By on May 23, 2008

duratec35.jpgFor all of eternity, or at least modern eternity (since the birth of 8-Bit Nintendo), Ford has sold various iterations of the Duratec V6 engine. For the past umpteen years, the company used a 3.0-liter engine making about 200 horsepower. Using premium go-juice and variable valve timing, the six-pot produced in the realm of 227 horses in the Jag X-Type or 220 in the Mazda6 (the latter on 87 octane). This engine was supposed to be retired with the introduction of Ford's excellent new Duratec 35 engine. That mill currently motivates the new Ford Edge. In bored-out form– to 3.7 liters– it provides power for the Mazda CX-9 and upcoming Lincoln MKS. So far, so good. Old engine (Duratec 30) out, new engine (Duratec 35/37) in. But Ford has announced a major overhaul of the older 3.0-liter engine for duty in the coming years. The new 3.0-liter mill will now make some 240 horsepower in the 2009 Ford Escape (previously, it was rated at 200 ponies). Now the 35 is a truly modern engine, can accept direct injection and turbocharging. But even in naturally aspirated form, it makes 250+ horses. So it really begs the question: why is the 3.0-liter engine still on the table? And if I can beg a little more even, why isn't the 3.5/3.7 liter V6 available in the Mustang instead of the crotchety old 4.0 liter V6? Oh, you forgot that one, didn't you? One more: wasn't CEO Alan Mulally all about eliminating production complexity? I'm sure there are good reasons why this hasn't happened here (and I love to hear 'em), but the Duratec 35 is all you need from this point onward. Let economies of scale bring the costs of the 35 down, and dump the old 3.0 and 4.0-liter engines. KISS, baby.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

58 Comments on “What’s Up With Ford’s V6 Engines?...”


  • avatar
    timd38

    Product differentiation? Bigger motor in the more expensive cars? Next year they have have a parts reduction by killing to 3.0?

    Who know what they are are thinking. These are the same guys that 7 of the top 10 selling cars in the 90′s and let them age so bad that no one wanted to buy them any more.

    I had 4 Fords in my drive way during the 90′s, Now only my Lincoln LS is left because the resale is so bad I can’t afford to get rid of it. Nice car, just 6 years old and I want a new car. My 2008 Acura on the other hand, has resale value….

  • avatar
    Jeff in Canada

    That 4.0L, I could never figure that one out. Why did the Fusion have a 3.0L with more HP than the Mustang! I know, the torque numbers are better in the 4.0L, but does that matter to any buyer of the V6 flavour of ‘Stang? They probably went with the V6 version for ‘fuel economy’ (LOL!) or a lower msrp, not performance.

    I do hope they offer than Eco-boost V6 in it in the future.
    Here’s a great plan: Base Mustang = 3.5L V6, Mustang GT = Eco-boost V6, Bullitt Edition = V8

  • avatar
    bluecon

    Ford has a surplus of V8 production capabilities and with gas going through the stratosphere needs smaller engines. This is just a response to the new market conditions where people want a 3.0l V6 instead of a V8. They use the old clunker of a German 4.0l since it is(was pre Euro explosion) a very inexpensive engine to manufacture.

  • avatar
    NickR

    I didn’t realize until recently that the 4.0L in the Mustang is a descendant of the Cologne V6. I had one of those things in my 74 Capri. Good engine for the time, and realize engines ‘evolve’…but c’mon! If they reach any further back into a history we’ll be driving cars with 289s!

  • avatar
    Mj0lnir

    Occam’s razor.

    They can’t afford to build capacity on the 3.5 fast enough, and they can’t afford to pay workers to NOT build 3.0 motors.

    They’ll build 3.5 capacity as they can, and eventually they’ll have enough to quit making the 3.0.

    As far as the 4.0/3.0 in the Mustang debate, torque is very important to a vehicle with delusions of being a muscle car.

    If you want V6 pricing and “economy”, but you still want to be able to burn rubber, the 4.0 is a slightly better choice than the Duratec 3.0.

