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

[martyd]

I agree with everything you said

 

[Gearbanger 101]

well, you guys can be happy with your 13's...lol. That's an average timeslip nowadays for anything with a moderately sporty engine.

Exactly....so that being the case, wouldn't you consider the Mustang a bargain in comparison than the much more expensive Dodge or Chevy offerings that also run 13's?

13's is not fast folks...stop comparing your times to a fox chassis car from 20 years ago. expect 12's with tires guys, it's 2010!!

What are we suposed to compare the car with if not its predecessor? 12's with tires might just be possible with the new line of engines, but for the time being, you gotta work with what you got. Same as Dodge...same as GM.

 

[Notchbck93]

Mustang brings an over-all experience to the table. It has never been about magazine rated HP numbers, it been about people feeling alive behind the wheel.

As far as the STI's go, unless the driver can slip it out at the light at 4500 rpms, it will not run a 13.1 1/4. Miss the opportunity and you're waiting for boost. Besides, have you ever watched an STI jounce down the road, the driver has to collect all of their fillings at the end of each ride.

I drive around in a stock automatic 04 GT... Why? I enjoy the over all experience. I like the way the car fits my torso. If I need more, I have a blown fox in the garage. I enjoy the factory exhaust, how it gurgles just right, not too much drone, but enough to let you know that there is a V8 under the hood. There isn't any reason to draw the wrong kid of attention anymore. I certainly know an LS1 pulls harder, obviously, but I couldn't stand the massive cat hump on the passenger floor and sitting so low in the car I felt like a gangsta. GM's run hard, but they seem to die fast. I even remember laughing at Horsepower TV because the kid was out doing burnouts in an SS and it developed a rod knock. My buddy had an 02 hawk, loved the way the thing pulled on a roll, very addicting, but the rest of the experience turned me off.

Ford built an all-around car.

You also have to remember that the faster they build it, more idiots go out and hurt others and themselves trying to "use-the-power", which ultimately results in much higher insurance premiums to the point of which people say, it just isn't worth it.

Ford leaves room for mods because it knows that its owners love to tailor their car to their liking. I got that bit of info from an old SVT engineer. I saw the blown 5.4 dropping into the GT500 before the car was going into production. Unfortunately he no longer is with the company so my insider news is no longer, but it was cool to have some insight into their thought processes.

Basically if Ford introduced a 1000hp Mustang, people would want to get it to a 1200HP level, so they just start small and leave plenty of room for improvement.

I mean really, 05 plus 'Stang GT with a gear, stall, full exhaust, CAI and tune is capable of a low 12's. That's very respectable for an automatic. Unheard of for a Fox auto. 5.0 mag just put a stock Fox banger in the 12's at 103.

 

[afterburn]

When I buy a car, I am looking for a good platform--which takes into account more than just power--but I do like displacement. All other things being equal, there is no replacement for displacement. I have a lot of respect for the 281 mod-motor, as I'm on my second one. I beat 135,000 miles out of my 2-valve while putting down over an extra 125 RWHP. Quite a car, and I'm very excited about my new 3-valve.

However, I'd just like some more displacement. You'd have a little more power off the bat, and more potential down the road. When your competition has 6+ liter powerplants, why not shift to even a 5.4L block? I realize that the Mustang weighs less...but it's easier to recoup your power:weight ratio with aftermarket parts when you have more displacement.

I have a hard time purchasing mods for my new car, when if I could afford it, I'd switch to a 5.4L.

 

[FastDriver]

Oh how I do love a good 4.6 v. 5.0 debate!

I think you're mixing your facts up a little, so feel free to listen. Ford hasn't hit a wall with the 4.6L.

I would tend to agree with him. It seems that the n/a limit from ford is 320 hp with the n/a 4.6.

There have been several models introduced in the last couple of years by Ford, Saleen, Steeda, etc that have put out 400fwhp while still maintaining perfect road manners, stout reliability and knocking down decent mileage to boot. That's more than any 5.0L owner could ever hope for!

