Does Ford think we're Stupid? 315 horse? what the hell!

Discussion in '2010 - 2014 Specific Tech' started by v8only, Nov 19, 2008.

  1. martyd

    martyd New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    TN
    Not trying to get into the middle but I just last saturday bought a bone stock 89 LX 5 speed. I had to drive it around 4 hours to get back to where I am staying now. All interstate driving but over a semi major mountain range climbing from around 3500ft elevation to 6000ft elevation then back down to 4000ft elevation. I was not to easy on the car, running it up to over 100mph a few times, dropping a gear and doing 65mph to 90mph pulls more than a few times and I ended up averageing 29mpg.

    This is a 20 year old bone stock car right down to the air box and exhaust.
     
    #81
  2. FastDriver

    Mod Dude

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,030
    Showcase:
    42
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    84
    With the light weight and really low rear-end gears, those old mustangs can really pull down good numbers when they aren't abused. It's hard not to abuse them, though. It's so much fun!

    Chris
     
    #82
  3. anticubicle

    anticubicle New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You sir just made the best post ever. Thread should've been closed after your post. +1
     
    #83
  4. anticubicle

    anticubicle New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A few things people are forgetting....

    1. The Challenger and Camaro may make more HP than the S197 platform Mustang GT however they are also considerably heavier.

    2. The Challenger and Camaro both come with a bigger price tag.
     
    #84
  5. Gearbanger 101

    Gearbanger 101 Straight Outta Locash
    Super Mod

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,519
    Likes Received:
    965
    Trophy Points:
    164
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    :rlaugh: Oh come on man, you haven't backed up anything yet. You linked me to a couple of crate engines that did nothing to prove your point. The only 5.0L's on your list still came up shy of the 400hp mark and weren't even complete? Sold as short blocks, with E/Z303 cam shafts, big valve heads and carb and intake combo's for god sake?!? Please don't discredit yourself any further by claiming either one of them would run any where near the efficiently levels as the aforementioned Mod motor.

    Typical anti-modular guy, always ignoring everything but the horsepower figures. Funny thing is, is that the only one of your examples you provided that bested the 400hp 4V isn't even a 302ci engine anymore. You had to throw a 347 stroker motor into the mix just to compete with the lowly little 4.6/5.0 mod motor. And since when does **** poor fuel efficiency, a reduction in drivability characteristics and dirty emissions count as a "do it all" engine package?

    Like I said....I'll be waiting for you to show me a 302ci (since it wasn't made clear the first time) that bests the previously mentioned 4V mod motor in ALL categories. That's horsepower, efficiency, drivability and emissions combined!
    Oh come on now. You're expecting everyone here to believe that Ford dropped an entire engine line up, started from scratch with a new design, retooled all of their facilities, retrained all of their workers and absorbed all of the other encompassing costs into the fray because it was going to be cheaper for them to do so? :rolleyes:

    Please, face the fact that the Windsor based OHV design just wasn't cutting it any longer.

    I'm sure Ford could have produced a new line of pushrod engines back then to meet similar horsepower, fuel economy and emissions requirements that GM did, but again not without going back to the drawing board. So since they had to start from scratch anyway, then went with the Mod motor line up. It made sense. For some part, its as you stated, tooling the machinery to be versatile to each specific power plant in a matter of hours certainly did work in Fords favor, but was design itself being more a efficient set up in a smaller package that was the main driving force behind the choice.

    As a matter of fact, the ONLY drawback to the current modular line up is inability to drastically increase displacement. And that wasn't a flaw of the design itself, but a decision made by higher ups at Ford to initially convert most of their vehicle line up to a front wheel drive platform. Big displacement gave way to a compact package. A mistake...most certainly, but one we've all learned to live with.
    Wow....so basically what you're saying is that it took twin turbo's, aftermarket heads and intake and about 10psi to make 500hp. And you call that an accomplishment?

    So what do you say to the hundreds upon hundreds of 4V, 3V and even 2V guys that are running through stock heads, intake and cams with power adders doing the same thing, or better?