  • avatar
    umterp85

    @ Jeff In Canada: I owned an ’89 Mustang LX 5.0 manual. My 2005 V6 4.0 is faster.

    In fact Car and Driver clocks the manual somewhere in the 6.4 to 60 range (210 horses and 235lb torque geared at the low end can move pretty well). I will grant you that it is not the most refined engine…but it does move the car pretty quickly.

    I bought the 4.0 simply because I use my Mustang as a daily driver and live in a winter climate where a V8 to rear wheels can be a real challenge…even with snows.

    Also, I’ve managed to cheaply upgrade (through EBAY) most of the differential parts vs the GT including rubber, brakes, and suspension…so the absolute difference vs. the GT has been minimized to about 1.3 seconds 0-60. As a bonus—I do manage about 23mpg combined city/highway….highway I get about 28 on regular gas….certainly did not think about this as a purchase criterion in 2005—but it does not hurt now.

    Net—the 4.0 Mustang (particularly in manual form) can be a fun ride—and certainly bears little comparison to the crappy V6′s that propelled the Mustang in the 90′s.

  • avatar
    virages

    I don’t understand, perhaps just hp numbers aren’t the sole defining numbers on the equation. What is the efficiency of the 3.0l Engine compared to the 3.5 and 3.7 versions? With gas going up as it is, this may be an important factor. What is the cost to build each version?

    Those are questions that have probably been asked by Ford Engineering… and probably lots of others that I could not fathom. The old 4.0 on the other hand, yeah get rid of it!

  • avatar
    trk2

    The answer is much simpler then you guys are assuming. The 3.0L and 3.5L are transverse mounted engines. The 4.0L is for rwd vehicles. The mustang is rwd.

  • avatar
    Robert Schwartz

    My Mercury Mistakes had 2.5L versions of the mill. I kind of liked them.

  • avatar
    radimus

    They may also have found that the 3.0 fits the Fusion/Milano better than the 3.5 or 3.7.

  • avatar
    bluecon

    “The answer is much simpler then you guys are assuming. The 3.0L and 3.5L are transverse mounted engines. The 4.0L is for rwd vehicles. The mustang is rwd.”

    That has nothing to do with it.
    You can mount the engine either way.

    It is all about production capacity. they need V6′s and new tooling takes years so they are using what they have.

    And they are also still making the old pushrod 3.0l Vulcan for the Ranger. Anyways as far as I know.

  • avatar

    What about the 3.0L Vulcan with pushrods they use in Rangers? That e85 swilling, antediluvian dog still roams the new car lots.

  • avatar
    joebar32

    You also need to consider where the engines are being built. Contracts at the plants often specify how many engines and which engines are built there. Switching production isn’t always that easy.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    What about the 3.0L Vulcan with pushrods they use in Rangers? That e85 swilling, antediluvian dog still roams the new car lots…

    That antediluvian dog can also go 300,000 miles without a rebuild, too. It is a legend in durability, much like the old 225 slant six. But, yeah, it’s time to go…never want to be the last at a party.

  • avatar

    bluecon : That has nothing to do with it.
    You can mount the engine either way.
    ————————————
    Nope. FWD blocks usually require a smaller bellhousing casting for the smaller transaxle. See the 3.8L and 4.6L engines for proof, both were put in FWD cars as an afterthought and needed a new block to make it work. The same problem for the Duratec, its a FWD block casted to accept a tiny transaxle.

    Not that I’m trying to justify the situation, because I think the Duratec deserves a RWD casting to accept a T-5 transmission.

  • avatar
    trk2

    That has nothing to do with it.
    You can mount the engine either way.

    You are mistaken. All the Duratec V6′s currently produced are designed to have an engine mount inline with the front of the engine. You can clearly see this mount on the passenger side of any Ford Duratec V6. To mount a Duratec longitudinally would require either adapting the frame of the vehicle to provide support for that mount, or casting a different block.

  • avatar

    Yeah, that mount-thingie too. :)

  • avatar
    Justin Berkowitz

    Re: FWD/RWD and the Duratec 35.

