You've got the horsepower blinders on again. Still forgetting that not only does the 4V best the 302 in horsepower numbers, but in every other category as well. I never contested the fact that the 302 could make as much, or even slightly more horsepower by comparison than a comparable small displacement mod motor, but when the attempt is made, everything else (fuel efficency, smooth idle, drivability, emmisions) goes out the window. I quoted the 4.6L and 5.0L DOCH engines, because they've both been a staple in production Mustangs. I don't recal ever that a 347ci stroked 302 was ever placed between the towers of a production Mustang, but feel free to quote me a source if you'd like.
As for the price of the Cammer engine is concerned….I’m not sure why you insist that the full race version of the engine is the only one available. I too am baffled at Fords asking price for said engine, but Ford Racing also offers a street version of the engine capable of 400+hp for less than half that price.
Ford Racing Performance Parts [M-6007-T50EA*]
Not to mention numerous Modular Specific engine builders releasing their own versions/variations of the engine for anywhere from $2,000-$6,000 less than that. It’s not for everyone, but still a valid example for our comparative purposes none the less?
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.
I see a lot of back pedaling here, but no examples. I've provided mine. If you can't produce any, that's fine....but at least have the decency to admit you're wrong.
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.
Continue to believe that if you wish. The results speak for themselves. Ford moved forward with all aspects of the car, not backwards. If you wish to believe their long reason for producing the Modular line up was to cut corners and save money, then go right ahead, but a factory best 225hp (or 245hp Cobra if you prefer) mid-14 second 3,200lb-3,400lb 5.0L Mustang from '87-'95 vs. a 300hp mid-13 second 3,500lb-3,700lb 4.6L Mustang in 2005 that's a better car from every, single aspect tells me a different story.
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.
What statement was that? My drivability example was with a N/A 302Wmaking 400hp. You're the one that needed to throw a Twin Turbo engine with aftermarket heads and intake into the mix.
I would say bring it... I've got a turbo 302 based setup for them
Ahh, misdirection at its finest. And my dad can beat up your dad. What's your point?
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.
Hey, I'm the one offered for you to poll the masses and confirm their real world numbers. You were the one who was afraid to hear the answer. Keep on quoting those EPA and magazine stats all you'd like. I mean...it was accurate representation like that that proved the WRX STi quicker than the '03 Cobra in the quarter mile, right? The fact of the matter is, is that the '05 guys are knocking down better mileage on average than the Fox guys. There's no magic, or trickery behind it. They're real world comparisons. Deny it if you wish, but while you're coasting into the pumps on fumes, Joe Schmo in his 3V is buying a happy meal for his kids with the money he saved and is still running around with a 1/4 tank of gas in his tank.
You are! Go read the first page in this thread again. Plus, this subject was never about comparing sales numbers.
Nor was it about comparing a Mustang to an F-Body or a 4.6L to an LS1, but that didn't stop you from using them to suit your examples. Look, if you want to compare aspects of the two cars, then that's fine....but it doesn't mean you can just pick and choose the facts you want to use and the ones you want to hide just because it best suit your argument.
Anyway....blah blah blah to the rest of your LS1 argument. I interests me not. If I wanted to get in depth about an old GM engine, I would have joined an LS1 forum.
Its right there in black and white in my previous responses. Sound out the words out loud when you read it over again if it helps.
a straw-man argument. (that's where you argue the opposite side for them and then tear down your own fabricated opposing argument).
And yet here we are into the 2009 model year. The 302W dead and gone, not to be seen in a Ford product now for over 11-years and the Mod Motor still going strong and getting better and better as time progresses. So much for the "straw-man argument".
Didn't I already do that ???
Increased displacement motor vs. increased displacement motor. Let's put your 5.0 against a 347, and your 4.6 against a 302...
Absurd statement! It's called a cammer for a reason.
Why...because it's got a fancy nickname?
It was a moniker given to the engine for marketing purposes, not because it possessed a set of wild, untamable street cams only reserved for the most flat out race cars. Top end charge is increased dramatically, but low end torque, idle, drivability and economy all remain quite reasonable (as proven with the Parnelli Jones edition). Otherwise it’s the same beast found in the '99 FR500, the '05 FR500C, Mustang GTR the Parnelli Jones Mustang, Steeda Q525 and a handful more that aren't coming to mind right now.
Was the FR500 street legal?
Yes, I believe so. As is the Parnelli Jones edition, and Steeda Q525
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.
Nice little package. Horsepower figures were taken on SuperFlow 901 engine dyno without accessories....Kind of favors the numbers a little (about 20%) in comparison to the SAE ratings in my examples though. But nice set up none the less.
Great, two representations of stroked 4.6-based SBFs. Again, to these I will continue to compare the stroked 302-based engines.
I compared factory offerings to factory offerings. If it were only an engine you could buy out of the catalogue, your argument might have some merit. But since it was and is currently available in Factory built cars, with full warranty and EPA ratings, I really don't see a problem? Not only that, but I compared 302 to 302. I mean....how much more fair would you like the comparison to be?
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.
You want specifics....simple....show me a N/A 302ci engine that makes 400hp SAE while retaining decent low end torque and a smooth, linear power, knocks down 27mpg in a near 3,600lb car and passes the same standard emissions testing the factory Parnelli Jones Mustang does.
Find me an example like that and I'll consider your point proven.
Nice motors, but I'm sure there are much much more stout versions of the 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
What a surprise...another stroked engine (357cid) on an engine dyno with no accessories and an open exhaust. Still waiting for you to do it with a 302?
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.
That’s funny....twice now you've pointed me to this amazing example of automotive excellence, but neither time have you specified the year, model number, or engine configuration of said car. And save what face??? Does this car actually exist? Please...link me to it....tell me about this wonderful marvel of automotive technology that I may research and determine it for myself.
I mean....I used to have a pink unicorn that ate blueberries and **** rainbows and got 50-oats to the gallon, but it's up to you to find it and disprove its existence! Until then, it must be true and you must be ignorant!
Nah, it's an appropriate comparison for a big-inch blown modular, like the one in the GT500.
I guess it might be if I actually threw the GT500 into the mix, but this far I've been able to beat up on all of your comparisons with the lowly little 4.6L/5.0L Modular examples.
Ah, now this is going to be fun.... Although, the problem here is that they stopped the production of blown Windsor’s 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... How many 1200 hp GT500s exist right now?
Ahh...so again you're not comparing built engines (that you don't wish to get specific on.....guess I'll just have to take your word on that one too, huh?
), with aftermarket heads, intakes and cams, internal components, etc to factory Modular Ford offerings. Do you ever get tired of hearing yourself speak?
How about 1,200hp Twin Turbo Cobra's (HP Performance over the counter kit)....you know...the kinds still sporting their
completely stock, untouched 4.6L DOHC long block engines. Matching your horsepower example, without cracking a valve cover all while doing it with a mere 281ci.
Not so fun anymore is it?
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.
I guess I forgot to mention that I actually started with 2.73 and my mileage actually went up when I went to the 3.55's, huh? In town I picked up another 1-2mpg and my highway mileage remained about the same.