Ever notice how uncommon anything other than
> 4
> > cylinder turbo cars have been in WRC in the
> last
> > 25 years or so?
>
> > Some might suggest that it's just about the
> > perfect combo in terms of how much torque
> they
> > make and how and when it is delivered.....
> >
>
> The WRC budgets are a little more than what I can
> spend on rally. Heck a roughly 10 year old WRC
> focus still costs more than my house. But it
> comes with a spares package
>
>
>
> And has the WRC even allowed a team to run
> anything other than a 4 cylinder turbo motor in
> the last 15 years?

Group A still exists, If its homologated, and correctly build why not?

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Come on guys even volvo put a V6 in the 262 or 264 thing back in the day... ask Mr. Lane about the PSA/Eagle/Volvo/DeLorean V6 in his... There was a time long ago he ran it with out the just plan silly fun turbo attached too.

I still think rules are the main reason WRC cars have mostly used turbo 4 cylinder motors.

As someone who has blown up a number of turbos in my life I for one am not a huge fan of the little squirrel cage attached to the back of the motor except in diesels all diesels should be turbo'ed.

I blew up the stock turbo in my stock Legacy GT just a few months ago - the latest in a long line of turbos I have killed.

Then there is turbo leg, something that needs to be managed at the same time you are driving the car down a narrow gravel track at silly speeds. Best thing about the golf was never ever needing to think about getting the turbo spooled up mid turn.

And Tires aside, can you really ever have too much HP? I mean there is this thing called a throttle attached to the motor that limits the HP to what ever level we want.

---

In the long run reality always wins.

john vanlandingham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> By the time they're in the junkyards they'll be
> dead---and/or extremely expensive to rebuild.
>

Given that it's a base model Mustang, probably 10% of them will be totalled in the first year because Daddy bought it for Pumpkin's 17th birthday and she smacked it into a wall while texting her BFF.

---

Pete Remner
Cleveland, Ohio

1984 RX-7 (rallycross thing)
1978
Silence is golden, but duct tape is silver.

My plan now is to (eventually) put the 3l duratec all aluminum v6 in my volvo. From a jaguar s-type or lincoln ls, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duratec_30#Duratec_30
The direct lifter version.

230hp out of the box, comes with a rwd trans though the ratios suck but maybe some other getrag fits (or put a tee fiver on it).

And it would be G2 legal (for RA) which is the class I want to run so turbo'd motors dont apply to my needs.

Sure seems like an easier way to get a nice reliable torquey 230+ hp G2 car. And probably cheaper than a strung out 4 cyl with a narrow powerband trying to make similar power. Minimum weight would be like 2560lbs, which seems to me to be on light side for a volvo without going nuts.

Thats my plan, anyways. Though I've got a few years before I can start building this thing so I'm sure I'll change my mind a couple times again.

I'll agree with Derek on the turbo dislike. They fail commonly. NA power should be more reliable and generally better bottom end, especially on a production motor.

Pete is also correct, there will never be a shortage of young "Marios" wrecking Mustangs, or Subes and Hondas..Ninjas and CBRs also. Crazy kids.

With 230 hp or more in a G2 car gear ratios can be forgiven a lot. You'll have enough grunt to pull thru the weak spots.

That new mustang engine is just an updated version of the current duratec v6 (hate how they use that name on everything, makes it useless for identification). I don't know bellhousing bolt patterns for sure, but if they follow the same logic used on the duratec/mzr I4, the front and rear-drive blocks will be identical, meaning the bellhousing bolt pattern is also the same.

That means there are already 3.5 and 3.7-liter versions of that engine making JVL-approved power levels in the junkyard for cheap. Add Mustang transmission and manifolds and go play.

-Dave

Thank You ...Mr Bottles ...

I've had the V6 mind set for some time ... Got that going up here in this part of the world some time ago .. Three "6" motored NA cars I know of going on .. ( cars don't count to me unless there 60% done its just parts untell then .. So "I" don't count .. But that would be four..) ...And I said 6 not v6 now did I ..LOL... A big dumb lump of a motor up front that has usable big power ... Or a light switch buzz bomb that eats turbos.. I do ok keeping 4 cly turbos to gather .. Most times ..Better then most ...But Ive got mad skillz...And get the buzz bomb motors eating them selfs at times ..But a lot of guys can't keep them running... yes you can make them smoother ...I've done it ..But why ?.. To each there own sure ...

Theres some gooooooooood HP out there to be had Kids in a V6 motor theses days and its stock

Here we'll get this too.....

Heavy you say ... Alot are ,,most are.....Some are not .. But the 50/50 weight split on a gravel car and most racing "thing" is the big lie ..Right ... ?? To get everyone to spin there car...? ...Right..

Have a good day

David


Hazardous Toys inc



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2009 06:44PM by Haztoys.

eyesoreracing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That new mustang engine is just an updated version
> of the current duratec v6 (hate how they use that
> name on everything, makes it useless for
> identification). I don't know bellhousing bolt
> patterns for sure, but if they follow the same
> logic used on the duratec/mzr I4, the front and
> rear-drive blocks will be identical, meaning the
> bellhousing bolt pattern is also the same.
>
> That means there are already 3.5 and 3.7-liter
> versions of that engine making JVL-approved power
> levels in the junkyard for cheap. Add Mustang
> transmission and manifolds and go play.
>
> -Dave


I thought the 3.5 / 3.7 mill was quite a bit different than the older 3.0L Duratec motor which is still currently offered in the lower Fusion trim levels.