    I realize you guys are right, but 2 things.

    First, if GM and Nissan can engineer 2 versions of the approximately same engine (3.6 liter for GM and 3.5 liter for Nissan) to do RWD and FWD duty, then I think Ford should do it.

    Second, I realize the Mustang is only one car, and thus only one RWD application for the 3.5, which would require a lot of expensive [re]engineering. That’s an issue, to be sure.

  • avatar

    They use the old clunker of a German 4.0l since it is(was pre Euro explosion) a very inexpensive engine to manufacture.

    This is the bean-counter mentality that is responsible for the 2.8′s smaller market share and eventualy chapter 11.

    Current technology needs to be part of your product or customers go away. Being retro is one thing when we’re talking style and sheetmetal. It’s a whole different ballgame when we start talking about thirty year old engines. Ridiculous.

    We’re supposed to believe that Detroit has some of the best engineers in the world….but the business model doesn’t support putting the technology that they develop into the product? (shaking my head in disbelief…)

  • avatar
    carguy

    I’d say the 4.0 clunker is kept around also for use in body on frame vehicles for its low end torque and because it’s cheap to build.

    The revamp of the 3.0 is a bit of a mystery that can only be explained by not being able to build enough 3.5/3.7 units and not wanting to idle the the factory where they build the 3.0.

  • avatar
    trk2

    Second, I realize the Mustang is only one car, and thus only one RWD application for the 3.5, which would require a lot of expensive [re]engineering. That’s an issue, to be sure.

    I think Ford should do it, it’s just I’m pointing out that the reason they haven’t is technical and not because Ford is being stupid. The trend is shifting to rear wheel drive cars and I think Ford should have a modern V6 for that market (even if they don’t have a modern rwd car).

    Rather then investing in the Duratec 3.0L which is too close in performance to the 3.5L, I think Ford would be better suited to reintroduce a modernized Duratec 2.5L.

  • avatar
    Stingray

    Yes they’re right. In fact the VQ35 is used in many Nissan models: FWD Altima, Quest, Maxima and the combined volumes of this three must be over 500K sales.
    They also installed it in the X-Terra, Z, G35, so they moved cars.

    If Ford cannot justify with production volume the costs of: 1) reengineer the block for RWD, 2) testing, 3) tooling required; then it’s easy to see why it’s FWD only.

    Keeping the Duratec 3.0 is also logical if it’s assembled in the same line as the 3.5/3.7. And if it’s not, it’s still logical, minimun retooling and still produces money. It’s after all a PROVEN motor.

    You should not see only the HP figures. I bet the 3.5/3.7 have bigger torque than the 3.0.

  • avatar
    doctorv8

    Sajeev wrote:

    See the 3.8L and 4.6L engines for proof, both were put in FWD cars as an afterthought

    which is not entirely true. The ancient 3.8L, yes, but the 4.6L mod motor was designed for transverse mounting from the get go. That’s the reason for its miniscule 3.5″ bore and long stroke…max cubes with minimum width…and that decision has limited Ford V8 power since the early 90s. If the Modular V8 had shared the previous Windsor motor’s 4.0″ bore…well, the LS1 wouldn’t have been king of the hill from 1997-2002.

    Lucky for us enthusiasts, Ford seems to have greenlighted the upcoming big bore Hurricane V8 in the nick of time…we all know such a program would never see the light of day in this era of stricter CAFE regs and $133/barrel oil.

  • avatar

    The 4.0 is much cheaper to manufacture. And, let’s face it, an unrefined engine isn’t out of character for the Mustang.

    I’ve read that the 3.5 simply won’t fit in the Escape. Don’t know if this is true. It will fit in the Fusion, as it is offered in the MKZ. Of course, this serves to differentiate the Lincoln.

