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. The Ford GT motor only shares the same block as the navigator, the heads are cobra R's, and the internals are all changed. The 5.4 seems to rev pretty well in the 00' R. Back to the issue at hand, I think the 5.0 Cammer motor is more of a peformance or race-oriented motor than a 3v 5.4 motor based of a F150 truck engine. Don't get me wrong it is nice to have a torquey engine, but it would be nice to see Ford offer some bigger crate motors that produce serious HP in N/A form, instead of just bolting on a supercharger.

  2. hukt on fonix werked four me
  3. And even the Block is different. Navigator has an Iron block and the Ford GT has an Aluminum Block.... but not the same aluminum block as the Cobra R. The Ford GT block is made of a new aluminum alloy that is 30% stronger than the Cobra R block.
  4. I meant no disrespect to the Navigator motor, I'm well aware of it's power ratings and parts sharing. But even a 300-horse 5.4 gets humbled when you force it to tow a boat anchor like the Navigator, and comparing that situation to a proposed 375 h.p. 5.4 installed in a Mustang, or comparing the Nav's 5.4 to the 5.4 in the Ford GT, was downright silly. That was the point I was trying to make.
  5. Ok, I know i cant spell and i type fast so there will be typeoeoesseefs hows that for spelling. Just read it and respond to it dont try ot be cute. im not gonna proff read my stuff.

    First, the GM thing i said:

    Ford and GM do things diffrently, they always have and alwayse will. The stang is supposed ot have a smaller higher reving engine, thats why there quicker off the line, the camaro catches up when its torque kick in. The bigger engines is just not a Ford thing. What i want them to do is better tune there engiens, they onlly get like 65 per litter. They have to do better then that. Im not tryin to diss GM by the way.

    The Navigator ting i said:

    I used that as an example because thats what ive seen. Its a truck engine and thats where it should stay. I dont like the idea of it, even though the its all been changed and the block is aluminim. If there gonna make a sporty engine, they shold make it form the goung up. I dont like that they used it in the GT but they did. I se it as half assing it. Thast my opinon. U guys can go with it or not. Maybe my last post was not well said by me and i didnt include all my thought behing the comparison like now, but here it is. Im tired of FORD :bs: everything and putting out half assed products. From word of shelbys and Mach 1 and Bosses, I want to see some new engines and new inovations from Ford. These cars will be pride cars for the people who buy them. If they just take engines from trucks and mode em, to me it will lose the value. I want to see ford on top of the game. I want more hp out of these engines, they shouldnt have to resourt to bigger engines or superchargers. you look at a honda engine, they get like 100 hp per litter out of those things and why cant Ford do 80, thats all i want. If they did that to a 4.6, that comes out to 368 hp. Why add lbs by using a biger block when they just have ot put some more enginering into the existing 4.6 and get #'s like that. Sorry if i said some missleading thigs earlier but i hope its clear what im saying now. FORD NEEDS TO PUT SOME SERIOUS POWER AND ENGERNIERING ON THE TABLE.
  6. And how many lb. ft. of torqe do those Honda engines put put per liter and at what RPM is the max torque on them? Also what octane gas do they require?
  7. Thats why i said 80 not 100. There would be no torque if they tried 100, but 75 would be sufficeint. i just want ot see more efforet in the enginering department. Not jsut biger engines and superchargers. The 03 cobra didnt need one. I do have a counter arqument for my idea, and that is the car might not sound right anymore. It might sould like a BMW. i dont want that. it jsut a theory i had while writhing this. that might be why ford wont do it. Cuz its not just the exshaust that makes the car sound what it sounds like, its the engine its self. Although a vet with a titanium exshaust sounds like a ferrari.

    What do you guys think
  8. My point is that the ONLY thing that matters is torque. HP is simply a mathmatical expression of Torque over time.

    Honda gets the 100 hp / L by small very high reving engines. I am not intersted in that type of engine, nor do I belive most Mustang fans are either.
  9. specific output doesnt necessarily relate from 4cylinders to 6cylinders to 8s. Its not uncommon to find "performance" 4 cylinders having more specific output than 8s. They're different layouts, so specific output isn't really the best way to measure them against each other.
  10. Getting back to the original topic / question, here's something Ford should do:

    It's been reported that Ford can increase the bore of the Mod motors from 90.2 to 92 mm and still meet all reliability requirements. So I say this is what Ford should do immediately.

    In addition they should come out with a block that has a deck heigh somewhere in between the 4.6 & 5.4 blocks which would allow a 98mm stroke.

    This would give Ford 3 different V8's. Because of the larger bore, the HP increase would be more than just the displacment gain because the valves would be un-shrouded.

    In 3V form - 89 octane
    4.8L - 292 CID - 320 HP / 335 lb ft
    5.2L - 318 CID - 350 HP / 365 lb ft
    5.6L - 343 CID - 375 HP / 395 lb ft.