Supercharging sure has come a long way in the last 15 years, thanks in large part to the companies who got their start with the 5.0 aftermarket Still, I think a supercharged 5.0 with a T56 could hope for the same things. My best-friend and I are both going to test this theory in the coming year. If you stay tuned, I'll let you know how it works out. I'll bet I get better mileage than a stock GT500.

Sure, one might be able to put together a 302 OHV with aftermarket parts that might match those horsepower figures, but I've not seen one yet that would come close to matching any of the other above mentioned benefits offered by the OHC.

If you look for something hard enough I think you'll find it, and that goes both ways.

And at that point you've had to replace everything but the block in order to just match the power output.

At 400 hp? Nah, just the top end and bolt-ons, or nitrous

The OHV 302 has been around for over 40-years and it never made 400fwhp in any configuration....

Neither has an n/a 4.6. Too bad ford doesn't offer a blown 302, though I bet other companies do.

so I'd say considering the fairly short existence the 2V/3V/4V OHC engines have been in production, they're doing quite well by comparison.

I'd say they're doing ok. At least with the 5.0 around, the competition never dominated the entire mustang line-up in performance.

I'm sorry you're still not over the fact that the 302 OHV is dead and buried, never to return, but you really need to get over it.

No thanks, enough people still make parts, so I'll keep on driving my dead and buried 302 OHV.

It was a great little engine for its time, but times have changed and the 302 OHV had ran its course.

It's still a great little engine.

The new breed of mod motors may have their flaws, but they're still light years ahead of their predecessors from every technical standpoint.

Yeah, light years Just to add fuel to the fire, here's the highest output n/a modular true 4.6 displacement crate engine ford racing performance offers:

4.6 aluminator long-block: $6,500/ 320 hp/ 473 lbs/ 10:1 compression Ford Racing Performance Parts [M-6007-A46NA*]

For comparison's sake, here's the weakest 302: $4,800/ 340 hp/ 467 lbs/ 9:1 compression
Ford Racing Performance Parts 302-based engine]

Save $1,700, gain 20 hp, this is with the very mild E-cam (around 500 lift, and 220* duration int/exh)

The strongest 302 is very comparable in price to the aluminator, but still cheaper and a lot more powerful: $6,250 / 390 hp/ 549lbs/ 10:1 compression
Ford Racing Performance Parts [M-6007-Z50E*]

"Ok, but what about all the technology we have now," you ask!

The meanest 4.6-based n/a crate engine from ford: The cammer!: $29,500 (hi-tech indeed!)/ 400hp/ 534 lbs/ 11:1 compression
Ford Racing Performance Parts [M-6007-R50*]

So now lets look at the meanest 302-based crate engine from ford, the Z347: $8,995 (so low-tech it's $20,505 cheaper)/ 450 hp/ 560lbs/ 9.7:1 compression
Ford Racing Performance Parts [M-6007-Z347*]

How does such an old, low-tech motor that's run its course beat the baddest n/a motor that ford can produce with a 4.6? Easy, more cubes, and more aftermarket refinement. The Z302 makes about as much power, and it's extremely affordable. Since the Cammer is an all out race motor, though, it's much more comparable to the Z347. Because they're both n/a and weigh nearly the same, they'd both be great candidates for a road racing engine. I'll take the push-rod, though. It's bound to have a lower and wider power-band with a lot more low-end torque, which is better for coming out of turns. Plus parts will be cheaper to replace.

You're not going to impress me with the supercharged modulars, either. There's no magical quality that makes modulars respond better to boost than any other engine. The better n/a engine with the appropriate compression, cam, and blower or turbo makes the better boosted engine, too. So, give me one of the Boss 302-based crate motors with 8.5:1 slugs and let me slap on a blower. I'll put it up against any of the blown modulars.