  • avatar

    There hasn’t been much mention of fuel economy as a reason, so I feel silly doing so, but here we go: Maybe they’re holding onto the 3.0 because they think they can squeeze some MPG out of it that they can’t find as easily in a 3.5/3.7 liter motor. I know I like the killer combo of the quiet smoothness and fuel economy (33 mpg @ 75 mph with the wind at my back) from the 3.1 liter V6 in my ’01 Lumina. Maybe a little less displacement will help them tune for economy.

  • avatar
    John Horner

    Ford also has a 3.0/3.2 liter straight-6 engine family, the Volvo designed one which is still used in Volvos and found it’s way into Land Rovers. This is the latest generation of Volvo’s modular engine family, but is built in a Ford England factory as the Ford SI6 and was completely redesigned for the 2006 model year. That seems like it would have been an ideal time to rationalize the engine line up and use the Duratec DOHC V6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_SI6_engine

    From Volvo’s point of view back in the pre-Ford early 1990s these so called white block engines made sense as 4, 5 and 6 cylinder versions of the same design were created, both SOHC and DOHC versions of some configurations have been built. A whole family of engines sharing as many components as possible, but spanning the range from simple cheap SOHC 4 cylinders to high output turbocharged DOHC sixes was developed and manufactured. Now that was a highly rational engine portfolio.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_Modular_engine

    Ford has a long history of strange engine overlaps. For years the 351 Cleveland and 351 Windsor were made and sold side by side.

  • avatar

    doctorv8 : The ancient 3.8L, yes, but the 4.6L mod motor was designed for transverse mounting from the get go.

    But they had to make a specific FWD casting of the 4.6L for the limited production Lincoln Continental.

    Everyone wants to see a 3.7L V6 in the Mustang, and retooling the block isn’t an unprecedented act. Just goes to show how far Ford went back then, and how little they’ll do now for the high volume Mustang.

  • avatar
    bluecon

    “Nope. FWD blocks usually require a smaller bellhousing casting for the smaller transaxle. See the 3.8L and 4.6L engines for proof, both were put in FWD cars as an afterthought and needed a new block to make it work. The same problem for the Duratec, its a FWD block casted to accept a tiny transaxle.

    Not that I’m trying to justify the situation, because I think the Duratec deserves a RWD casting to accept a T-5 transmission.”

    It is fairly easy to slightly modify the casting and add the minor amount of machining to make the engine rear wheel drive if required. It doesn’t require a new block only a slightly modified block. I would expect the next generation of the Mustang will have the 3.5l (or variation) as the V6.

    The 4.0l is still built in Germany and must be quite a bit pricier with the rise in the Euro. And it is true that the 4.6l was originally designed for both front and rear wheel drive.

  • avatar
    bluecon

    The 4.0 is much cheaper to manufacture. And, let’s face it, an unrefined engine isn’t out of character for the Mustang.

    And what gives better mileage the 4.6l or the 4.0l?
    I would bet on the V8.

  • avatar

    bluecon: It is fairly easy to slightly modify the casting and add the minor amount of machining to make the engine rear wheel drive if required. It doesn’t require a new block only a slightly modified block. I would expect the next generation of the Mustang will have the 3.5l (or variation) as the V6.

    Agreed. And Ford better have a Duratec in the next-gen Mustang come 2009. (or 2010)

  • avatar
    prndlol

    The article is humorous. Nested neatly between headlines about the price of oil, and it questions why a smaller V6 is still around.

    Let’s all lose some fat around our guts, some fat off our cars, and just maybe a 3 litre V6 will be plently of power along with long-lost efficiency, just like it was in the mid-nineties.

  • avatar
    alexdykes

    Here’s my take: Ditch the Vulcan 3.0 and the Mustang’s ancient 4.0. Keep the Duratec 3.0L because they need that in Europe, BUT, can all variants except the MZI variant with variable valve timing, drop direct injection into it and call it done. Keep the 3.5 for mid range vehicles and pop that 3.7 into the Mustang. Have turbo versions of all three, and for heaven’s sake make sure they share some common parts.

  • avatar

    The Mustang is getting Ford’s new V6 engine when it’s refreshed for 2010. Along with two new V8 engines, styling tweaks, and a new interior.

