Basic Modular Engine Dimensions 4.6-liter SOHC and DOHC Aluminum block weight (bare): 86 lbs. Iron block weight (bare): 154 lbs. Assembled cylinder head weight: 44 lbs.* Displacement: 4.6 liters/281 cubic inches Bore: 3.552 inches Stroke: 3.543 inches Bore spacing: 3.937 inches Main journal dia.: 2.657 inches Rod journal dia.: 2.086 inches Rod length: 5.933 inches Deck height: 8.937 inches *Assembled 302 iron head weighs approx. 55 lbs. 5.4-liter (8 cylinders) and 6.8-liter (10 cylinders) -Return to menu Displacement: 5.4 liters/6.8 liters (330 cubic inches/415 cubic inches) Bore: 3.552 inches Stroke: 4.165 inches Bore spacing: 3.937 inches Main journal dia.: 2.657 inches Rod journal dia.: 2.086 inches Rod length: 6.657 inches Deck height: 10.078 inches 1996 4.6 SOHC 215HP Mustang Engine Throttle body: 65mm (2.559 inches) Intake manifold: composite, cast No. F6ZE-CG Cylinder heads: cast No. RF-F5AE-AE Combustion chambers: 49.77cc Valves: 1.752/1.339 inches Rockers: roller type, w/1.80:1 ratio Camshaft lift: .473/.473-inch lift Compression ratio: 9.30:1 Pistons: hypereutectic w/.153-inch dish 1997 4.6 SOHC 215HP Mustang Engine Throttle body: 65mm (2.559 inches) Intake manifold: composite, cast No. F6ZE-CG Cylinder heads: cast No. RF-F5AE-AE Combustion chambers: 49.77cc Valves: 1.752/1.339 inches Rockers: roller type, w/1.80:1 ratio Camshaft lift: .473/.473-inch lift Compression ratio: 9.30:1 Pistons: hypereutectic w/.153-inch dish 1998 4.6 SOHC 225HP Mustang Engine Throttle body: 65mm (2.559 inches) Intake manifold: composite, cast No. F6ZE-CG Cylinder heads: cast No. RF-F5AE-AE Combustion chambers: 49.77cc Valves: 1.752/1.339 inches Rockers: roller type, w/1.80:1 ratio Camshaft lift: .473/.473-inch lift Compression ratio: 9.30:1 Pistons: hypereutectic w/.153-inch dish 1999 4.6 SOHC 260HP Mustang Engine Throttle body: 66.8mm (2.630 inches) Intake manifold: composite, cast No. XR3E-DC Cylinder heads: cast No. RFXL3-CZOD Combustion chambers: 42.40cc Valves: 1.752/1.417 inches Rockers: roller type, w/1.80:1 ratio Camshaft lift: .505/.534-inch lift Duration (I/E) @ .050" 186/194 Compression ratio: 9.30:1 Pistons: hypereutectic w/.188-inch dish 2000 4.6 SOHC 260HP Mustang Engine Throttle body: 65mm (2.560 inches) Intake manifold: composite, cast No. XR3E-DC Cylinder heads: cast No. RFXL3-CZOD Combustion chambers: 42.45cc Valves: 1.752/1.417 inches Rockers: roller type, w/1.81:1 ratio Camshaft lift: .505/.534-inch lift Duration (I/E) @ .050" 186/194 Compression ratio: 9.74:1 Pistons: hypereutectic w/.188-inch dish 2001 4.6 SOHC 260HP Mustang Engine Throttle body: 65mm (2.560 inches) Intake manifold: composite, cast No. 1L2E-DL Cylinder heads: cast No. RF1L2E-6090-D22D (or D24D) Combustion chambers: 42.45cc Valves: 1.752/1.417 inches Rockers: roller type, w/1.81:1 ratio Camshaft lift: .505/.534-inch lift Duration (I/E) @ .050" 186/194 Compression ratio: 9.74:1 Pistons: hypereutectic w/.145-inch dish 2001 4.6 SOHC 265HP Mustang Bullitt Engine Throttle body: twin 57mm (twin 2.24-inch) Intake manifold: cast aluminum, cast No. RF-2RE3-9A448-AA Cylinder heads: cast No. RF1L2E-6090-D22D (or D24D) Combustion chambers: 42.45cc Valves: 1.752/1.417 inches Rockers: roller type, w/1.81:1 ratio Camshaft lift: .505/.534-inch lift Duration (I/E) @ .050" 186/194 Compression ratio: 9.74:1 Pistons: hypereutectic w/.145-inch dish
OH I was hoping for crank end play or bearing specs/journal diameters???? WOW! bling there the are,,, sort of
what is weird that no one picks up on is that not only in 99 did they go to the PI heads but they also went to different cams! The 99 and newer has cams with more lift and more duration! Andrew
I think you should post this in the " POST THE BEST FAQ TECH THREADS IN HERE" section. Its a nice thread.
Is it true that the 99 had a bigger TB than the 2000+, but had less compression (bigger dish piston)? Who else noticed that? I also didn't know they changed the intake & heads in 2001. Good info none the less, points to you!
That's a great idea.....that is unless someone already has it covered. http://forums.stangnet.com/showpost.php?p=4904074&postcount=25 Maybe reading the "Best FAQ tech threads" thread before suggesting he post this in it would help?
Uhhh, yeah, dumba$$, that's why I asked if anyone else knew or noticed that. I didn't know, and wasn't sure if it was common knowledge. That's why I asked the question, moron.
