Which engine you rather have in the next Mach 1/ BOSS?

Discussion in '2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-' started by Z28x, May 5, 2004.


What would you rather have in the next Mach1/BOSS

  1. 375HP 5.4L 3v V8

    40 vote(s)
  2. 375HP 5.0L 4v V8

    47 vote(s)
  1. Which engine you rather have in the next Mach 1/ BOSS or what ever it is called that is a step above the GT?

    5.4L 3v with aluminum block or 5.0L 4v DOHC "Cammer" tuned for CAFE and street use

    Both engine would be rated at 375HP, the 5.4L would have better torque on the low end but the 5.0L would rev higher.
  2. Easy decision for me. More torque means more grins, more fun, not having to wind the p*** out of it just to pass a truck, and never getting caught off-guard in the wrong gear by a ricer on the street. FURTHERMORE, the plentiful use by Ford of the 5.4 3V means a ready supply of aftermarket speed parts, ready to go. The aftermarket would be slow to react, and slim in selection, for a 5.0 4V.
  3. It all depends on which model is made...I think the 5.0L is the obvious choice for a Boss model.... I mean Hello! the original Boss 302 had that exact displacement under the hood and the motor did like to rev high. But should Ford decide to make another street racer (stop sign to stop sign killer) Mach 1 model, then they should use the 5.4L.
  4. Actually, I'd want the different engines in their respective cars to best match their personalities:

    Mach I -- drag racer -- big, torquey, simple(r) 5.4 3V
    Boss -- road racer -- smaller, lighter, revvy 5.0 4V
  5. Actually, it might be a toss weight wise. True that with the 5.4 litre, you'd have a heavier block but the 4v cylinder heads probably weigh about twice as much as the 3v cylinder heads. The 5.4L might also have a lower center of gravity as well.

    I remember watching legends of motorsport on speedchannel and they did a show on the group C Jaguar prototypes of the late 80's. These cars ran 7.0L V12's with race prepped versions of the SOHC 2V cylinder head they had in the road cars. They tried a 4 valve head once, at Donington Park. They won the race but reverted back to the 2 valve heads because the extra weight sitting on top of the engine effected the cars handling.
  6. I would go with the 5.0 but i dont like the idea of the DOHC in it. It adds extra weight to the car and further complicates it. Un less there planen on pumpin out like 80hp per litter, it not worth it, i like the 3 valve approche with the 5.0, no need for an extra exhaust valve, thats why ricers use em cuz they get like 100hp per litter out of those 4 bangers.

    But thats just my opinion.
  7. I'm not sure that the 4v would weigh more. Especially if the 3 valve has the added VVT on it. The added weight would be 2 camshafts and 8 vlaves or so. While the 5.4 would be the block and possibly the VVT.
  8. You also have the weight of the 4v head casting/machining, which is downright massive compared to the 3 valve.
  9. there is more after market for the 5.0 (just a bored/stroked 4.6) than the 5.4. Plus, I'm a classic owner thats big on heritige... 5.0 looks better and sounds cooler, plus you'd have a link the the cars past. I don't think the 5.4 is torquey enough to jusity dropping it in anything.
  10. The 5.0 Cammer has the same stroke as the 4.6.

    However the 5.0 Cammer's 94mm bore makes it fail Ford's durability requirements, which is why it is an aftermarket crate engine.

    Supposedly 92mm is the largerst bore that can be used on the 4.6 and still meet the reliability requrements for a street car.

    As for me, I'l take a 351 CID, V10, 3 valve.
  11. :D I agree. Ford should get back to putting bigger cubes in a Mustang. Expecially if the car is gonna be called "Mach 1" or "Boss".
  12. Well the mustang has never had big engines, the biggest is a 5.0, not counting any limited production. Ford would go with 5.0 because i dont see a mustang with a 5.4. Any mustang. Because if there gonna start putting biger engines in the mustang, we might as well call them camaros, or some chevey, my moms navigator has the DOHC 5.4 thats goin into the ford gt, its huge and horrible at reving up naturally asperated and i think the same would happen with it in the mutang even with a boost in the compresion ratio
  13. I would suppose that depends on how you define limited production. A great many 351 engined cars were built. And I am not sure all were considered limited production.
  14. Does anyone have actual weights or is this all speculation?

    Either way, the Boss needs a small, light, high(er) revving V8, and the Mach needs a big torque monster, handling be damned.
  15. The 5.4L isn't torquey enough so you want to go with a smaller displacment 5.0L? :scratch:

    The Mustangs have had bigger than 5.4Ls in the past, the early 90's Cobra had a 5.8L. There was a number of 4xx ci engines in the 60s/70s. You can't judge the 5.4L by the Navigator, it is tuned differently. The Cobra R is closer to what we might get.

    How does going up 4/10ths of a liter make the Mustang a Camaro or Chevy??:confused:
  16. . Huh???? :scratch: The biggest is the 5.0 not counting limited production??? Between 1967-1971 Ford produced over 75,000 big block Mustangs, combined production of the 390, 428 and 429. Hundreds of thousands of 351's were produced between 69-73.
    There's not two e's in "Chevy", it's not very effective talking trash about something you can't spell. Kinda like writing "Southerners are stoopid", you just implicate yourself for the irony award. The 5.4 in your mom's Navigator is a truck-tuned mill tugging around A 6,000 POUND NAVIGATOR. Even the 5.0 4V mill we're discussing would have a hell of a time pulling to redline in that barge-heavy SUV. And the Mustang would be like a Camaro if the displacement was larger? That makes absolutely no sense. If Chevy builds a 5.7L motor, and Ford built a 5.7L motor, you know what they would have in common?? NOTHING!!! Nothing except the amount of air inside the bore. This syrupy romanticising of something so banal as engine displacements is starting to get nauseating. Do you think we should not make the Mustang 16 feet long, 'cause Chevy makes a 16 foot long car?? I want all the best balance of power and low weight Ford can deliver, period. If the displacement turns out to be 5.183L, fine, I don't care, those are just meaningless numbers when you're in the driver's seat. And lastly:
    The 5.4 in your mom's Navigator has about as much in common with the 5.4 in the new Ford GT..... as the greasy 302 2-barrel in your plumber's 1973 Econoline panel van has in common with a Boss 302 engine in a Trans Am race car.
  17. I couldn't have said it better than RICKS
  18. I agree, NOTHING!!!!!!!

    You are a very cunning linguist, my friend. :D
  19. While I agree with most of your post, Ricks, you need to do some checking up on the 5.4L in the Navigator. It is a DOHC, 32V engine rated at 300 HP & 355 lb ft.

    Not only that but The 2003/04 Mach 1 engine gets its extra HP & torque from its exhuast cams that were lifted from the Navigator engine! :jaw:
  20. Where's the neither/get down on my hands and knees to beg Ford to put a detuned Cobra engine into the next special edition.