  • avatar
    Jordan Tenenbaum

    I don’t know, I kind of find it comforting to know that Fr0d is investing money to revamp it’s small displacement V6.
    I’m just waiting for a manufacturer to introduce the first modern 5.0 V6 since the 1960′s.

  • avatar
    Justin Berkowitz

    @prndlol:

    You are right. And oddly enough, I am Mr. Small Engine. My daily driver has 2 liters of displacement, and I’m planning on going down to something with an even smaller engine for my next vehicle.

    BUT…

    The 2006 Ford Five Hudred with 3.0 liter V6, 6-speed auto had a new EPA rating of 19/26 mpg.

    The 2008 Ford Taurus with 3.5 liter V6, 6-speed auto has a new EPA rating of 18/28 mpg.

    The 250 hp 3.5 liter V6 is likely to be more fuel efficient than the 240 hp 3.0 liter if it doesn’t have to rev as much. Being a newer design, the 3.5 can also benefit from direct injection down the road, adding efficiency. It can also accept turbocharging, which means it is a viable V8 alternative. And you can bet turbo 3.5 will get better mileage than a V8.

  • avatar
    galaxygreymx5

    Ah, Ford’s 2.5L Duratec (same family as the 3.0) was my very first experience with a modern overhead-cam V6 as a lad. It was in a rental Contour and I was just blown away by how silken and powerful it was, all the way through the rev range, making beautiful mechanical music along the way.

    Of course shortly thereafter I drove a Honda V6 which made the Duratec feel like a can full of gravel in a paint mixer, but I still have fond memories of the Ford mill.

  • avatar
    prndlol

    @Justin Berkowitz

    Granted, bigger engines (mated to transmissions with more cogs) do sip less fuel than just a few years ago, but i can’t help but dream of what fuel economy numbers would now be for a new 3100lb sedan with 175 HP, instead of the now marketplace-required 240. A Taurus used to come in at about that weight, but now sits at 3700lbs. The supersize affiction has afflicted almost every nameplate over the past 10-15 years, even Camrys and Accords are fat versions of their former selves. We all want bigger interiors, power everything and 18 inch wheels when 15-16 used to be fine.

    I read recently that Ontario’s consumption of oil actually increased during 2007 by 2%, despite the never-ending hike in crude prices. And it’s depressing to think that mainstream sedans used to be quite efficient back when oil cost a steady $15-20 a barrel. All the gains in fuel efficiency have been more than offset by increases in curb weight and more horsepower required to move that additional weight.

    A new 1994 Honda Accord sure would hit the spot about now…

  • avatar
    Paul Niedermeyer

    At least part of the answer has to do with existing tooling. An engine tooling tranfer line is hugely expensive, and if the 3.5 and 3.0 have different bore spacing, or are located in different plants, then it’s very cost effective to keep both line running. Why do you think Chevy kept the same bore spacing on every small-block, including the V6, for over 50 years.

  • avatar

    When I read this I immediately wondered if it was a production capacity issue. If Ford can’t build enough of the new engines to implement it across the board, at least right away, but the old engine isn’t going to meet the next round of emissions standards, this move would make sense.

    They definitely need smaller-displacement engines, but it would be nice to have ones of newer, more efficient design.

  • avatar
    alexdykes

    Paul N. I’m sure that has something to do with it, bu that just causes me to think: A) the unions are really part of the problem, otherwise we could just close one plant, or B) if we need the plant capacity, then it’s time to spend money to save money and get that plant upgraded to make the new 3.5/3.7

  • avatar

    Justin Berkowitz: The 250 hp 3.5 liter V6 is likely to be more fuel efficient than the 240 hp 3.0 liter if it doesn’t have to rev as much. Being a newer design, the 3.5 can also benefit from direct injection down the road, adding efficiency. It can also accept turbocharging, which means it is a viable V8 alternative. And you can bet turbo 3.5 will get better mileage than a V8.

