http://forums.bradbarnett.net/index....opic=1118&st=0

 

I've read that thread and I haven't seen any solid info. All I saw was a bunch of speculation and wet dreams.

 

Exactomundo...
And you would think that w/ 10+ years better technology, they SHOULD be catching up w/ LT1s. How did the 3400 w/ 160 HP compare to the 305 V8 in 1982? Right on the heals...

What is massaging and tweaking mean anyway? Blueprinting? polishing?

 

While certainly not as reliable as a Ford press release, I'd say that this is a notch above simple speculation:


"Put it to you this way...
It was said to be dynoed at 270...after massaging and tweaking...

now, take that down to real world situations and emissions etc etc...
I'd say that the 2005 V6 out of the hole, will push anywhere between 230-250
Very nice!! "

 

Sad thing is, the Nissan Altima is already there (at the heels...) and it's a 4-door family car!

We won't bring in the other high-tech V6's of today, along with the pocket-rockets like Evo, WRX, Focus SVT and such.

For me, I don't think it's a matter of "if" we'll see a 270hp V6 from Ford (or GM for that matter), but a case of when.

Don't bank on the '05 Mustang, but the '06 get's a nod from me...

 

He is right about the engine size, but output I cannot confirm.

Remember, this is a base engine when you compare it to other cars. What is the Altima's BASE engine? What is the Lancer's BASE engine? If your going to compare, compare apples to apples...I do agree that the big three are a little behind in small engine development though. WE shall se ewhat the next 2-3 years holds

 

It will be no match for the 270HP GM 3 valve 3.9L pushrod V6

 

Ya know....I swear people have rumored that just about every V6 engine in Ford's lineup will be the base V6...

 

Isn't it the other way around? Aren't 3800 V6 F-bodies "nipping at the heals" of Mustang GT's!?!? They're good for low 15's, right? Hell, GT's sometimes only run high 14's!!! And don't give me $h!t about "well, they can actually hit 13's" because while there are fast exceptions, there are slow exceptions too!............and that's where I'm sure a "fast" V6 Camaro could almost run with a "slow" GT.

 

Put the crack pipe down and step away Capn Pete.

The average '99+ GT runs a 14.0 @ 100.

 

hes most likely talking about 94-98 gt's (particularly 96-98 with the 4.6). not the newer ones (late 98-present) i was gonna say the same thing as the captain btw

 

That's true for every car though. A fast 99+ GT might be a close race with a slow Ls-1 z. In fact, there's a vid with a stock Bullitt GT taking down an Ls-1 in the 1/4 mile (killed him on the launch) Get the drift? Drivers aren't the only measure of how fast a car is. In other words, you beat the driver, not the car.

But...times have changed. What was impressive only half a decade ago is docile by todays standards. The bar has been raised once again.

Will the 4.0 be retired as well? I'm hearing that the base 2006 will have a 3.5L Dohc, but the 4.0L at 230-250hp sounds like a cheaper/tq'er alternative.

 

Any way you look at it....future base model Camaro/Mustangs, with manual trans, will probably have the potential to break into the 14's....maybe into mid 14's.

Sobering when you consider that these are 3rd gen L98/LB9 G92 and 5.0 Mustang levels of performance.

 

I'm not smoking a crack pipe. In my experience being to the track (or looking at time slips from a '99 GT) I've only seen GT's running mid 14's on average, and low 14's in some cases (unless, obviously, work has been done to get them down to mid 13's). A kid with a 2001 GT was running 14.1 the night I was running 13.4. Saying that "the average GT runs 14.0 @ 100" is bull. It's like saying that the "average" LS1 runs low 13's or high 12's just because some LS1's run low 13's or high 12's. The AVERAGE incorporates all.

SO, on that point, sure a newer GT can beat an LS1 if A) the driver sucks or B) the car is a slug, but by the same token, a high 14 second GT could probably get scared by a fast V6 Camaro nipping on its heels!