teal98

The best article was in (I think) 5.0 Mustang. The latest Ford PI engines have been designed to get most of the benefit that DI would give.

The proof is in the pudding. Their formerly 273hp 3.7 now makes 305, while improving fuel efficiency.

falchulk

A big advantage of DI is that you can crank up the compression ratio without fear of knocking. Ford was somehow able to crank the compression of the 5.0 without it. Its actually pretty impressive.

krj-1168

I believe that's the 263hp 3.5L V6 in the new Taurus. Which would equate to about to roughly 75.1 hp per Liter. So the 3.7L version should be about 278hp.

However the 3.7L V6 in the 2011 Mustang is 305hp - which equals about 82.4 hp per liter.

So there's a definite boost of nearly 10% in Hp.

teal98

They had a 3.7 available too. Not in the Taurus, but in some Lincolns, Mazdas, etc.
It was/is around 273hp.

krj-1168

Well - Then that would mean the new Mustang V6 is about a 11-12% boost in power.

Which definitely sounds like they added some kind of Direct Injection or VVT.

teal98

They still have PI, but went from single VVT to dual VVT, plus a number of other useful changes to optimize airflow and valve timing. Apparently, they can switch in and out of Atkinson cycle with valve timing too.

Z284ever

What the 3.6 lacks, IMO, is a lusty soul. Or at least a version of it which offers one. I mean, it's a good prime mover, it just doesn't give you goosebumps.

The other day, I had one of my boys in my car and was quickly accelerating away from a traffic light. He asked, "Dad, why do you only rev up to 4000 RPM in the CTS, but used rev your SVT Contour to 7000?" I answered, "because it wanted me to" . That motor (the SVT) had a lusty soul. It loved to rev, and it was glorious. It beckoned you!

I saw alittle bit of that in the personality of the 3.0L, motivating the SRX I recently had for afew days. But it sure would be nice if GM would develop a real enthusiast version of it's V6 - in whichever bore/stroke ratio they deem appropriate.

jg95z28

RE: Ford. Yes, I was talking about fuel economy. Sorry for the confusion.

krj-1168

As for the future of the 3.6L DOHC V6, with Direct injection - I tend to believe it has a great future potential (2012 & beyond).

I believe the technology will also make it's way into the "Next-Gen" Ecotecs(DOHC I4) which hopeful will make more power, yet better fuel economy.

And I would be surprised if the new DOHC V6s, with Direct Injection would range between 2.8-4.0L - with more hp, and even better fuel economy. Note - I also think that GM is going to need at least 3 different V6s - a small displacement (less than 3.0), a mid-level between 3.0-3.5L, and a large displacement between 3.5-4.0L.

Also I think GM should go with a small displacement DOHC V8 line(based off the 3.6 V6 line) - which help with the next gen Corvette, Camaro, & mid-size truck lines.

teal98

If they do that, hopefully it will be a 90 degree V8 and not a 60 like the V6. That would come out to 4.8 liters if they add two cylinders and keep the same bore/stroke.

JakeRobb

The 3.6L in my wife's Aura seems to like the revs just fine.

Z284ever

Sure it revs just fine.

The question is, does it give you goosebumps at 6000 RPM or is it just 2000 RPM noiser than it was at 4000.

R377

I'll always remember Patrick Bedard's review of the original Quad4. He described it as an engine that seemed to get bigger the more you revved it, always pushing you to go higher, promising you that the next 500 rpm are going to be even more fun than the last 500. Those are the engines that are fun to drive.

I'll agree with you about the 3.6. Although my CTS had the slushbox, my impressions are pretty much the same as yours. All revving it seemed to do was make it a bit coarser, like it was straining, like it would really rather not go there. I suppose one of the benefits of a broad torque curve is that you don't have to go there as often, but when you do, it'd be nice to enjoy it more.