Yeah... they're called NON-PI motors.
That's alright....be a skeptic. Just consider as far as the whole "more moving parts and more sensors, the more of a chance there's something to go wrong" arguement goes. That's exactly the mindset many had about the 2V and 4V Modulars when they first came out and they were a smashing success. It was said again when the 3V's hit the scene and they've been an ever bigger success than the 2V's and 4V's.
Touche....but they still ran on regular gas did then not? And they also put out the same amount of power as the more popular (and larger) 5.0L OHV they replaced. Not a success as far as huge horsepower makers goes, but a good reliable engine it was none the less. Once you got past the fault of the all plastic lower intake manifold that is.
Whatever the situation, a 6.2L Mustang would be a legendary vehicle.
That's alright....be a skeptic. Just consider as far as the whole "more moving parts and more sensors, the more of a chance there's something to go wrong" arguement goes. That's exactly the mindset many had about the 2V and 4V Modulars when they first came out and they were a smashing success. It was said again when the 3V's hit the scene and they've been an ever bigger success than the 2V's and 4V's.
Touche....but they still ran on regular gas did then not? And they also put out the same amount of power as the more popular (and larger) 5.0L OHV they replaced. Not a success as far as huge horsepower makers goes, but a good reliable engine it was none the less. Once you got past the fault of the all plastic lower intake manifold that is.
opcorn:
So I shouldn't expect a Boss 6.2 Mustang?
and yea it does 
Nothing all that magical about it really. They're every bit as rock solid as the older 2V's (once you got past the intake issues) and 4V's, make more power than the 2V and as much as an N/A 4V available. They got an immediately injection of infinite customizability with a strong aftermarket following, have heads that flow nearly as well as the last crop of 4.6L 4V's, an induction system that supports more airflow than both and seem to make every bit the same (if not more) power when subjected to similar modifications as even the best previous generation 4V 4.6L engines.Please clarify what you mean by "bigger success"
I'd like to hear this
Nothing all that magical about it really. They're every bit as rock solid as the older 2V's (once you got past the intake issues) and 4V's, make more power than the 2V and as much as an N/A 4V available. They got an immediately injection of infinite customizability with a strong aftermarket following, have heads that flow nearly as well as the last crop of 4.6L 4V's, an induction system that supports more airflow than both and seem to make every bit the same (if not more) power when subjected to similar modifications as even the best previous generation 4V 4.6L engines.
I suppose "instant" success would have been a more appropriate choice of words, but considering they haven't made a 4.6L 2V/4V in 6-years and the 4.6L 3V is still in production, it’s fair to say the success is going to continue to snowball from here.
A new engine may already be in the works.
The 4.6s will be done after 2010 in the Mustang and F150 and after 2011 in the Explorer and Sport Trac.
They don't make as much power as the 99+ Cobras and the 03-04 Mach1s. IDGAF what they were rated at. Those were both 320+ HP engines N/A from the factory. The newer Bullitts and GTs are 315. FI 4V make more power than 3vs with the same mods.
VERY FEW 3vs competing in NMRA, LOTS of 4vs.
Obviously the 4v is a better design, otherwise the new 5.0 wouldn't be a 4v
4.6 3v done by 2012 across the board
Wait, so you ask for my opinion then you argue?
Ive always preferred the term "altered atmosphere"
Has a nice ring to it doesn't it?
Wait, so you ask for my opinion then you argue?
Let’s be honest here, if any engine was overrated, it was the 4.6L 4V in the '99,'01 Cobra. None I've ever seen, or heard of have ever made their advertised power levels. As a matter of fact, they’re renowned for not producing them.....even after "the fix". They generally put out no more than 250-265rwhp, which is 15-30hp less than the advertised specs. The Mach 1's dyno slightly higher than that, with a 5-speed coming in at around 265-270rwhp. The '05-up 4.6L 3V's regularly match those horsepower numbers right off the showroom floor.
The same goes for Forced Induction numbers. The stock 2V’s aren’t even close and the 3V's and 4V's seem to be on a pretty even keel across the board when you put the unnatural motivation to them. Even when you start really pushing them (15psi+) the 3V and 4V cars always seem to be within 10-20hp of each other with any dyno comparison I’ve ever seen and even that 10-20hp can be attributed to many different factors.
But hey, you don't need to take my word for any of it, just head over to the S197 section and see the dyno figures for yourself. There are plenty there that have put them on the rollers.
I’m not sure why it matters how many 3V's and 4V's are competing in NMRA. It's irrelevant to the subject at hand. The 4V's have been around for 17-years and used parts are readily available and cheap.....not to mention the 2V/4V engine swap is a whole lot less complex and expensive by than the 3V, so it’s no surprise many people are running them. By comparison, the 4.6L 3V has only been on the scene for 5-years, yet it has a larger aftermarket following than both the 2V and 4V engines. That speaks volumes about their success.
As far as their heads go, I'm not saying the 4V heads don't flow more air, but you sound more like you're wrapped up in peak flow figures and seem to ignore low lift and average flow numbers, or volumetric efficiency. The very fact that the 3V's are making the same kinds of numbers as the 4V's with one less valve and 2-less cams is a further credit to their design.
And yes, the NEW 5.0L 4V heads seem to be the best designed of the bunch thus far.....but the comparison I made here was the success of the earlier 2V and 4V 4.6L engines in comparison to the current 3V 4.6L engines. Quite frankly, the only 4.6L 4V head castings that have any advantage at all out of the box over the 3V castings are the later “C” heads found on the ’03-’04 Cobra’s and Mach 1’s. All others have fallen short either with flow, or low speed velocity potential by comparison.
@ that whole post
Mehhh, if all you've got are witless remarks, so be it. It doesn't change the fact that I'm right and you've got nothing but smart assed remarks to counter it with.
:ZipIt: 
opcorn:
