What do you think about the new 2011 V6 Mustang?

That's a tough call. I personally would get a stripped stick 2011 Gt over a loaded V6, but I am 35, own my own house and have dirt cheap insurance because of that. I have owned several mustangs, and have been waiting for the return of the 5.0 for a while. Now if you had to put more miles on it, as a daily driver, the v6 really has a lot going for it, especially with the handling package for 2k over the base v6. It handles great as is, but that handling package gives a lot of looks and handling for that little extra. I mean, it handles as good as a new M3 BMW.

norg, there has been no riot over this thread. The 2011 mustangs are really worth talking about due to the huge changes that ford has made to them.

I am sure if you went to a fanboy site you would see some real crazy posts about these cars.

 

Honestly, I was kinda unaware. I didnt know of the big time changes being made. That seems like a pretty powerful v6 to have such good mileage. Didnt mean to sound ignorant or snobbish. My apologies.

 

I didn't take it that way.

The base mustang to have over 300 hp 6 speeds in stick or auto, that kind of mpg, handling, and the new GT to have the hp to run with the SS camaro (actually past due to weight) and easily out handle the camaro as well is a huge deal.

Actually the 31 mpg is the first for ANY production car to get that has over 300 hp. That is a huge deal too, perhaps even bigger than all the other nice things about the 2011 mustangs. Keep in mind these are the newly revised EPA figures as of a couple years ago. I wouldn't doubt some owners of v6 stangs to get close to 40 mpg on thew freeway.

 

Dealers have them on the lots now go drive one, dealer I frequent has them starting at 22,500 off the lot for a v6 premium and around 31 for a gt premium they only have 1 gt though

 

I don't find it such a big deal to be honest. My 300+ V6 gets about 28 in real world highway... Yes 31 is more than 28 but it's not like it's a huge leap.

I mean, it is awesome, I just don't see it as some big break through.

(disclaimer, that's keeping it under 80mph on the interstate)

 

Technically the feat is over 300 hp and to reach 30 mpg freeway. The fact that no car manufacturer has been able to do that until the 2011 mustang makes it a big deal.

Your car, while coming close to the 30 mpg and 300 hp echelon, was quite a bit more money new than the $23k v6 automatic mustang is. The IS350 starts at like 37.6k, so it's over 60% more expensive than a new v6 mustang. Also, the revised (aka lower) EPA mileage numbers came out in 2008, so that makes the 28 hwy number you are stating a bit different than 28 mpg in 2010 (or 2008) standards. fwiw, for 2008 and on Lexus rated the IS350 at 18/25 mpg due to the new EPA test numbers.

Performance stats for the cars we are talking about... from motor trend
2011 3.7 v6 manual... 0-60 5.1 seconds 1/4 mile 13.7 @102 mph
2010 mustang GT manual 0-60 4.9 seconds 1/4 mile 13.5 @104.2
2011 Mustang GT manual 0-60 4.3 seconds 1/4 mile 12.8 @ 110.8 mph
new camaro SS manual 0-60 4.5 seconds 1/4 mile 12.9 @ 110.7
new challenger SRT8 0-60 4.6 seconds 1/4 mile 13.1 @ 108.4
2010 shelby GT500 0-60 4.1 seconds 1/4mile 12.4 @116.0

per lexus...2006 IS 350 0-60 5.3 seconds and quarter mile in 14.2
I have seen some numbers for IS 350s that are about .2 seconds better to 60 and around the same 1/4 mile as the 2011 v6 mustang but....
The lexus has 4.08 rear end ratio, a huge difference from the 2.73 or the optional 3.31 rear end ratio of the v6 mustang. Throw 4.11s (the closest you will find to 4.08s in the lexus) and the 2011 v6 stang will be a lot quicker than it was as tested with the 3.31's in it.

The other stats that are amazing on the 2011 v6 mustang are these numbers.

lateral acceleration of .96 g and 60-0 in 104 feet.

The miata can do only .91 g and 60-0 in 120 feet for braking.
Even more impressive is that the 2010 BMW M3 can only do .94 g and 105 feet for 60-0

The 2011 Gt mustang matches the M3 number to number for handling, and is a good half second quicker than the mighty M3 for 0-60. Needless to mention the that you can buy 2 2011 mustang GTs for the price of one 2010 M3.

The best runs for the challenger SRT8 was .87g and .90g for the SS camaro.



Yeah, I am a gearhead.

 

I really don't think the price of the car is relevant whatsoever. mpg is mpg regardless of the price tag. I'd say that's a red herring argument.