    A stock block 3V makes well over 400hp with the stock engine and a less efficient (than a single turbo...never mind a twin set up) blower pushing a mere 5-6psi. With a pulley swap and simple exhaust mods guys are seeing 500-550hp+ and they haven't even cracked open a valve cover yet!?! And that a run of the mill GT engine. Nothing exotic, or embellished.
    I guess that all depends on your definition of comparable. Generally speaking, the current 3V Mustang gets anywhere from 3-6mpg better fuel economy than a comparable 5.0L on average....also take into account the huge weight difference between the Fox and the S197 Sorry....no scientific testing to back the results. Just real world drivers, during real world conditions. Believe the EPA stats if you wish....because we all know how accurate those can be. :rolleyes:

    You can't honestly believe that stock for stock, the 5.0L is a more fuel efficient engine than the current 3V, do you? Even the 2V's got better mileage. Like I said...don't take my word for it. Ask the masses? :shrug:
    Who's changing the subject? You're the one who threw brand "X" into the mix. I just explained for you why the LS cars put out the kind of mileage and performance they did. Its not my fault that the answer doesn't help your point. Hey, if you don't like the solution, then you shouldn't have asked the question.
    I don't see what's so hard to believe. The current 3V's are putting down anywhere from 260-270hp at the wheels. The 2010's are adding another 15hp to the mix. The LS1's put out on average about 270-280hp at the wheels. Yes, there is the odd example that will dyno a little higher, but for the most part they're within about 10-15hp of one and other. I wouldn't consider that a drastic difference by comparison. Especially considering there's approx 65ci separating the two engines? :shrug:
    Overrating is certainly one opinion, but I believe I've given very compelling examples to state my case. Either way, my point was more to disprove the mindset that the mod motors are considered a waste of space to many pushrod enthusiasts and that a lot of their arguments stating as much have no real bearing on any realistic scale. I too am fond of the early OVH Windsor’s. And as far as building the cheapest performing, hardest hitting package, I still feel they’re where its at for your average enthusiast….but at the same time I’m not about to ignore what the OHC models have done for the car.
    What exactly do you think I’m getting away with??? :scratch:

    Lets take the 5.0L DOHC "Cammer" for example.

    With advancements in variable cam timing, intake runner design, combustion chamber and over all head design, more controllable parameters available for ECU tuning and tighter over all engine tolerances, I don't think there's any question as to which is the more efficient or more to the point "precise" over all package between the factory offering for the Modular Engine(s) described below and the early OHV Windsor’s.

    As such, cam profiles are able to remain relatively sedate (in comparison the the many aftermarket grinds that would be required in order to propel a N/A 302 Windsor into the same horsepower territory as aforementioned modular), as are over all intake and exhaust runner volume and diameter. This allows for stock like road manner, drivability as well as fuel economy. Not something that has been made possible with a 302ci Windsor making similar power numbers.

    The current 5.0L Cammer, as well as an early version of said engine previously released during the late-'90's in the FR500 Mustang. 5.0L DOCH V8, 415hp/365lbs ft of torque with perfect idle, drivability and fuel economy in the mid-20's all while meeting emissions certainly isn't anything to shake a stick at. Another fine example would be last years Parnelli Jones edition from Saleen. A 3V 302cid Modular with 400hp/390lbs/tq while still knocking down 17mpg city and 26mpg highway.

    Sure, I've seen 302 OHV Windsor’s make that kind of power (never have I denied that)....and I've also seen them knock down that kind of drivability and fuel economy while passing emissions....just all with the same car! ;) Feel free to prove me wrong.

    If emissions, drivability and a smooth idle aren't all that important to you (even though that was the basis of my original debate with you) companies like SHM has crate versions of the engine in N/A carbureted form in 300hp, 345hp and 400hp trim....all for much, much less than what Ford wants for "The Cammer" Hell, they even build a N/A 2V 4.6L making 400hp, which was previously unheard of. Move up to the 5.4L and power levels into the 500hp N/A are the norm for builders like Al Papitto at Boss 330 Racing.
    Yup...and it sported a 351W (not a 302) and it got all of about 15mpg if I remember correctly as well. If you want to compare apples and potatoes, that’s fine, but throwing a big inch Windsor with a blower into the mix kinda takes away from our original N/A discussion, doesn't it?