    All of which is true. But the case of a 3.0L v6 (or the 2.5 from the Contour/Mistake) getting those upgrades for more power and economy equate to more bang for the buck. Imagine the economy of the Taurus/Sable if it has .5 less displacement and was a second slower to 60. (i.e. same gearing)

    Funny, this reminded me of my Accord LX review a while back: its only flaw was the extreme V6 option with no middle ground for a small, more rational V6. That middle ground is worth exploiting, and the 3.0 should live for that reason alone.

  • avatar
    guyincognito

    Wow, some great knowledge dropped in this thread. I would also guess its a capacity and plant changeover issue. Still I’d love to see a dyno readout for the 3.5L. My parents have an MKZ, which may just be geared this way, that feels like is has no power down low. My X-type felt more powerful.

  • avatar
    sean362880

    prndlol –

    …but i can’t help but dream of what fuel economy numbers would now be for a new 3100lb sedan with 175 HP.

    That’s essentially the 4-cylinder sedan market right now.

    Mazda6 – 3050 lb / 156 HP
    Camry – 3263 lb / 158 HP
    Accord – 3221 lb / 177 HP
    Malibu – 3400 lb / 169 HP

    And they’re all 28 – 31 MPG highway. Nothing to write home about.

  • avatar
    Jacob

    What’s wrong with having smaller V6 engines? I am really disappointed how the entire industry replaced the small DOHC V6 engines with 2.4-2.5 4-cylinder engines. Ford’s 2.5L V6 Duratec was smoother and achieved more power in 1996 than what Honda’s best 2.4L 4-cylinder can do today. My fathers 1998 Mercury Mystique has a 2.5L Duratec. It was a very smooth engine and produced 170HP. The Ford SVT version pushed that to 200HP. That was more than 10 years ago when the Duratecs did not have variable valve timing and such. Only recently the 4 cylinder engines caught up with these numbers but most of them do not feel as smooth.

    Given the current gas prices, 3.0L Duratec doesn’t seem completely out of place to me. Maybe Ford could shrink the new 3.5L Duratec to such applications.

    It’s kind of disappointing that the V6 mustang still comes with that old 4.0 engine indeed. I am guessing that it is because, the old engine is cheaper to produce, they can’t just close the old engine factory due to labor contracts, etc; the usual Detroit stupidity; people are buying it anyways, and the V6 Mustang still has no good competitors ..

  • avatar
    SupaMan

    The answer is much simpler then you guys are assuming. The 3.0L and 3.5L are transverse mounted engines. The 4.0L is for rwd vehicles. The mustang is rwd.

    The 4.0 V6 was alloted to the Mustang on the basis of being cheap to build. It shouldn’t be all that difficult to make the 3.5 fit longitudinally in the Mustang, especially if Ford plans to fit the engine with EcoBoost in a few years. With the 3.5 taking over the old 3.0′s place in its powertrain lineup (ie. Taurus/Sable, Freestyle, Mazda6[now the 3.7]) the next logical vehicles would be the Fusion (to better compete with the Accords and Camrys out there) and the Mustang (to put it on equal footing with the Challenger and Camaro). It’s all about spreading the engines out so the manufacturing costs come down.

    Besides, if Ford wants a middle engine they can always use an EcoBoost-ed 2.3L four and kick the power up to an Acura RDX-equalling 240hp.

  • avatar
    Justin Berkowitz

    I think my issue with this engine situations is less about
    vBigger displacement > smaller displacement
    than it is about
    Newer Ford V6 > Older Ford V6.

    Sajeev’s point about offering a middle ground engine sits really well with me, too.

    Congrats to all on a great discussion today!

  • avatar
    James2

    Nothing wrong with a smaller V6. I like the Duratec 30 in my Mazda6, though MPG could be a lot better, but I loved the KL-series Mazda 2.5-litre V6 in my late, lamented Probe GT. Above 6000 rpm that engine made a nice sound. So I went there early and often :-)

    My sister’s 2001 Altima’s VQ motor sounds and revs like there’s gravel trapped in the cylinders (not good) while the Duratec 30 seems as quient and refined as the 3.3-litre motor in my folks’ Lexus ES330.

