Doing it Wrong: Why Ford Shouldn't Scrap The V6 Mustang #blogpost

As many of you know, it’s now a rumor that Dord will be scrapping the 3.7 “Cyclone” V6 mustang from the lineup, leaving only the inline-4 eco boost and V8 GT. With the announcement of the Ecoboost, it seemed inevitable that the V6 had a replacement on the rise. The car was hyped beyond belief, being the major change for the S550 generation lineup.

The Ecoboost is a good performance car. It has balance, being a practical sports coupe with a peppy turbo four (just get the manual). It also offers the best power and torque numbers for cars south of $30,000, with the 3.7 Mustang V6 just behind it.

Even with all the good this car is, Ford would be missing a great opportunity for an even better platform by scrapping the V6, along with removing a rather desirable engine option for the consumer.

Potential

The V6 motor configuration is an oddball. It’s quite peculiar that people praise a V6 in a Nissan yet boo the prospect of one in a muscle car chassis. It offers a more balanced N/A alternative to the V8. The 3.7 cyclone is very much similar to the 5.0 coyote. Both of them were game changers compared to the older mid 2000’s motors.

The 3.7 is a platform worth modifying, and when stock rests comfortably at the 305 horsepower mark. Fun fact, it makes the same power and torque as the EJ motor found in the 2016 Subaru WRX STI.

Ford V6s

Ford themselves has V6 variants that would be amazing in a mustang application. The 2017 Ford GT is proof that the v6 platform is still worth looking at. Even the ford raptor has a 3.5 liter Ecoboost V6 that makes 450 horsepower. There are a few custom mustangs with the 3.5 liter engine swap, or just the F-150 turbos bolted on.

Why Do We Need The V6?

As you probably know, the mustang and Camaro have a bit of a rivalry going on. Chevrolet raised the bar by slapping corvette motors into all the V8 Camaro models (techniclly starting in 2014 with the LS7 powered Z/28).

Ford has to compete, so the mustang GT will get faster, Become more expensive, and ditch the prospect of manageable power. A 3.5 V6 option with 400 horsepower would be amazing, especially with a new chassis and a sports pack option.

The V6 is also still appealing to consumers. When I was looking at mustangs, my decision fell to choosing the the eco boost or V6. The I4 had more power, easy power gains because of the turbo, and better gas mileage. The v6 had guaranteed reliability, better long term modification potential, and the charm of a good sounding, N/A motor. People shopping for cars like to have options, and people still buy the V6 for multiple reasons.

Doing it right: The Chevrolet Camaro V6

Chevy is killing it right now. Rather than making the four cylinder boot out the V6, they’ve just ade the V6 better. The V6 Camaro can be bought with the 1 Le package, which is the exact same performance pack that comes on the 1 Le Camaro SS. That car blows the Ecoboost Mustang out of the water, and one ups the V6 mustang with 35 horsepower.

Ford needs to keep the V6 in the mustang lineup. It’s a charming motor that still has relevant performance and plenty of potential. If anything, the death of the 3.7 should be to update the motor. A twin-turbo Raptor 3.5 V6 would be a thrill, and up the V6 muscle car category.

Sponsored Posts

Comments

Klockorino

I approve of the V6 being EJ257 spec

12/09/2016 - 14:42 |
0 | 0
Anonymous

Good point: What about the 400hp ecoboost V-6? Why doesn’t Ford realize the potential of twin-turbo V-6’s in the Mustang? I think a 600hp twin-turbo ecoboost V-6 out of the ford GT would make an amazing GT500

12/09/2016 - 15:37 |
1 | 1
Anonymous

Keep the V6 because “rental car”

12/09/2016 - 16:07 |
2 | 0
Greg Richard

I drive the 3.7 as my daily and all I can say is that it’s a fantastic engine and I’m really sad to see it go. While I can appreciate the new ecoboost, I don’t think I would have one over the v6. It’s reliable and more than powerful enough to have fun and get you in trouble (speaking from experince here). I’m not sure how many will agree with me here, but the 3.7 is also one of the best sounding v6s I’ve ever heard. It revs to almost 7 grand and it just screams at those high revs. I don’t know, maybe I give it more credit than it deserves because it’s my engine, but you cant deny it’s a good one.

12/09/2016 - 19:12 |
0 | 0
Anonymous

Seriously if you want a muscle car get the v8 or dont get it

12/10/2016 - 02:24 |
1 | 1
Driven to Drive 1

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

If you want an E90 series BMW get the M3 or don’t get it…

12/10/2016 - 03:26 |
0 | 1
Ashley Black

America doesn’t have P plate rules so I don’t even know why a non-V8 version ever existed haha
Like… If you can get a V8, why wouldn’t you?

12/10/2016 - 02:37 |
0 | 1

insurance and money lol… For example, I got a v6 2016 mustang last year. I learned stick in this car, and it’s been fun! I lean more on the handling side of performance, but I would get very bored with a car like a BRZ/gt86. The v6 fits a niche for a good handling car that makes decent power.

12/10/2016 - 03:25 |
0 | 1
Anonymous

Its a muscle car it sould have a v8

12/10/2016 - 03:28 |
0 | 0
Anonymous

Good points, well said

12/10/2016 - 03:40 |
1 | 0
Anonymous

The guys at more power tuning have managed to get an ecoboost v6 into a mustang and with not much more thana tune it puts down very respectable power. Im sure ford wont do it because it would nulify the gt. Imagine trying to sell a gt when you could buy an ecoboost v6 and spend 500 on a tuner and tune and get the same power, more tq, better mileage, and better balance, minus the v8 sound, for $5k-$10k less depending on options.

12/10/2016 - 15:45 |
0 | 0
LivZ

It’s not the “exact same performance pack that comes on the 1 LE Camaro SS”. The SS get’s 6 piston, 14.6” front brakes, the V6 gets 4 piston 12” brakes, the V6 gets a mechanical diff, the SS gets an electronically controlled mechanical diff, the V6 gets a 3.7 dif ratio, the SS gets 3.9. Then there’s also the V6 getting narrower tires on less aggressive compound…

12/10/2016 - 23:26 |
0 | 0