I'm not at all arguing what gets better bang for the buck gas mileage wise... (lexus is easily not about "value") only that my 300+ 6 was/is getting 28 highway 4 years ago. The fact that some manufacturer is doing 3mpg better 4 years later... W00T

Again, not saying mustang mileage is not completely awesome, it is. I just think you're making too big a deal out of it. This should've been done already is my point.

Also, and to be perfectly clear, I'm not talking about EPA standards. 28 mpg is *my* calculation on my own fuel use between Houston and Dallas. Keeping it around 75 mph. (my notebook shows a range of 26.4 - 28.6mpg on my interstate trips).

Peredhil is getting 28mpg on a 4 year old 300+ car and is therefore not overly impressed with a new car getting 31.



I won't pretend like I know a whole lot about rear end ratios. From your post, I get the jibe that a higher number is more expensive. I'll take for granted your numbers are correct (no reason to doubt you). But you know, I'm comparing stock to stock. It's not my fault mustangs have a low rear end ratio number... it is what it is - I don't think pointing out the stang has a lesser ratio than the IS really proves anything other than what a bunch of expensive mods on the stock stang can do...

I mean come on, my car is not a sports car, has 4 doors, is faster than most years of stang (V8 included) until now, and gets better mileage than mustangs until now...

I just can't find it overly impressive that a new model is finally out performing a 4 year old car...

Again, new mustang is awesome, very awesome. I just find it slightly funny folks are head over heels about stuff that really should have already been done.

It is inexcusable, IMO, my 4door V6 could wipe up some of these GT years. I see the awesome mustang, but where you say this is insanely awesome, I say 'about time'.

 

P, I guess that you really need to compare apples to apples. Your car is a 4 door, so it is hard to compare these like for like. Now when you say that your 4 door is faster (actually quicker because faster is an indication of top speed) than the car in question, then the number of doors is irrelevant.

If the new stang had the same higher gear ratio as the IS, then it wouldn't get 31 mpg. Likewise, your car with 3.31 gear ratio would make it get better mpg than it is now.

See the higher the rear end gear ratio (final) the quicker the car will be to its top speed. It's top speed will more than likely be lower unless there is a super tall OD gear, or more gears in the tranny. That is why there are 7 and 8 speed trannies out there. See you get power and mileage that way. So on a car, there are usually tradeoffs to make when determining the final drive ratio. Usually the ratio is determined for better mpg, but on certain cars, a little less mpg is worth a little more quickness, at the expense of absolute top end speed. Since 99% of the car owners in america could care less if a car went 130 mph, or 140 mph, then the higher numerical ratio will be chosen, provided it does not kill mileage.

A taller (higher numerical) gear ratio is not more expensive to make. The expense of mpg is the issue usually.

Your 28 mpg is what you see. I know that since the new EPA tests have come out, than people can get higher than the epa ratings easily. I have no doubt new mustang owners will see 35 mpg readily.

The manufacturer is advertising 6 mpg more than what the 3.5 IS is getting according to it's manufacturer. You have to compare apples to apples.

I'm surprised that 3-4 years ago that no manufacturer was able to claim a 300+ hp and 30+ mpg vehicle because until the EPA stepped in and made the manufacturers use a unified test, there were almost no real guidelines to support the manufacturer's claims. Now they are accountable and the EPA test is standardized with no fudge factor. Manufacturer's could easily inflate the old EPA numbers to reflect much higher than they will get now with the new test. That is why the 08+ IS350 gets 25 mpg while the 07 and older IS350 claimed to get 28 on the highway.

Only a few years ago the only cars to get 35 mpg were civics and other similar 4 cylinder cars.

My 87 5.0 LX hatchback mustang had 3.73 gears in it, and even with a 4 speed automatic, it got like 25-26 mpg freeway. The motor was mostly stock but had a good number of bolt ons. That car did around 140-150 mph even with the higher gears in back. It easily outperformed a then new corvette grand sport in a drag race. That GS was a 40+ k car and my car was worth 6k. That's bang for your buck.

Now my 92 convertible LX 5.0 got nearly 30 mpg freeway with 2.73 gears and the same 4 speed auto, but it was pretty much stock.


Faster and quicker are again 2 different things, and then you have to address that there are a lot of variables in impromptu drags. You could be just a much better driver than the people you have gone against. Perhaps they didn't know how to really drive a stick car?

One thing about a mustang is that they were always set up to have a lot more potential than how they are delivered from the factory. They are one of the most easily upgraded cars, and the upgrades can make them into a car that can run down supercars on the track. These cars are made to be not expensive, and can be made into whatever you like pretty much performance wise. The IS, is a great car, but it has little if any aftermarket in comparison to a mustang. They are also marketed to a completely different buyer than a mustang. Mustangs have always been about low cost, fun to drive and to be able to sell a lot of them. Now the new mustangs are pretty much the holy grail of that, with the new base mustang not just being a car that looks fast, but one that actually is, and has some pretty amazing other stats to it.