    Ford might be late in getting the Duratec 30 up to 240 bhp (Honda’s been there and beyond for years) but this only shows there’s plenty of life in the motor.

  • avatar
    carguy622

    In regards to the 4.0 liter being specific to RWD and the 3.0 Duratec not being able to be placed in a RWD application; I thought that the 3.0 Duratec was in the RWD Lincoln LS.

    On a side note, I read the book Car a while back, it was about the redesign of the 1996 Taurus, and how ford felt they needed a name for the new DOHC engine, and they lusted over the name Northstar that Cadillac used and felt that Duratec (a combination of Durability and Technology) was crap.

  • avatar
    jerseydevil

    the lack of a good v6 in the mustang is costing ford a sale. i want a mustang, hate the current 6 (even consumer reports called it “agircultural”), will not buy an 8, no matter hos sweet it is (and it IS) cause i dont want to pay for the gas.

  • avatar

    As a guy who owns an FWD car and wants a Mustang: If Ford doesn’t fix the fuel economy on the Mustang, I won’t buy one. I don’t mind the 4.0 liter, but it should at least get the economy of heavier cars. Even the heavy Pontiac G8 gets better fuel economy out of the V6, and it’s got more power.

  • avatar
    tdoyle

    All of this Ford V6 talk and no mention of the 4.2L V6 offered standard on 2wd R/C F150 STX’s and XL until 2007. With the R/C and short bed and 5 speed manual it really does make for a sporty ride. Gone for 08 however.

    I do agree, the 2.5L V6 in my 94 Probe GT was very sweet above 6K… I miss that car.

  • avatar
    skor

    Ford should dump the V6 in the Mustang, and stuff it full of their Australian inline 6. Why should the BMW people have all the fun?

  • avatar
    nino

    I have a 2002 Cougar with the Duratec 2.5 liter V6.

    I know that the Duratec 3.0 liter V6 will physically fit, but that the Duratec 3.5 liter V6 will not.

    So, I’m figuring that the only reason for an upgraded 3.0 liter Duratec is that the other engines won’t physically fit in some engine compartments…….and, allow me an easy upgrade for my Cougar.

  • avatar
    nino

    I’m also curious as to why GM dropped their DOHC 2.8 liter V6 engine that they used to offer on the old CTS?

    I feel that motor is just the thing for a small, rear wheel drive, sports sedan.

    And with a turbo, that motor makes an easy 250HP.

  • avatar
    NickR

    first modern 5.0 V6 since the 1960’s

    Which one was that?

  • avatar
    John Horner

    first modern 5.0 V6 since the 1960’s
    Which one was that?

    The last really big V6 engine I recall is the old GMC V6 truck engine back from the day when GMC and Chevrolet trucks got their own engines. It was built in sizes ranging from 5.0 to 7.8 litres and even spawned a V-12 counterpart.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMC_V6_engine

  • avatar

    carguy622 : In regards to the 4.0 liter being specific to RWD and the 3.0 Duratec not being able to be placed in a RWD application; I thought that the 3.0 Duratec was in the RWD Lincoln LS.

    You are right, it was. Ditto the S-Type Jaguar. Now I am wondering if PAG insisted the RWD Duratec stick to their platform. (and Lincoln got lucky for a while)

  • avatar

    nino : I have a 2002 Cougar with the Duratec 2.5 liter V6. I know that the Duratec 3.0 liter V6 will physically fit, but that the Duratec 3.5 liter V6 will not.

    I just got a ’02 V6 5-speed with a blown motor for FREE. I want to do a 3.0L swap and run low 14s, and its much too nice to be a LeMons car. There is good info on the web, but its hard to figure out what’s the easiest way to get a 3.0 in there.

    Is there a website with Step-By-Step instructions? Email me at my TTAC account if you can help. :)

    Take a 3000lb hatchback and add a 3.0L V6 = awesome blend of power and efficiency.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India