    Do you really wanna match up a 302W against a 281ci or302ci Mod Motor when power adders are involved....really? That's fine...I'll play. So a 500hp (actually 480hp) blown 5.8L 351W back in the early 90's, huh. What does that say for cars like the new Roush P51A putting out 510hp with a blown 4.6L....or other Saleen models like the H302 SC putting out 580hp,the S302 Extreme putting out 620hp or better still the upcoming 25th anniversary model ringing out 720hp. All of which are powered by 5.0L mod motors.

    And these are all factory offerings. We haven't even gotten into what aftermarket blower kits are doing for the modular line up.

    What else ya go? :D




    I'm sorry, but I find that very hard to believe. I've seen guys babying their 5.0L's, quick shifting, drafting on the highway and keeping it purposely in the 55-65mph range not crack over 27mpg.....and you say you averaged 29mpg with a mix of highway and aggressive driving??? I'm not calling you a liar, but I think you may have made an error in your calculations? :shrug:

    Even my old LX 5.0L tuned conservatively with mild port jobs to the heads and intake, with full intake and exhaust mods and a conservative 3.55:1 gearing only ever pulled 26mpg on its best day. I probably averaged about 21mpg with regular driving and somewhere in the high teens getting into it.
     
    #85
  6. FastDriver

    Mod Dude

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,030
    Showcase:
    42
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Except for the fact that they show that Ford does not produce an n/a motor with similar power levels even with its aftermarket performance division.

    It's very difficult to compare emissions and efficiency with cars that are 15 y/o to new cars. Besides that point, I would rather compare something less subjective.

    The 302 made 390 hp - 70 more than Ford's comparable 281. The 347 is an example of something you can compare with the increased displacement 5.0 cammer - it makes 50 more hp and costs $20k less.
    hahaha!!! the lowly $30k 5.0 mod motor... yeah... Why would I dare be so bold as to compare an engine that is 1/3 the cost with a motor that is the state of automotive art! hahaha... I'll take my $20k extra dollars laughing all the way to the bank.

    Your statement, so it's my challenge for you to back it up. I'm not going to waste my time trying to disprove any idiotic statement you can come up with. That would be a futile waste of time. In this case, it is impossible for you to back it up, which is why I called you out on it. Perhaps in the future you'll refrain from making broad ridiculous assertions.

    Absolutely. Ford is a BUSINESS!!! Businesses exist to make money. This decision was entirely about the bottom dollar. Ford new that the initial investment would pay for itself in manufacturing costs in the long run.

    No, I call that refuting your statement about drivability. Don't think for a second that 500hp was all I could wring out of that combo. It was all I chose to wring out of it.

    I would say bring it... I've got a turbo 302 based setup for them :)

    Source?! of course not! Why am I even asking you for any evidence to back up your claims!
    At least EPA stats are a reliable source of information. Cars are all tested the same way.... It's called the scientific method. In comparisons, it's your friend.

    You are! Go read the first page in this thread again. Plus, this subject was never about comparing sales numbers.
    Um, no! I was just the first person in this thread that you chose not to ignore about it.
    And what have you to say about the truck brand where GM again leads the fuel efficiency war? Sorry, but your points still don't change the fact that the LSx line-up has outperformed the modular design in all comparable vehicles in all of those categories you hold sacred save emissions (I have no idea how they compare in that regard, but I'm sure this is the most important category to you if the modular comes out ahead here, but that's doubtful considering the compression ratios and weight differences)

    You really don't know a thing about LS1s do you?
    Quite the opposite! It is the odd example that will actually dyno in the range you specified, and those odd example can be fixed with a tune-up. These types of statements from you is exactly why I ask you to back them up with evidence. You have clearly never exposed yourself to the actual LS1 dyno numbers and are again fabricating "facts." Oh and by the way, the LS1 is just the tip of the iceburg, and it's already a design that has been out of production for 5 years in GM sports cars! It outperforms the 4.6 hands down, and you haven't even reached the LS6 or the LS2, 3, 7, or 9.

    No examples to speak of.

    a straw-man argument. (that's where you argue the opposite side for them and then tear down your own fabricated opposing argument).
     
