I agree that the 3.8 is a joke. we took my friends sable with a 3.8 to a bball game 50 miles away. when we pulled into town with it died on us. we started it up and pulled a gas stationed. we sounded like it threw a rod or blew out a bearing. we said to hell with it and just drove to the school and left the car in the parking lot for 3 days before we came back to get it. the weird part about this is car is that it only has 60,000 miles on it and it blew up that early.

 

the 3.8 is rated at 145-150 hp, not 200. yes they are slow and slower with an auto. they are also in my opinion reliable. i had a 95 5 spd. v6 mustang and i put it threw hell, had it under water and all and it still went strong as it was new.

 

I would say that out of all the engines I've ever used-

6.0 Powerstroke is the worst. Haven't ever seen more problems from any engine.

7.3 and 6.4 Powerstroke as well as 6.8 V10 are the best.

Mike

 

Trust me, the 2002 Windstar 3.8L was rated at 200HP, while the 3.0L was the 150HP you're referring to. Regardless it had no power and at that time Ford simply wasn't making great V6's. Don't know if the 4.2L was a big improvement. The 4.0l 6 has never been much in the power dept. either. That new 3.5L does look promising though.

 

i got my ratings from a 94-98 3.8 mustang. lately ford has been sucking for making power. the mod motors blow, not enough torque, my mustang gets beat by stock hondas and newer 4.0 automatics keep up with me from a take off. the 6.0 psd sucks *** too

 

what does the current mustang have in it i kno the 4.6 but what else

 

5.4 N/A and 5.4 supercharged

 

Negative...........there is no 5.4 N/A.

4.0 SOHC

4.6 3valve

5.4 S/C (Shelby only)

 

thats what i thought isnt there a v6

 

Thats the 4.0 sohc.

 

is that a good engine id never get it if i bought a mustang but im just curious

 

We just bought a new Edge with the 3.5 v6. It is rated at 265 hp @ 6250rpm and 250ft/lb @ 4500rpm and it gets that 4000lb Edge going in a hurry. Very impressed with it so far.

Had a 78 300 I6 that went through hell and still ran like a top. I like the little 2.3 I4's also. They seem to hold up pretty good. The 351W is also a good one. These are just the ones that I have had experience with. Had an 88 Cougar with the 3.8 that got overheated a little once and warped a head. Had the heads resurfaced, but never got it to run right again. Don't like anything GM don't care how good it may be. Never owned one, never will. Grew up around people that thought GM was the greatest thing since Christ and got so tired of hearing how they were so much better than everything else that I will never have one.

Steve

 

the 2.8 GM was a junk engine untill about '85 or '86 when they upped the journal size on the crank(rods i think) all the V6 60s were really good engines after that point.The 3400 swap is a really hot thing for people with the 2200 cavaliers right now as they are what 180hp? and get better milage then the 2200 (OHV not the ecotec)

The 351M/400s weren't a bad engine, I'll try and get some video of my buddy's '85 f-250 that we shoved a '77 T-bird 400 into when he runs it at Tuff truck this year. We only got one pass last year and the pickup went in the distributor... He got about 5 feet of air with only about a 50 foot run at the first jump though. We have put a few through some good beatings...

 

They have been using it in the explorer for quite a while, seems like a good engine to me.

 

I would have to agree. All of the V8's of the mid 70's era were smogged up turds. I have seen artcles when the M motors are properly built, and they make some serious power.