 

thanks for the info.

I agree this is not apples to apples. And I also agree folks may end up getting better than 31 with the stang (I'd hope so actually).

I'm curious now (philosophically) what kind of mileage I'd get if it were apples to apples on the rear end... I'm kind of thinking these 2 engines are going to burn the same amount of fuel all else being equal (the manual does require the 91 octane fuel in my car, not sure on the stang).

I've read my car is limited at 145. I do not know, I have taken it to 143 personally. I would be interested in knowing its actual top (without the limiter) as well as its theoretical top (which I believe is limited by aerodynamics(?)).

I'm not dissing the stang on any point, I'm just saying the car is more 'bout time' than it is some freakish advancement in technology. It is a new gold standard, I quickly agree. Particularly for the market it represents.

It's like when I tell my kid to pick up her shoes a zillion times and 3 days later she does it and thinks it's some great big deal... Again, 'bout time' is all I'm thinking.


On a related note, the IS had pretty much nothing on the aftermarket until IS-F came out. Now there are things available but the market and availability is minimal - particularly compared against the rice fueled cars and the mustangs, etc. I suppose I could go get a carbon hood if I wanted... just doesn't seem worth it (I suppose the F would be closer to the GT apple than the 350)

Before I had this car, I had a 98 civic. Best I could milk out of that was also 28mpg, however, I could mix in some city with it and still meet that number . It averaged closer to 24 or 25, the IS averages closer to 22 (but I do a lot of acceleration).

My current daily driver gets about 11mph city and about 20-25 highway depending on how long the highway is (2006 Kia Sedona). It also has a 3.5 engine but is heavy as sin.


(btw, you are correct on diff of quick and fast, I use them (incorrectly) interchangeable, but I don't mean them interchangeable. That's my mistake that I'm sure I'll make again and again ). I meant quicker in all instances.


One thing I find funny... what I see is what the 2006 paper work suggested (28 highway). IMO, without having the newer models experience, I'd say the revised EPA standards are bogus. But based on everything else I know, I'm more inclined to think this is a one off experience ;D

I suppose "potential" has its place and its market... but potential ain't nothin by itself. I was always careful to indicate I'm talking stock.

 

It's all good, P.

fwiw the '11 v6 stang only states 87 octane is needed. The mustang should get a bit better mpg than your IS, but it should as it has a few years of newer technology in the motor. Any 05+ GT will go 0-60 in the very low 5 second range. Most will do it in around 4.9-5.2 seconds bone stock. That's pretty good for a car that could be bought pretty well loaded for 25k (sticker) in 05. Having bought toyota products, I know that unless it is the end of the year, Yota (lexus) never takes any off of sticker while you can walk in to a ford dealer with a good amount under msrp and drive that car home.

The camaro and the challenger are the only other car in the mustang's competition, and both of those cars have pushrod old tech V8's. I don't include the hyundai genesis coupe because the top motor is about equal to the mustang and camaro v6 performance wise and has no v8 option.
The only thing old tech on the new mustang is the live (solid) rear axle. That is a nostalgic thing but ford has made it handle extremely well (look at the handling data in a post of mine up a few). It appears that a new Independant rear suspension mustang will be here in 2014, and a 4 door rear drive variant will come as well, so maybe we can compare the IS350 to the v6 4 door new chassis in 2014 0r 2015.



The new revised EPA numbers on any car are real numbers. The IS350 changed almost nothing mechanically from the 06 to the current year. The thing that changed is the way the epa tests are conducted. Most people can get better than the epa numbers claim. I mean on a week long trip, the rental ford edge AWD that my parents had claimed to be 23 mpg highway, but they averaged 28-29 mpg over a 1000 mile trip mostly hwy based but a bit of city driving as well. Then again, the new chevy equinox (and GMC terrain) 4 cylinder claims 32 mpg hwy, but nobody can get that mileage, more like 26-28 tops. I have a feeling that those particular cars epa estimates will be dropped to the more realistic numbers that actual people are getting. I mean actual people's experiences are what the new EPA ratings are based on, not some lab's private numbers under ideal conditions.

Yeah, the aftermarket to the IS is the IS-F. People that buy IS's, really don't do anything to them unlike a mustang or camaro. It's more of a hp per dollar thing, and the camaro and mustang have always been about bang for your buck, while leaving a lot more potential out there.