All that said, I'm not advocating that ford dump the modulars, but since blowers are the only way they can seemingly get them to make power, then I would like to see one in a GT making the same power or more for the same price as the Challenger and Camaro.

Don't get me wrong, though. I come off like I hate modulars. It's not true. I love what ford is doing with its modulars, now! 500 hp in a factory stock ford mustang is incredible! It's just that I love 5.0s. I don't mean to diminish the accomplishments of the modular. I've never been impressed with the mustang GT.... never. I have been impressed with the blown Cobras, though. That was such a cool step forward by Ford. Going from 320 hp in '01 to 500hp by '06 (was this the first year of the GT500) is definitely cool. Now we've got those bow-tie boys playing catch up. I've been begging Ford to put the 5.4 in the mustang since its introduction into the pickup truck line. Now that it's in and it's blown, the Chevy boys will be whining about how fast the mustang is, and what ford has to resort to to beat them.... It's cool with me, as long as we stay out in front. I may not drive a GT500, but as a mustang guy, I love being able to claim them.

Don't bash my 5.0, though man. If ford wanted to make 500 hp from a blown 302-based motor in a production car, it'd be a done deal. Chevy can do it and better the modular's emission and mileage with a pushrod higher displacement V8. Ford could, if they wanted to, do the same thing.

Chris

 

[Gearbanger 101]

I haven't time to respond to your entire post, since i'm going to be late for work, but keep in mind.....as far as the first half of your responses go.....none of my examples were Supercharged like you seem to be under the impression they are. There have been half a dozen 4.6L and 5.0L 4V versions of the Mod motors in recent years that are putting out upwards of 400hp in N/A trim. All while maintaining perfect drivability, street manners, fuel economy and emmisions. Again....nothing anyone has ever accomplished with a 302 based OHV. At least not without some sort of power adder. And again, not without a complete rehash of the entire engine. (heads, intake, cam, internals, ect) The stock block is usually all that's left.

So hitting the wall with 320hp....not even close my friend. More like wetting your appetite.

 

[rd]

Well, I bought my 08 Bullitt to have a reliable daily driver with some performance. I did not want the extra complications of a supercharger, convertible or automatic.

315 hp seems to get down the road just fine. It's quiet, comfortable for 10 hr trips, gets 23 mpg, (wish that was better now) and has a decent radio. I have some other cars that will go much quicker than Bullitt, so I am trying to avoid modding the Bullitt for now.

Looked at the new Challenger at a cruise night. Its a nice car, but it seems bigger, heavier and is nowhere as fun looking as my Bullitt.

Not really interested in the Camaro, I already have my lone Chevy.

All, note that Ford, with usually less hp, has been able to keep the Mustang line going and selling well since 1964. Camaros, Firebirds, Cudas and Challengers died a while back and are now just being retro'd back to life.

My 08 reminds me of the good things about the 65 I had in 70, a friend's 67 that made some memorable impressions, and the 74 that I had, and really liked, despite all the bad talk. Great little car.

It's a Mustang!

 

[tiptop]

did any gm designers of the new camaro, have a hand in designing the mustang, the new mustang front end looks like the new camaro to me

 

[martyd]

The GM guys, atleast the real ones are not bitching about the 03/04 and 05+ SVT's because in all reality they have a LS7 in their stable making the same power and tq w/o the boost and a LS9 making over 700hp with the boost. Lets not get in confused GM has sense 93 won the hp wars and they continue to do so. But like I have said it is not allways about hp. And please dont throw up "well GM has more displacement" so what Ford has superchargers and in most cases less weight. Ford loyalist complaining about GM's bigger displacement is like GM loyalist complaining about Fords superchargers.

The LS series are unchallenged as far as being one of the best designed pushrod engines ever. Lets face it you can sneeze and fart on them and make 30 more hp. IMO what happened is Ford gave up on the pushrod design to soon. I think if Ford were in a better postion to do so a pushrod all alum. 302 based engine would be a major fan favorite and with what they know now they could make a very docial 340 to 380hp engine.

