2010 Ford Mustang V6

Last Updated:

The most popular, and the cheaper one.
Looking quite a bit cheaper too, than the new GT…

But the bad news is really the engine. Again, the ancient, and big, 4.0 Liter with 210hp is the base engine.
Not the 3.5 Liter. Not even the upgraded 3.0 Liter they use in the Fusion.
What gives???

And the V8 GT has 315hp. Not much more than what Chevrolet offers in the base V6 Camaro with 300hp.

I really think they missed an opportunity here. The new V6 Camaro seems like such a more modern car.

Conversation 17 comments

  1. The 4.0L has much more low-end torque being a long stroker. It also gives a better rumble exhaust note. HP is useless without low-end torque…Right Honda? The Mazda 3.xL wuss engine will not sell…Maybe in EcoBoost form it will.

  2. While I think the GT’s V8 power is embarrassing when compared to either of the Camaro’s engines, it should be noted that the Camaro does weigh over 400lbs more than the ‘Stang.

    That “should” give the GT a lot better numbers than the Camaro V6 but I’m highly doubtful it will be any sort of a match for the Camaro SS.

    Ford should have had their more powerful engines ready. Many were expecting at least 350hp for the GT. I suppose if they added direct injection to the 4.6, it might get those numbers. It is also disappointing that Ford didn’t use its 6 speed trannys…

    I like the restyle and the new interior but overall I’m disappointed. I own an 06 GT but I think I would much rather have a Camaro SS or even the LS over this..

  3. Well they are done. They have no chance to woo anyone looking at a Camaro with this reskin. Then again, if GM can’t get money from Uncle Sam, they are done as well.

  4. they think having a 50hp/liter engine in a 2010 “sports” car is perfectly fine. stop arguing right there.

    so, yeah, please bail them out with billions of dollar so they can continue making these state of the art 50hp/liter engines geared for the future 2010, please do so, sounds like money well spent.

  5. This car, for the most part, looks great. The front end looks better than I thought it would although I like the old one better. I think the interior is waaaay better looking too.

    I had a feeling this new Mustang would use the same old engines as before as the new ecoboost engines are’nt ready yet. But, STILL NO 6 speed manuals or automatics?!?! OK maybe…just maybe they are waiting for the new engines to come out and maybe they’ll team up those new engines with the new DSG’s that were rumored to come out in the next couple of years. OK I can see that….but what about the new independent rear suspension? I read it’s a 3 link and I saw photo’s on autoblog.com of the rear axle and although I’m no engineer or mechanic or anything it looks to me that the rear end is still…..A FREAKIN’ SOLID AXLE!!!!!! AAAAAARRRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!

    Again I could be, and hopefully am, wrong.

  6. This is why the US economy is failing. Stupid management by companies like Ford.

    I think all executives from Ford should be deported from the country and stripped of all their money.

  7. Unfortunately, the 3.0 and 3.5 L engines aren’t compatible with RWD. So the Mustang is stuck with a weak truck-based 4.0 L V6

  8. it feels like GM spent most of their money makin the V6 all it can be… and then made it better to make the V8

    And ford (and dodge) spent all their money makin the V8 cars… and then made em cheaper lookin by takin stuff off to make the V6s.

  9. You know, I really like the new look. This is what the car should’ve looked like 4 years ago.

    Shame about the engines, they don’t do the car justice. On the other hand, we must keep in mind that Ford is probably trying to keep the cost down for the V6 models. And they will still be more popular than the V6 Camaro/Challenger.

    Didn’t the Ford guys say something a while back about turbo V6s?

    And perhaps the big-block version just isn’t done yet. We may see a 5 or 6 liter engine with a 6 speed on perhaps a higher grade version. Like, the GT would be the mid-range, and a Boss or Mach1 would get the stuff to deal with the Challengers and Camaros at a higher price point.

    I like it. I used to own a ’98 GT with a 5-speed and loved it, and if I can afford it, I might consider a new GT.


  10. Vince, I am wondering if the base mustang has been a victim of bean counter practicality. The pressure is on to get a more competitive family of mid-size sedans out. Maybe that explains the carry over of the powerplants. I have not seen much detail on what changes brought power up slightly on the V8 (better breathing?), but I would like to think that the more powerful/sophisticated and better performing V6 is ready for the mid model change.

  11. That 4.0L has huge low-end torque…HP/Liter is a stupid and pointless metric and you would know that if you study physics/engineering.

  12. “That 4.0L has huge low-end torque…HP/Liter is a stupid and pointless metric and you would know that if you study physics/engineering.”

    and 240 torque out of a 4.0 is something to brag about when everybody else is making similar or more torque number outta 3.something v6’s

    and where’s all that “low-end” torque when all those porky family sedans with 3.X v6 driven by middle age moms with 2 kids zip pass you without even trying?

    you might wanna put down your super advanced physics and engineering textbook and relearn how to count simple numbers, because the mustang’s 4.0 v6 is THE most embarassing example of automotive engine, other companies pretty much have to INTENTIONALLY de-tune their engine to match the pathetic number of the mustang v6.

  13. “and 240 torque out of a 4.0 is something to brag about when everybody else is making similar or more torque number outta 3.something v6’s”

    At what RPM? Look it up before you make a bigger phool of yourself.

  14. “At what RPM? Look it up before you make a bigger phool of yourself.”

    are you retarded? so what if this car makes the same torque at way lower rpm? this car is SLOWER THAN HEAVY FAMILY SEDAN WITH MUCH SMALLER V6’S what exactly is you point about having torque at lower RPM if it can’t out-run camry and accords with smaller v6’s? so that at the traffic light you can go brag about your “lower rpm” to all the moms who just out-accelerate you in their family sedans?

  15. to the mentally retadede kid who keep arguing that the v6 mustang “low-end torque” is helping the car at all

    altima v6
    0 to 60 in 5.9 seconds, quarter mile 14.6 seconds

    camry v6
    0 to 60 in 5.8 seconds, quarter mile 14.3 seconds

    honda accord v6
    0 to 60 5.6 seconds, quareter mile 14.2 seconds

    mustang v6
    0 to 60 in 6.5 seconds
    quarter mile 15.3 seconds

    source: car and driver

    CLEARLY the 4.0 mustang is winning, it is helping the mustang get HIGHER NUMBER OF SECODNS than all the japanese family cars! am i right?

  16. Your numbers for the Altima, Camry & Accord are very incorrect. 6.5 seconds and more for all three. Stop being a complete idiot.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *