New Mustang v6 (no mods) suffers driveshaft failure, talk about cost cutting!

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-20-2011, 05:53 PM
Telionis

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigTyla

I didn't know people bought the V6 models for performance. Learn something everyday!

Considering that the v6 version outruns a stock VR4 :( and last generation's 260 hp Mustang GT v8 on the highway (104 mph traps) and on a road course (believe me, it hurts to say, but even the STi got beat). I'd say people do indeed buy them for performance. They are damn near identical to last year's V8, which people considered pretty respectable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPD

i don't really think you could consider any domestic v6 a "performance engine" before the current crop of coupes. the last domestic 6 that was worth a damn was the syclone--and that was a freakin truck.

Indeed, but the current generation is top notch. All three Detroit powers now offer 300+ hp v6 engines. They are quite advanced too, usually DOHC, 24-valve engines with variable timing and direct injection, etc. That puts them on par with last generation's 350z and Hyundai's current 3.8L Genesis Coupe. It is also way too close [for Nissan's comfort] to the current 370z. For a base engine, that is pretty freaking respectable, especially considering just a year ago the GT got similar power levels from a V8 (as did our beloved VR4s).

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamVR4

Woah, woah woah... You mean to tell me that if I intentionally modify this car it might catastrophically break something in the drive train?

LOL. Not even the Integra owners consider removing the speed governor to be a real mod. This is nothing like putting 860 cc injectors and 20g turbos on a VR4 and destroying the stock transfer-case (bad syncros != exploding driveshaft). Ford advertised this car as a performance vehicle. They claim it is in every way comparable to last year's GT, which is why they specifically offered GT suspension, gears, LSD and brakes as an add-on. As such, there is no excuse for them to skimp out on such a consequential part of the drive-train.

Ford was marketing the v6 as a cheaper, but similarly performing, alternative to the Genesis 3.8, which is capable of reaching 149 mph safely. To imply that their product is comparable, despite it literally falling apart at 135, is downright disingenuous. My Dad's 92 Maxima SE could do 137 mph (according to the magazines), for a "performance" sports-car to self-destruct at speeds that a 20 year old Maxima can handle is downright unacceptable.

Frankly, I consider it a textbook example of bad engineering. A car should never be capable of going fast enough to fall apart. When it comes to top speed, or any performance category for that matter, the limiting factor should always be the car's capabilities (power, drag, gears, grip, etc.), it should never be safety.

I'm surprised that you consider this engineering disparity acceptable just because it is so unintrusive. Yes, admittedly, you have no business doing 115+, but that is not the point at all. Imagine if the problem was more obvious: "don't use the brakes to their fullest extent or the caliper brackets will snap" or "don't ever go WOT because the differential will break, saying "never go as fast as the car is capable of going because the driveshaft will shatter is just as preposterous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamVR4

Oh no! you'll have to spend $500 (or less, c'mon, its a Mustang) on a drive shaft if you want to go balls deep into triple digits on a public road in your econo sports car... FORD SUKS!1

I'd be very weary to drive the car aggressively now. Even if you upgrade the driveshaft, who knows what else they skimped on. Maybe you go WOT at the drag-strip and the flywheel explodes... Maybe the suspension is held together with hot glue...
12-20-2011, 06:39 PM
BigTyla

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telionis

Considering that the v6 version outruns a stock VR4 :( and last generation's 260 hp Mustang GT v8 on the highway (104 mph traps) and on a road course (believe me, it hurts to say, but even the STi got beat). I'd say people do indeed buy them for performance. They are damn near identical to last year's V8, which people considered pretty respectable.

Agreed, but I'm not comparing across platforms, I'm comparing within.

What I'm wondering is if the potential of the V6 platform outweighs the performance difference between it and the V8. In other words, could you invest the difference in cost between the V6 and V8 models in a turbo or supercharger for the V6 and spank the V8s ass?
12-20-2011, 06:53 PM
IPD

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigTyla

Agreed, but I'm not comparing across platforms, I'm comparing within.

What I'm wondering is if the potential of the V6 platform outweighs the performance difference between it and the V8. In other words, could you invest the difference in cost between the V6 and V8 models in a turbo or supercharger for the V6 and spank the V8s ass?

not likely. it's not like they ripped the v6 directly from an ecoboost & simply made it N/A. now slap an ecoboost from an f-150 in there, and you've got a sleeper of biblical proportions...especially once you tweak it a bit. you have MUCH greater bang for the buck by simply buying a GT in the first place. that said, with a GT, there's little upward room you have--unless you spend $$$$$$$ on forced induction. i think the 6's have better hope--at least if said ecoboost transplants are pretty straightforward and somewhat inexpensive.
12-20-2011, 10:20 PM
Turbo Beast

Warranty void!

(i wanna see pics of the damage!!)

EDIT: The new mustang V6 is like when you dip a chip in some salsa and it breaks.
12-20-2011, 10:54 PM
Telionis

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigTyla

Agreed, but I'm not comparing across platforms, I'm comparing within.

What I'm wondering is if the potential of the V6 platform outweighs the performance difference between it and the V8. In other words, could you invest the difference in cost between the V6 and V8 models in a turbo or supercharger for the V6 and spank the V8s ass?

I might have considered that, if the v6 was built well. It'd be like comparing the Genesis turbo 4 with the v6, for $4k the 2.0T should be able to smoke the 3.8. This v6 Mustang might very well do the same, have a notable hp advantage and outrun the V8 for a few grand. BUT, performance is irrelevant if the car is poorly built. Considering what we've seen here, I'd be blown away if the rest of the v6 could handle 400 bhp. If the GT was built like a tank, I'd think that that alone would be worth the difference in price, even if the power and stock performance was the same.

Frankly I wouldn't even consider a v6 stang now (even though I wanted one of the new ones for a while). I'd never even dream of modifying it, the thing falls apart with stock hp, what would it do with a s/c on top?
12-21-2011, 09:28 AM
AdamVR4

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telionis

...saying "never go as fast as the car is capable of going because the driveshaft will shatter is just as preposterous..

It's capable of 115 mph :p
12-21-2011, 10:54 AM
UTRacerX9

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamVR4

It's capable of 115 mph :p

So was my mother's 1989 Lincoln Towncar. The brakes, unfortunately, weren't up to the task...

:wink:
12-21-2011, 11:48 AM
aaronatstate

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPD

not likely. it's not like they ripped the v6 directly from an ecoboost & simply made it N/A. now slap an ecoboost from an f-150 in there, and you've got a sleeper of biblical proportions...especially once you tweak it a bit. you have MUCH greater bang for the buck by simply buying a GT in the first place. that said, with a GT, there's little upward room you have--unless you spend $$$$$$$ on forced induction. i think the 6's have better hope--at least if said ecoboost transplants are pretty straightforward and somewhat inexpensive.

Actually the 3.7L in the Mustang is pretty much an N/A version of the EcoBoost. They use the same block, the 3.7 is just bored 3mm over. I believe they also both have forged rotating assy's too. I think the 3.7 uses an 11:1 compression ratio, and the EcoBoost is 10:1, so not far off there either.
12-21-2011, 12:34 PM
AudibleSilence

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamVR4

Has anyone else reported similar problems?

I mean, maybe I'm just getting old..but I too reserve my lettuce and tomato throwing for actual confirmed problems.
12-21-2011, 03:14 PM
IPD

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaronatstate

Actually the 3.7L in the Mustang is pretty much an N/A version of the EcoBoost. They use the same block, the 3.7 is just bored 3mm over. I believe they also both have forged rotating assy's too. I think the 3.7 uses an 11:1 compression ratio, and the EcoBoost is 10:1, so not far off there either.

well that's great. if you can direct transplant it, it's worth it. it's NOT worth it if you have to tear down the damn block so you can alter the compression; although to be honest, if you DID do that, you could lower the compression to 8:1 and start spanking vipers with some upgraded turbos. :p

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page