Like I said though people need to get off this hp crap because hp does not make or break a car. If it did the Fox Body cars along with the 3rd gen F-Bodies would have failed like no other.

 

[FastDriver]

All while maintaining perfect drivability, street manners, fuel economy and emmisions. Again....nothing anyone has ever accomplished with a 302 based OHV.

Words like "nothing" and "ever" rarely make for accurate statements. Such arguments degrade to opinions and conjecture when the person is asked to prove it! Good luck with showing that there is not one example on the planet of a 302 based mustang that outperforms the base model mustang GT in the categories you listed. You made the statement, now back it up

You don't see too many people investing time and effort into improving emissions, but among gear-heads what percentage of us actually care? Drivability - an opinion, good luck convincing me that my 400 hp, and 500hp 302s weren't completely drivable/streetable. The 500hp setup had a stock cam, so I guess by your definition I guess stock 5.0s had poor drivability.

Fuel economy - 2007 Mustang GT = 16/20, 1993 Mustang GT - 15/22 Ford sure has come a long way! Meanwhile the competition, in the form of the last Camaro Z28, pulled down 17/26 and outran the crap out of its crop of mustangs, and even today's GT. Let's not compare it to something that actually matters, though. Instead, let's focus on the lackluster improvements ford has made since the generation that is 3 decades old, now.

Ok, I've got it, you don't think a 5.0 can do everything at once. I think that's a ridiculous statement that you cannot prove. And anyway, I'm waiting for the n/a 450 hp 4.6 crate engine that Ford offers.

Chris

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Words like "nothing" and "ever" rarely make for accurate statements. Such arguments degrade to opinions and conjecture when the person is asked to prove it! Good luck with showing that there is not one example on the planet of a 302 based mustang that outperforms the base model mustang GT in the categories you listed. You made the statement, now back it up

Tell ya what Chris....since you're so adamant that I'm wrong, I'll wait for you to show me an example or two of any 302ci OHV (factory or aftermarket) engines that fit the criteria.

....I'll be waiting.

You don't see too many people investing time and effort into improving emissions,

It seemed pretty important to the manufacturer, didn't it? Why exactly do you think the OHV line up was dropped in the first place?

The 500hp setup had a stock cam, so I guess by your definition I guess stock 5.0s had poor drivability.

I'm sorry....what 500hp 302 OHV had a stock cam again? Link please…I must have missed it?

Fuel economy - 2007 Mustang GT = 16/20, 1993 Mustang GT - 15/22 Ford sure has come a long way!

Awww, cute.....you're quoting the window sticker. Go ahead and poll the guys in the S197 section and see what kind of real world mileage numbers they're all getting and see how close your numbers are.

Meanwhile the competition, in the form of the last Camaro Z28, pulled down 17/26 and outran the crap out of its crop of mustangs, and even today's GT. Let's not compare it to something that actually matters, though. Instead, let's focus on the lackluster improvements ford has made since the generation that is 3 decades old, now.

Yes, it's amazing what you can do with a lot more displacement to help with the horsepower department and a .50:1 O/D ratio to improve fuel economy. Don't think the last generation Camaro's were a marvel of the automotive world. It was Fords credit/or folly depending how you look at it that they chose to saddle the Mustang with a less expensive T45/T3650 drive train instead of the T56 set up used in the bowtie cars. Sure, the 5-speed didn't knock down the kind of fuel economy that the GM’s did, but it also kept the cost of the over all package down. Last time I checked, Ford won the war of the "Pony Cars" back in 2001 with the demise of the FBody? Guess horsepower doesn’t win races after all, huh?

And keep in mind, without that wonderful 5.7L under the hood, they wouldn't hold a candle to the measly 4.6L that is the OHC. Fords making as much power now with 281ci as GM did with 346ci. If you can't call that progress, then I'm afraid there's no help for you and your OHV blinders have made you deaf, dumb and blind to anything that doesn't have pushrods.

