My buddy has a Camaro, so this question always beats in my head, if the Stang has .3 L's more, why does the Camaro make close to 100 more hp than us V6 Stangs.
I asked a friend who builds engines, he said it could be in large part by the intake manifold (as well as cylinder heads and injectors among other things), where the length of the intake runner and the size of the throttle body cause us to lose power in comparison to the Camaro. He did say that the Ford blocks were built better due to the engine being forged all over the place.
My buddy has a Camaro, so this question always beats in my head, if the Stang has .3 L's more, why does the Camaro make close to 100 more hp than us V6 Stangs.
I asked a friend who builds engines, he said it could be in large part by the intake manifold (as well as cylinder heads and injectors among other things), where the length of the intake runner and the size of the throttle body cause us to lose power in comparison to the Camaro. He did say that the Ford blocks were built better due to the engine being forged all over the place.
Is this true? What are other reasons?
Pardon my newb-ness,
Jason V.
Im sure a lot of it is due to better flowing heads and intake. But look at the 3.7 thats coming out next year making 315HP. Thats what the GT is making this year!!
__________________
94 Teal GT 5 spd
Offroad X pipe, 2.5" MAC catback, Underdrives, Steeda springs F/R, Lowered 2'', 3.08's, Aftermarket Cutch and quadrant. Smog delete
Im sure a lot of it is due to better flowing heads and intake. But look at the 3.7 thats coming out next year making 315HP. Thats what the GT is making this year!!
Now we just have to put one of those engines in my car.
The LLT v6 is a good engine, it has a much larger compression ratio than most engines, due to the fact that its intake is AIR ONLY as opposed to air to fuel mixture. High compression ratio allows for more HP and less fuel spent. What chevy has been really good about not mentioning is how much torque they are gettin out of those engines. My guess would be it's going to be very low in compared to its HP. 29 mpg, 300 hp.... hmm maybe 200 torque? Our big brother GT's wont have a problem with this guy, even some of us 6 shooters with gears, tune, and light mods will probably still have a good fighting chance, at least off the line.
__________________
Proud owner of a black 2008 V6 pony package Mustang. The Mustang is my absolute favorite car for both looks and its long heritage. Wouldn't take a ferrari over a Mustang... well maybe I would. But I'd sell it and then buy more Mustangs!! :D
Mods: Air Raid cold air intake, Air Raid throttle body spacer, Pypes shorty headers, Pypes true dual kit (x-pipe), GT500 Take off mufflers, and Bamachips 91 Torque Tune.
lets not get hung-up in HP numbers-again..Torque is what makes the car roll. the more you have the faster your car will be - period.
HP number is normally the higher of both and is what mfrs chose to advertise more to lure people to think their cars are more powerful than the others. More HP doesnt necessarily mean they are more powerful. ever heard the expression "HP sells cars, Torque wins races"....
1995 Mustang GT Cnv 347(427 stroker being built!) almost done!
1996 Cobra with Kenne Bell 2.1 Supercharger and every other conceivable part you can bolt on it...650hp upgrade in the works
2003 Infiniti M45 V8 340 hp...a methadone treatment for reformed Mustang drivers
Last edited by 2Manystangs; 2 Days Ago at 09:52 AM.
Reason: edit
30 more ft/lbs of torque and 100 more horsepower? not exactly a good ratio for a muscle car. ours came with what 210/247? that's why the mustangs have always been superior to camaros. the torque is what counts, not the horseys
30 more ft/lbs of torque and 100 more horsepower? not exactly a good ratio for a muscle car. ours came with what 210/247? that's why the mustangs have always been superior to camaros. the torque is what counts, not the horseys
What??? The Chevy engine is smaller and puts out more HP and torque than the Ford? How are you even calling a 6 banger a muscle car anyways?
__________________
"Goose, Hollywood's fine, I want Viper"
1995 Mustang GT Cnv 347(427 stroker being built!) almost done!
1996 Cobra with Kenne Bell 2.1 Supercharger and every other conceivable part you can bolt on it...650hp upgrade in the works
2003 Infiniti M45 V8 340 hp...a methadone treatment for reformed Mustang drivers
Who cares? V6's are only good for fuel mileage and buying groceries. The LLT was a better alternative than the Ecotec DI Turbo they were/are considering.
Who cares? V6's are only good for fuel mileage and buying groceries. The LLT was a better alternative than the Ecotec DI Turbo they were/are considering.
Im gonna disagree with that ignorant statement. I dont know about the rest of yalls V6 cars but mine isnt exactly a fuel sipping focus. And some of the baddest "muscle cars" made have been 6 cyl. Porsche 911, Buick GN, GMC cyclone and typhoon(trucks ok, but you get the point). I think 2 doors, 300hp, and 3 pedals makes it a muscle car, number of cylinders be damned.
we're comparing old technology to new. that's like comparing fuel injected to carborated engines. when the 2011 engines come out THEN it's time to start comparing. just stop before you get yourself in an argument you don't want to be in.
Wow those numbers coming from the Camaro are impressive... I would have guessed the torque to have been very low. Either way the 1/8th mile and 1/4th mile times don't lie... Either way we have to remember 2 things. 1) AGE: Our 4.0L was put into our mustangs in 2005 and who knows when they were actually created/designed. Our technology is old. No way an older engine like that can compete with a new 2010. Just look at history. My mom has a '96 cadillac with a V8 32 valve northstar engine which puts out around 240 hp. The 2009 version of the same car puts out 320 horsepower. 2) Engineering. Simply put you get what you pay for. The 370 Z with a v6 puts out around 330 hp i believe, and is very quick. However they start at about $30,000. "
Conclusion: Camaro has a newer engine which means better numbers. We are all smart people here and know that new technology is OFTEN, but not ALWAYS better than its predecessors. We also know that money talks, bullshit walks. Camaros start at about 23,000, our mustangs start at about 21,000. To put it into perspective, just imagine what you could do internally to your 4.0 L with 2 grand. Cams, polished ports, etc... If my entire argument is able to be debunked, then one thing is certain: Mustangs STILL LOOK SEXIER!
__________________
Proud owner of a black 2008 V6 pony package Mustang. The Mustang is my absolute favorite car for both looks and its long heritage. Wouldn't take a ferrari over a Mustang... well maybe I would. But I'd sell it and then buy more Mustangs!! :D
Mods: Air Raid cold air intake, Air Raid throttle body spacer, Pypes shorty headers, Pypes true dual kit (x-pipe), GT500 Take off mufflers, and Bamachips 91 Torque Tune.
1) AGE: Our 4.0L was put into our mustangs in 2005 and who knows when they were actually created/designed. Our technology is old. No way an older engine like that can compete with a new 2010. Just look at history. My mom has a '96 cadillac with a V8 32 valve northstar engine which puts out around 240 hp. The 2009 version of the same car puts out 320 horsepower.
my 1993 ranger has a 4.0 cologne engine in it actually lol
4.0L Cologne V6 vs. 3.6L LLT V6 
plus a few suspension mods and upgraded rubber 
