RiceEating5.0

This is off the newest Motor Trend mag. I found it interesting, especially since it has something to do with the upcoming base Mustang. Sounds like one heck of a base-motor. I hope the output for the Mustang version is at no less than 250hp.

"It’s official: Ford Motor Co. is developing an all-new 3.5L v-6, beginning in late 2005 for ’06 models, named the Duratec 35. It can make as much as 275 horses, and it’s said to be a real torquester. The all-aluminum, twin cam, 24-valve engine is a 60* design, so it can fit in a variety of Ford Motor Co. products, including the Freestar and Mercury Monterey minivans, the Mazda6-based Ford Futura, and its Mercury and Lincoln variants. This engine will power the Ford Five Hundred and Freestyle, Mercury Montego, and the new base Mustang, but for model year ’05, those cars must solider on with the barely adequate 3.0-liter Duratec v-6. Ford will spend $335 million to retool its Lima, Ohio, plant (constructed in 1957 to build Edsel engines) for production of the Duratec 35."

formula79

Thats Great!...doesn't GM's HF V6 already make 260 some HP? Great to see Ford chasing coatails!

bigsteve7

What cars is this 2xxhp HF V6 in? It seems ford is goign to put this engine in affordable cars. I'm just asking because all I see in cars that I could actually afford is the 3800.

I think everyone here is chasing Nissan's coattail if you want to put it that way. Their VQ?? V6 powers a variety of vehicles and seems to be a really nice, flexible, affordable motor.

RiceEating5.0

Chasing? Lol, what's GM got to do with this? I guess you'll take every opportunity to put down Ford while putting GM on a pedestal. Haha.

Honestly, Both GM and Ford are late to the game, despite them being the largest. Almost every large Manufacturer currently has a 3.XL v6 engine capable of sub-260hp output. Chrysler has had a 250hp Sohc 3.5 since 98? Honda has a 260hp 3.5L and and a 240hp 3.2 since 2002. Nissan has a 250-285hp 3.5 as well and 220hp variants since 2000 or so. Atleast Ford has the old 3.2L 220hp SHO 6 under their belts.

GM now has a new 3.6 260hp Dohc for 2004, but it's only available in the 30,000 dollar CTS. I doubt GM will pass this 3.6L on down to cheaper cars. I think there's a difference between that and Ford offering it throughout most of their lineup (Freestyle, Freestar, 500, montego, monterey, Futura, Mustang, etc...). That's why GM has developed the 230-245hp pushrod 3.9L for. If the Ford 3.5L comes in at 275hp, I’d say that 3.9 is at a disadvantage. Chasing coattails? .

RiceEating5.0

He's talking about the sub-30,000 dollar 2004 CTS. He doesn't realize that there's a difference between that and an affordable car like the base Mustang coming with an engine of that caliber.

I'm sure the pushrod 3.9L is the direct 3.8L replacement and it will be most common v6 among GM cars. Fords v6 cars on the other hand will be powered by this Dohc 3.5L Duratec.

Exactly. The ultra expensive NSX has had a 260 and 290hp 3.2L since 1991. The Taurus SHO had a 22Xhp 3.2L v6 dating back to the late 80's (basically as much as the 80's IROC-Z's 5.7L v8 and Ford 302). As far as HO 6's, there have been plenty.

95Zvert

I believe the 5.7 was 245 hp, the 5.0 (305) was the 220s motor.

That 3.5 is a good engine for ford, though. 260-275 hp in a base mustang will be shocking a few people on the street.

I must also say the 3800 SC is in a variety of aFFORDABLE CARS, AND HAS BEEN AT A MINIMUM OF 240 FOR AWHILE. (damn caps). And, its been bumped to 260-280. Not a bad set up IMO. And I wont even get into the puny GN motors of the mid-late 80's

SNEAKY NEIL

When it says "It CAN make as much as 275" that means that you may not even see that in a ford. It could be in a Jaguar application or something along those lines. I would say that for the base Mustang, you will not see anymore than say 220-230 MAX. I'm sure the mustang fans would like to see the high side of that 275 in a base model but that won't happen.

RiceEating5.0

Not the 86, 87 and 88 5.7's. The 245hp version probably showed up in 90. My roommates 1989 5.7L T/A GTA had 225hp. The Iroc version probably was at 230hp. I don't when the SHO came into production (i'm guessing 88 or 89), but it had a 220hp 3.0. The 87+ 5.0 fox's had 225hp. So the Hp numbers from 1989 3.0L SHO was fairly comparable to the 3rd gens and fox v8's of the late 80's. Tq of course was a different thing . Not bad for a N/A 3.0.

It's a good engine. It'll make ford competitive while adding some excitement to the lineup. It may be a shocker, but then you realize your mothers v6 import sedan packs just as much too. The numbers are still nice for a cheap base car though. It's also just as much as the current 4.6L GT.

The S/c'ed 3.8 is a decently nice motor and the Turbocharged GN motor was very impressive (even to this day), but the N/A 3.8 wasn't exactly that impressive. By todays standards, it's ancient. I'm glad GM plans on replacing it with the new 3.9L which will bring it somewhat up to date.

scott9050

Agreed. Probably 220-230 in the base Mustang, can't be scaring all of those teens away I could see upwards of 250 in the Minivan, maybe 275 in some other applications.

Z28x

The 3800 kept right up with the other 200HP+/- engines as far as performance vs. gas milage up until about 2002 when all the 240HP V6 engines started to be the norm.

I've also read the the next Grand Am/G6 will have a HF V6.

I don't know if GM will bother with 275HP+ N/A V6s since they have plenty of V8s to fill in at that range.