Ok, I've got it, you don't think a 5.0 can do everything at once. I think that's a ridiculous statement that you cannot prove. And anyway, I'm waiting for the n/a 450 hp 4.6 crate engine that Ford offers.

And you still haven't proved otherwise? What do I need to prove when the manufacturer did it for me? Again, you don't think Ford dropped the OHC line up because they were already "doing everything at once" do you? They weren't measuring up anymore and they got the axe. Suck it up!!!

 

[afterburn]

Fuel economy - 2007 Mustang GT = 16/20, 1993 Mustang GT - 15/22 Ford sure has come a long way! Meanwhile the competition, in the form of the last Camaro Z28, pulled down 17/26 and outran the crap out of its crop of mustangs, and even today's GT. Let's not compare it to something that actually matters, though. Instead, let's focus on the lackluster improvements ford has made since the generation that is 3 decades old, now.
Chris

You realize that the EPA lowered their mileage estimates, right? They used to be higher, and spot-on in my opinion, but a majority of people were never getting that mileage because they barely understand how a car works, let alone have been trained to drive one. So now the EPA estimates are for your driver who constantly has his or her foot on the accelerator.

When I'm goofing off in my 2008 I still get 18 in the city, 22 mixed, 25 highway. If I don't play around, I get 22 in the city and a tenth or two shy of 27 on the highway.

 

[afterburn]

Ford loyalist complaining about GM's bigger displacement is like GM loyalist complaining about Fords superchargers.

I beg to differ. I am looking for a platform to build upon, and it is much easier and less complicated to add a supercharger than to add cubes.

 

[martyd]

I beg to differ. I am looking for a platform to build upon, and it is much easier and less complicated to add a supercharger than to add cubes.

That went totally over your head huh? What if you bought a car with the cubes allready there? Then added a supercharger. I am talking stock vs stock which is what this whole thread was based on. And I stand firm that any ford fan that whines about other companies bigger engines or any gm fan whining about ford because they have a supercharger need to get out of being a car enthusiest point blank.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

That went totally over your head huh? What if you bought a car with the cubes allready there? Then added a supercharger. I am talking stock vs stock which is what this whole thread was based on. And I stand firm that any ford fan that whines about other companies bigger engines or any gm fan whining about ford because they have a supercharger need to get out of being a car enthusiest point blank.

Actually....the only whining I usually hear is from the GM guys. Ford owners for the most part have never really complained or made excuses about being outrun by F-Bodies, since with the additional cubes associated with the LT/LS series power plants, its what most of us have pretty much expected. It’s a fact of life, one that we've had time to deal with since 1993 when the LT1's hit the scene.

On the other hand, I can't even count how many GM guys cried foul when Ford introduced the '03-'04 Cobra and not only whipped their beloved F-Bodies, but showed the taillights to the Flagship Corvette as well. Ford was "totally cheating" when they threw a blower into the mix. It's like they’ve become totally oblivious to the 65ci handicap we Ford guys have been working against for the last 20+ years and the mismatch doesn't even faze them anymore.

 

[martyd]

Well the problem with that for me is that the Cobra was introduced in 2 years that there were no F-Bodies so actual educated auto enthusiest seen the difference. The 03/04 was great but once again I'm not speaking on modded cars so keep that in mind.

These are all stats recorded at the time each car was released.

2003 Mustang Cobra- 0 to 60mph in 4.5 seconds and a standing 1/4 mile of 12.9
2003 Chevorlet Corvette Z06- 0 to 60mph in 4.1 seconds and a standing 1/4 mile of 12.5
2002 Chevorlet Camaro SS- 0 to 60mph in 4.8 seconds and a standing 1/4 mile of 13.2
2002 Pontiac Trans Am WS6- 0 to 60mph in 4.7 seconds and a standing 1/4 mile of 13.1

I am not trying to pick a fight but the 03/04 SVT's were not that much better than the last year F-Body cars and I myself used to own a 00 C5 M6 and drove plenty of Cobra's and I will say this, the Corvette is so much more of a true sports car than the Cobra will ever be. They turn in so much harder, are not nose heavy, and on top of that get glowing gas mileage. Now the new GT500 it has some balls but it does not mimic a sports car, it is a true to life strait line car from the factory IMO.

