Went for a ride in a '11 today

Discussion in '1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-' started by Cobra Jay, Mar 1, 2010.

  1. Uh-oh.

  2. Again....my comparison was between the previous 4.6L 4-valve engines and the current 4.6L 3-valve engine.

    The Shelby GT500 uses a different head than the previous B, tumble port and C castings found on the 4.6L's. They do move more air (which I'm quite certain I've already recognized) than the previously aforementioned units and sports a larger intake volume that is better suited to the larger displacement 5.4L engine. Not denying their capability.

    I am however glad that you brought up the 5.4L 3-valve truck engine. The '04-'08 5.4L 3-valve truck heads makes 300hp/365tq (320hp/390lbs ft/tq as of '09), yet the 5.4L DOHC 4-Valve engines used in the '99-'02 Lincolns (which utilized a head casting nearly identical to the "C-design") made no more horsepower and 10lbs ft/tq less than the 3-valves did (20 less horsepower and 25lbs ft/tq less than the '09-up) with the exact same displacement? :shrug:

    Better flowing head, lesser results. Again, peek flow figures don't tell the whole story.

    So I'll say it again. I agree that the latest 4-valve production head castings utilized on the S197 powered 5.4L engines and those on the new 5.0L Ti VCT engine are of a superior design to the current 3-valve castings...as are the later 4.6L C-castings (although not by much) and special production heads like the ones on the 5.4L Cobra R and 4.6L FR500's

    ...but as far as over all comparison goes, the early 4.6L 4-Valve B and Tumble Port heads are most certainly inferior to the current 3-valve and the later "C castings" hold a small advantage that seems only realized in the most serious circumstances (heavy engine modifications, or high boost applications).

    This still doesn't take away from the fact that the 3-valve engine itself is a wildly successful (and every bit as capable) effort from Ford, for both the novice and aftermarket to build on. Fords need to jump up the displacement was no secret and has been frustrating Mustang enthusiasts for over 10-years now, but the fact remains that the power output and efficiency of their latest effort is amongst the best that the 4.6L had to offer. Combine that with its large production volume and huge aftermarket support and there’s no denying it’s been a big success. Even with the new 5.0L looming overhead in the next year or so. :shrug:

    There's no need for the poor attitude, or the snide remarks. I’ll debate with you, but I’m not getting into a pissing match. Play nice, or not at all please. This thread just seemed to get back on track, there’s no need to ruin it with more nonsense.
  3. You know what motor is more successful then the 2V, 3V, and 4V combined?????
  4. the LSx?
  5. oh man now the threads definitely getting locked
  6. ****, i thought thats where you were going....
    fine pushrod engines? ;)
  7. There is no one on here crazy enough to say that the Ford pushrod is better than the Ford modular engine.
  8. I personally can not wait for the new 5.0! I think it is actually better than everyone thinks it will be. There have been 2 years of SERIOUS R&D with this engine and I believe it will easily be a 12 sec close to 30 mpg car STOCK! My friend has a 08 Bullitt edition car. With only a Carbon fibre inlet "hose", aluminim driveshaft, underdrive pullies, SCT tune and rear lower control arms, armed with M/T ET streets, this car knocks off 12.8's at almost 108 all day long, and then gets 28mpg at 70 mph on the 80 mile drive each way to and from the track.
    When EFI came out everyone said that performance was dead, when the 4.6 came out everyone said performance was dead, ect ect. You watch, in just a few years we will be doing great things with this new 5.0 and will be wondering why we hang on to the "old school" stuff when it is such a pita to get even close to what the new 5.0 does stock!
  9. i think the ford pushrod is better than the ford modular
  10. You know who else loves DOHCams, honda guys.

    Anyone who says that ford did a good thing with the modular has had a little too much cool aid, they are great motors WITH BOOST, but really, how long has this platform been in production?? about 15 years and we are just getting a production 400 hp naturally aspirated motor? nobody else thinks this is a little *****ed up? am i alone here?

    im keeping my head down...

    last time i mentioned brandx on here i had a red dot on my forehead and a gangbanger showed up at my doorstep
  11. That's kind of a twisted mind set don't you think? I mean, if we all followed that logic, what does that say for the 302 OHV that was in production for almost 40-years and never made 400hp (or even 300hp for that matter) in factory trim? :shrug:
    Meh, they did the same thing to "Old Yeller" when he lost his mind too. :D
  12. I just think its interseting that everyone complains about the high compression of the 5.0 and how it may not accept boost...etc, etc. But isn't this what LS1's are? :shrug: High compression engines, and with a few modifications can be made to haul total ass? Aren't we dealing with the same kind of thing here? Just my .02
  13. The LS series of engines benefit from something the Coyote doesn't have- displacement. But lets not open that can of worms.
  14. i know what you mean, exact reason i dont update my build thread anymore
  15. Same thing could be argued for the chevy small blocks, except they got 4 bolt mains from the factory, larger displacement etc, except they decided to go to the LS series where the really showed to ability of a pushrod engine, and yes a 302 did make 300hp from the factory, the trans am boss 302 made 470 flywheel horsepower, that was WAY back in the 70's but ford stuck with what made them money and kept it a home modders car, so i still stang behind the pushrod, be it ford or LSx
  16. LoL at the pushrod being better than the modular comments.

    Get out of the 90's, technology is a wonderful thing.