RiceEating5.0

There was no mention of Jaguar or Volvo in the cars listed. Volvo’s (Inlines 5’s) don’t even share engines with Fords, and Jags for the most part have their own engines as well. That's not to say that the base Jags won't have a 3.5 Duratec based engine, but it just wasn't mentioned in the article. Most if not all the cars listed are Fords and a few Lincoln/Mercury Ford twins. If you look at the Ford/Lincoln/Mercury twins, you'll see that the Hp differences (if any) is pretty minimal. Go ahead and compare for yourself. Most (if not all) have the same exact motor and output as their Ford counterparts.

Why limit a 275hp capable motor to 220? The current smaller Duratec based 3.0 in the Mazda6 makes that much, and even this will be replaced by the 3.5 seeing as how its Ford twin will get the larger 3.5. The Mazda6 is a fairly affordable car as well and costs no more than a comparably equipped 3.0L Taurus. I'm sure there'll be some limitation depending on model, but 220 is too low. If 220 was their goal for the Mustang, why put the more expensive 3.5 in when a slightly re-worked, older, and smaller Duratec 3.0 will put out just as much? Heck, just use the Mazda6's 220hp Duratec 3.0 and call it a day. There'll be ZERO engine engineering needed there.

I don't expect a 275hp base Mustang. But i don't expect anything less than 250hp from the base 2006 Mustang either. In fact, that's what the recent rumors have been hinting at. Even a 260hp version in the base Mustang would be realistic since it's a "sporty" model and not your mother Taurus.

It's not only the Ford fan in me speaking, it's the market, consumer, and demand that's speaking as well. A 220hp v6 is acceptable now, but it won't be 2 or 3 years from now when the rest of the market has 250-280 6's and it’s the norm. Ford as a business would need to stay competitive, and them seriously limiting the capability of the new 3.5L would be stupid. Just take a look at Nissan and Honda’s v6’s and picture them 2-3 years from now. The Honda 3.2 makes 260hp in Acura trim and 240 in Honda trim. That’s a 20hp difference between the luxury and regular versions.

Nothing is for sure now. Every single model may not get a 275hp 6, but a 55hp difference may be stretching it out a bit if you know what I mean. I guess we’ll know for sure come summer/fall 2005.

RiceEating5.0

I'd like to agree with you on the Mustang part, but i don't just by looking at the current market trends.

Teens for the most part don't buy NEW Mustangs. They stick to cavvies, civics, etc.... Those teens wanting Mustangs either have their parents buy one for them or they find a used one to buy.

Carpoint had the average age for a new Mustang buyer at 41 years old and with an average annual income of around $60,000. The same with the F-bods. They priced themselves out of the average teens hand 10 or so years ago.

Z284ever

For reliability.

For tuning it to be torque biased.

For it to be able to run on regular unleaded.

For any number of reasons.

Ford will use the 3.5 Duratec in a number of applications. They don't ALL need to be tuned for max power....there may be other considerations which could take precedence.


Why don't ALL Gen III smallblocks make 405 hp ?

RiceEating5.0

I think some of you are mis-Interpreting my posts...I didn't expect all to have 275, i just questioned SNEAKY NIELS posts on 1) the Mustang being limited to 220'ish, 2) Ford vehicles not recieving 275hp versions and them being limited to only Jags and the like, and 3) there being a HUGE difference (55hp) between the different variants.

My response to Niel was:
1) Mustangs can and probably will have more than 220'ish. A look at your standard Accord/Maxima/Altima/Mazda6 and even Ford v6 family sedans and the Mustang being a sporty car would be a good reason alone to bump it to atleast the 240's. 2) Ford vehicles depending on their competition may get 260 and even 275hp versions (the 500 and some of the upcoming fords are larger than taurus's and might need the extra power). 3) a 55hp gap is way to big imo. Even the 2004 GTO's Ls-1 and CTS-V and z06 Ls-6's have a 20-30hp gap depending on actual dyno ratings. I think a 20-30hp gap between the different 3.5L variants would be more realistic than a 55hp gap.

That was the point i was getting at. I wasn't implying that all Ford will end up with 275hp version of the 3.5. I knew there'd be different variants. If you look at my first post, you'll see that i wrote "I hope the output for the Mustang version is at no less than 250hp". Its just that my speculations/expectations are different than Niels or others here.

SNEAKY NEIL

The Jags do share the lower engines with Ford(3.0 V6 and the 3.9 V8). Jags will get the most HP out of the new 3.5 and then the Lincoln will be next and then Ford just as it is right now. The 3.0 in the Jag makes more than the Lincoln LS with the 3.0 and all of those make more than the 3.0 in the Taurus. Also, I never mentioned Volvo, I know they use thier own engines. Also, the higher output could be used for performance models like a higher performance Mazda 6( just an example). That would be 220 for the base and 275 for the higher model. That is a pretty good jump in power and would make sense to do for not that much money.

Why not put the older 3.0 in the car to make that lower output you ask? Well, why would you put an older engine in a car when you have the new one available no matter how little the increase in output is. Also, I bet the 3.0 will be gone as they start producing 3.5's so it probably won't be around anyway. And, if you look at the current base car, that is still a 30-40 hp jump which is quite noteable.

If they started at say 220 hp with the 3.5, and the market demande more, then there would still be room to get more if they had to, just as they did with the current 3.0 when it was used for more applications. Also, the base Mustang has never really kept up as far as power with most family sedans. The 145-150 hp base model was still outpowered by most cars at the time that had about 170 hp. The current car with 190 has the same problem where every family sedan has 200+, but i don't think that really matters. The base car is usually priced below all those cars anyway(It would be nice to have the base mustang more powerful than a Taurus though).

My whole point is, that article is way to vague with the information and there are a number of possibilities of what that engine will be in and what outputs could be. I am still going to stand by my prediction of a base Mustang with 220-230 HP.