This is getting so off base though, I never brought GM cars into this other than making a point that hp is not everything and the Mustang has done just fine for this long offering a cheaper moddable alternative so why should that change?

 

[afterburn]

That went totally over your head huh? What if you bought a car with the cubes allready there? Then added a supercharger. I am talking stock vs stock which is what this whole thread was based on. And I stand firm that any ford fan that whines about other companies bigger engines or any gm fan whining about ford because they have a supercharger need to get out of being a car enthusiest point blank.

It didn't go over my head; it's just nearly irrelevant to me. I get frustrated when people say that "this whole thread" is about some specific aspect of the argument, because they always 'cry foul' when someone has a good point to make outside the scope of their argument.

Stock vs. stock, I'm not arguing with you. But I don't buy my cars for what they are stock. I'm going to mod them, so I buy them with the modding potential in mind, and more cubes would help me a lot because I'm going to add a power-adder one way or another. I'd rather have more cubes to do that to. I don't see how you can say that my argument is illegitimate or off-topic.

 

[martyd]

It didn't go over my head; it's just nearly irrelevant to me. I get frustrated when people say that "this whole thread" is about some specific aspect of the argument, because they always 'cry foul' when someone has a good point to make outside the scope of their argument.

Stock vs. stock, I'm not arguing with you. But I don't buy my cars for what they are stock. I'm going to mod them, so I buy them with the modding potential in mind, and more cubes would help me a lot because I'm going to add a power-adder one way or another. I'd rather have more cubes to do that to. I don't see how you can say that my argument is illegitimate or off-topic.

Because the thread is talking about the "lack" of power from a stock Mustang GT. If you will read the first couple of pages it is about the 315hp rating vs the challenger and camaro 400+hp taings. Where did this come down to a modded vs modded thread? When people went off topic and this was not even a Ford vs xx company it was Ford vs Ford. But I dont know how you say that displacement dont matter when you are going to supercharge something. How does it not matter?

 

[FastDriver]

Tell ya what Chris....since you're so adamant that I'm wrong, I'll wait for you to show me an example or two of any 302ci OHV (factory or aftermarket) engines that fit the criteria.

....I'll be waiting.

No, I have already backed up my statements with numerous references and examples. Ask me to back up any other statements I've made and I will. First, though I am asking you to back up yours. Your reluctance to do so indicates that you can't back up your own all-encompassing statement that there is not a 302 OHV engine on the planet that can match Ford's 4.6 modular in power, mileage, drivability, and efficiency. In point of fact, it was just an opinion not based on any evidence but personal bias.

It seemed pretty important to the manufacturer, didn't it? Why exactly do you think the OHV line up was dropped in the first place?

I know what your opinion is, but I think it was due to the bottom line - money. In this case the money came in the form of manufacturing efficiency and flexibility: "The Modular engine is Ford Motor Company's current high volume overhead camshaft (OHC) V8 and V10 gasoline engine family. It gradually replaced the Windsor small-block and 385 big-block engines over several years in the mid-1990s. Contrary to popular belief, the Modular engine did not get its name from its design or sharing of certain parts among the engine family. Instead, the name was derived from a manufacturing plant protocol, "Modular", where the plant and its tooling could be changed out in a matter of hours to manufacture different versions of the engine family." from Ford Modular engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Come on, you really believe that ford cannot produce a pushrod engine with fuel mileage and emissions capabilities equivalent to what GM is producing with their pushrod engines? GM, with its LSx platforms, has arguably equaled or exceeded the stadards set by Ford with its modular platforms. You're buying into marketing hype, not reality. You seem to think that the engineers at Ford are not capable of doing the same.