    #86
  7. FastDriver

    Mod Dude

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,030
    Showcase:
    42
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Well, gee... You're wrong again: Ford 302 V8 Engine Buildup- Car Craft Magazine Stock cam, off the shelf parts. 405 hp/ 380 lb-ft of torque from an n/a 302, documented. If you refrained from making all or nothing statements like, "not possible," you wouldn't look so bad.

    Great, two representations of stroked 4.6-based SBFs. Again, to these I will continue to compare the stroked 302-based engines.

    About drivability, which is subjective, how could I prove anything? passing emissions, similar fuel economy, and the same or more power is easy, though. When I show you the documented evidence you just shirk it off and say, well that's not what all the masses think. You won't listen.

    Nice motors, but I'm sure there are much much more stout versions of the modular 5.0s out there. Still, given your lax constraints described in the first sentence of this quote, here's an example of a 751hp 302-based carbed n/a SBF: 750HP 347ci 205cc I'll send you my favorite penny if you can provide me an article documenting a 4.6-based modular that makes more power n/a than that. Interestingly, this particular engine wasn't even done making power, they just didn't want to rev it any higher!

    Nope, you're off again. I know that if I ask you to back up that figure, you'd just blow it off. Since this one is easy, I'll disprove it outright. It was rated at 14 city/26 highway back in the day. The new EPA estimate can be found here: Find a Car

    Again, if you would bother taking half a minute to research your facts before spouting them off in a public forum and continually embarrassing yourself, you would save a lot of face.

    Nah, it's an appropriate comparison for a "big-inch" blown modular, like the one in the GT500. A 351 really isn't a big inch windsor to most, though. That would be a 408 or 427.

    Ah, now this is going to be fun.... Although, the problem here is that they stopped the production of blown windsors a long time ago. So, I'll have to resort to the aftermarket to make comparisons. I've got a 1200hp turbo and a 302-based engine that will produce exactly what the turbo can throw out, and it does it with sub 230* .050 cam specs (I don't want to get specific since it is a custom) and it has an LSA of 114*. Pretty tame, and definitely cheaper than those cars.

    2.73s and 3.55s are like night and day. Essentially, that's the same as comparing the .50:1 6th gear in a corvette to the .675 5th gear in a mustang GT.
     
    #87
  8. Gearbanger 101

    Gearbanger 101 Straight Outta Locash
    Super Mod

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,519
    Likes Received:
    965
    Trophy Points:
    164
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    All this quoting is become tiresome, but whatever. :shrug:

    Take another looks....the N/A Ford 4.6/5.0L Mod motors I used in my examples bested all of the 5.0L's you used in yours. Is the 340hp, 360hp, 390hp 302W vs. 400hp DOCH 302 Modular discussion so far back now that you forgot the end results? Forgive me if math is different where you come, but 400hp seems a higher figure to me than any of the others you presented? The Modular was the clear winner on that one. You also seem to forget that you needed to throw a 347 stroker into the mix in order to gain the advantage. Doesn't say much for your example of the 302W being "king of the small displacement battles" when you can't do it with the stock configuration in order to pull off the victory, does it? ;)
    I see, so since you can't find any example to prove your point, you want to change the rules. I expected as much.
     
    #88
  9. anticubicle

    anticubicle New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    WTB some of the spare time you guys seem to have...
     
    #89
  10. Gearbanger 101

    Gearbanger 101 Straight Outta Locash
    Super Mod

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,519
    Likes Received:
    965
    Trophy Points:
    164
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I better not hear anyone say that us Mods don't get involved. ;)
     
    #90
  11. fox1x

    fox1x New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    164
    Showcase:
    4
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Northwest Ohio
    You mods never get involved.... he he
     
    #91
  12. martyd

    martyd New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    TN

    I filled up while leaving Utah and reset my trip odometer, got here to my destination and filled up again. The car used 8.566 and went 251 miles

    251 miles divided bt 8.566 gallons is 29.301 miles per gallon. Am I wrong?
     
    #92
  13. FastDriver

    Mod Dude

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,030
    Showcase:
    42
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Agreed... Only going to make a couple of points because we're chasing our tails around in circles.

    That's a good point. Unfortunately, that means that the stroked modular is still more expensive than the stroked windsor.