I'm sorry....what 500hp 302 OHV had a stock cam again? Link please…I must have missed it?

It was a twin-turbo w/ GT40X heads, a Cobra intake, stock came and 9.5 psi of boost No link for you. I don't have it on the internet, believe me or don't. If you want to make it worth my while, I'll prove it to you.

Awww, cute.....you're quoting the window sticker. Go ahead and poll the guys in the S197 section and see what kind of real world mileage numbers they're all getting and see how close your numbers are.

Nope, not quoting the window sticker. EPA estimates. No need to poll anyone, else I would have you polling guys who have stock 5.0s in a good tune. Guys were getting better mileage with the fox 5.0s back in the day, too. Big deal. The EPA has already does the scientific testing. The fact of the matter is that subjected to the same conditions, the EPA has already shown the comparability of the two vehicles.

Yes, it's amazing what you can do with a lot more displacement to help with the horsepower department and a .50:1 O/D ratio to improve fuel economy. Don't think the last generation Camaro's were a marvel of the automotive world. It was Fords credit/or folly depending how you look at it that they chose to saddle the Mustang with a less expensive T45/T3650 drive train instead of the T56 set up used in the bowtie cars. Sure, the 5-speed didn't knock down the kind of fuel economy that the GM’s did, but it also kept the cost of the over all package down. Last time I checked, Ford won the war of the "Pony Cars" back in 2001 with the demise of the FBody? Guess horsepower doesn’t win races after all, huh?

Don't change the subject. This was not intended to bring up the pony car wars.

And keep in mind, without that wonderful 5.7L under the hood, they wouldn't hold a candle to the measly 4.6L that is the OHC.

I guess you think you've made a point here. I've got to give it to you, I guess. Without their engine, they wouldn't be able to do much of anything. In that case, the 4.6 would definitely be the better choice.

Fords making as much power now with 281ci as GM did with 346ci.

Not n/a. Please do not pretend to be so ignorant. You know I'm going to shoot you down and embarrass your lack of knowledge if you try to compare the ratings on the LS1 F-body with the current 4.6 GT or any cobra.

If you can't call that progress, then I'm afraid there's no help for you and your OHV blinders have made you deaf, dumb and blind to anything that doesn't have pushrods.

I don't have the blinders my friend. In point of fact, you're the one who has consistently overrated the 4.6 against two engine families that I've discussed. You don't seem to get the fact that I am an enthusiast of all types of cars and engines. I even like the modular, and love the '03+ blown modulars from ford. I just happen to like the windsors and LS1s, too.

And you still haven't proved otherwise? What do I need to prove when the manufacturer did it for me?

Now you won't even back up the statements you made regarding the numerous 4.6 powerplants that make upwards of 400 hp n/a? You clearly think you can get away with stating opinions as if they were the final word of God. No evidence, no logic, just bias.

Again, you don't think Ford dropped the OHC line up

Which line-up?

because they were already "doing everything at once" do you? They weren't measuring up anymore and they got the axe. Suck it up!!!

I think they were doing just fine. BTW, Saleen had a blown windsor back in the early 90's making 500 hp with a warranty and excellent drivability. That was more than a decade before ford did the same thing with the GT500s.

Chris

 

[FastDriver]

You realize that the EPA lowered their mileage estimates, right? They used to be higher, and spot-on in my opinion, but a majority of people were never getting that mileage because they barely understand how a car works, let alone have been trained to drive one. So now the EPA estimates are for your driver who constantly has his or her foot on the accelerator.

When I'm goofing off in my 2008 I still get 18 in the city, 22 mixed, 25 highway. If I don't play around, I get 22 in the city and a tenth or two shy of 27 on the highway.

Would you care to actually do the research and confirm your initial thought before you haphazardly jump on here and proclaim my ignorance? The numbers I showed fall under the EPAs current system. Check it out here: Compare Old and New MPG Estimates