    Well, again you should do some research before posting BS:

    Extreme Ford Mustang FR500C to Hit Market in August
    http://multimedia.foxsports.com/m/video/21003325/barrett_jackson_05_mustang_fr500c.htm
    Ford set to sell $125,000 racing Mustang - Autoblog

    It's a sweet car though, and I'd drive it on the street ;):nice:

    The 347 is a factory offering, and it comes with a warranty
    That's because the 4.6 doesn't compare favorably against the 302W. And, come on, how many people own factory stock mustangs with a 5.0 cammer in it? Get real man. There's a much higher number and percentage of individuals with a factory produced 347 in their mustang than a 5.0 cammer.

    1995 Saleen S351 5.8L makes 13/24. You said it only got 15mpg. Research is your friend

    This story sounds reminescent of your proclaimation that no Windsor engine on the planet compares favorably with any modular in every category you mentioned earlier. Now, I have to disprove that and the fact that unicorns do not exist? Okay:rolleyes:

    No, you just ignored the 347. No 5.0 cammer is outpowering that engine, and when you show me an aftermarket one that comes close, I've got a few aftermarket 347s ready for them.

    Ok, admitedly asking for a 1200hp GT500 was a mistake. I removed that comment. They're out there. All it really takes is a big enough turbo and a stout enough bottom end and the willingness to rev the **** out of it.

    That's ridiculous. You didn't lose mileage by switching from 2.73s to 3.55s. I have to question your measurements and the process you used. That's like saying I lost fuel mileage by switching from 5th to 6th gear. That's not going to happen unless you are bogging the motor, and I'm not even sure it would happen then.

    Anyway, man. I know I'm not going to convince you of anything, and you probably feel the same way about me. I just felt the need to come in and rep the windsors. It's been fun, as usual. Let's do it again some time!:flag: Modulars are cool too (especially the ones with forged factory lower ends.:nice:

    Chris
     
    #93
  14. bigcat

    bigcat start with the upper hole, and if more traction is

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    Messages:
    4,245
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    79
    Location:
    7200 feet
    what was the topic of this thread again??? i forgot about 20 posts ago. i would close it, but the two of you would still be able to post in it. :( lets move on, or take it to PMs please.
     
    #94
  15. Gearbanger 101

    Gearbanger 101 Straight Outta Locash
    Super Mod

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,519
    Likes Received:
    965
    Trophy Points:
    164
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    :cheers:

    That's fair....I'm too tired to keep this up anyway.
     
    #95
  16. afterburn

    afterburn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    I did read the first couple of pages, and as several people pointed out, this is about more than just power ratings. As implied by the thread's subject and first few pages, this thread is also about the decision to purchase a 315HP car vs. a 400+ HP car. For me, however, the HP rating has little to do with it. The 'modability' and displacement are what is important to me, in terms of buying a car.

    I think that my concerns are completely relevant to the dicussion and to the decision on whether or not to purchase a 2010+ Mustang. If you can't understand that, then I'm sorry. I really am. I just see too many people focus on one specific aspect of an argument, and discard other aspects as being irrelevant when they really just need to broaden their perspective a little bit. I'm frustrated, but I mean this in the nicest way possible.

    I said exactly the opposite--which is my entire point!
     
    #96
  17. GT-347

    GT-347 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Modular motor in 2011 will have a huge HP increase and will also have a six speed trans. It has not hit a brick wall, it just looks that way because Ford moves slower than any of us like.
     
    #97
  18. v8only

    v8only Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,384
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    49
    that's quite a relief

    a lot of truck shootouts for the 2010 trucks are happening now, and while the new f150 is usually on top, it's being made fun of big time for the sad power output. It's a full second or more slower in the quarter, and lags behind on all towing and driving compared to every full size on the market.

    a better v8 drivetrain across the board will cement ford's superiority
     
    #98
  19. Gregor111

    Gregor111 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    I am sure you are aware that the EPA changed the way mileage is calculated about two years ago. I think showroom stock GT's driven at 65 mph are getting about 25 on the highway.

    Greg
     
    #99
  20. xtweakerx

    xtweakerx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Jupiter,FL
    BUY YOUR MUSTANGS NOW.

    FORD WILL CLOSE SOON ENUFF AND THEIR WILL BE NO MORE MUSTANGS BUILT MARK MY WORDS.


    : >
     
    #100

Share This Page