    You could also take the 5.2L, tune it for 91 Octane and put on the DOHC 4V high flow FR-500 heads which would probably give around 395 HP / 395 lb ft. And be 50 state emissions legal. :nice:
  11. No they dont do it because they have a larger displacement V8 motor that makes a lot more torque at a much lower RPM than a Honda 4 cylinder. I doubt if Honda made a mass market V8 of similar displacement that they would give it 100 HP per liter either. There is no need to, thats 460HP which is ridiculous for the average driver in a mass market vehicle such as the Mustang GT. It would send insurance sky rocketing and the engine components would drive up the cost of the engine deafeating its mass market purpose. A 4 cylinder with a 100HP per liter isnt going to make more than 250 HP and a lot less torque so regarless of its peak hp its still gonna be slower than a similar or even lighter weighted vehicle with a low end torquey V8. And it has nothing to do with sound, a rev screaming V8 sounds quite nice. Torque is what moves you not HP.
  12. You have that a$$ backwards. More torque will move you off the line quicker, and power is what cuts through wind resistance.
  13. [size=+2]Comparing HP/Liter is for Ricers and magazine racers.[/size]

    If you are going to compare HP per liter you need to compare it at the same RPM and also mention compression ratio and mpg

    Honda engines low tech compared to Chevy. Chevy can get a 3200lbs. with 405HP/400tq to get 28mpg hwy, Honda can't even get their 2600lbs. car with 240HP/167tq to get over 26mpg :rlaugh:
  14. I think the real problem is. Up until now there has not been any real hp wars. And there still may not be as much a competition. How many currently available and with a price tag you average mustang buyer can afford (basically nothing over $40k) are out there. I mean lets think about it. Up until the 05 how many gt mustangs came from the factory with 300 hp. Yet through most of it's life. The minimum engine in a gt has been a V8 (Yes I know about the turbo 4. That's why I said most). And I'm sorry but through the 80's and 90's and earlier. The 5.0/302 engine was not going to go anywhere near 500 hp or the 368 hp number. And as far as getting rid of the DOHC on the 5.0. Are you trying to argue against yourself. The fr500 engine was a DOHC 5.0. It put out 415hp.
  15. Regardless of the EPA milage ratings, It has been my experience that in real world driving, those smaller, higher revving engines can easily exceed their rated fuel economy.

    From the figures you posted, I assume you are talking about the honda s2000. First, the curb weight is closer to 2800 lbs, second, Iv'e got a friend that owns a first gen s2000. With the top up and keeping it under 75 mph, he can easily see a 30 mpg average over the course of a highway trip.
  16. I like that too! I want them both with forged internals so I can boost the 5.4 up to 500. I would get the one with the 5.4 for the sound and the torque.
  17. Why would they design a whole new engine when they could make it as fast as they did with the old engine? Plus, it's more historicly consistent this way. The 427 from the GT40s was just a truck engine they stuck in a sports car.
  18. Theres nothing wrong with lower hp/liter numbers , if it means having a more reliable, lower octane gas burning, naturally aspirated, longing lasting engine that has more torque .

    Some people are impressed by getting 100hp/liter but Id rather have a 5.4 with 400 hp that rumbles low and will last 20 years.
  19. Actually the 427 wasn't a truck engine, the 428 was. The 427 was a high-revving
    (for a classic V8) and had SOHC heads had huge (2.3 intake/2.0 exhaust) valves, a short stroke/large bore, and aggressive cams. None of this would have been good in a truck (it drastically cut low end torque... which is all a truck needs). The 428 was a completely different engine, even if it was from the same FE family. Its built with a long stroke design so that it could be something of a stump-puller. Actually a very good stump-puller. But its highend was vastly inferior to the 427's.

    In this day and age, making a whole new engine costs tens, even hundreds, of millions of dollars. Sharing engine components, likewase, saves millions. The modular family does its job fine, and the benefits to an all-sports car engine would not be worth the costs.
  20. You're not being accurate here. The FE family was NOT designed to be a truck engine. It was designed to be a universal large displacement engine for use in both cars and trucks. Sort of what Ford is doing with the Mod Motor today.

    The 406 & 427 engines shared the same bore spacing and many parts interchange between them & the rest of the FE family, but these 2 engines 406/427 were specifially designed to be higher reving engines intended for race cars, NASCAR and NHRA. They have a larger bore and shorter stroke than the 428. They also have a different oiling system intended to stand up to the stress of racing. Neither the 406 nor the 427 were ever sold in trucks.

    A 427 SOHC engine was made (the original Cammer) but it was never sold in vehicles, it was stricty a crate engine, just like the 5.0 Cammer is today. The regular 427's were pushrod engines that had conventional in line valves. They had 3 different heads, low, medium and high riser. The Medium Riser heads later became the Cobra Jet heads used on the 428CJ engines. I find it rather interesting that the latest trend in NASCAR is to raise the height of the intake ports in the heads to improve airflow and hence HP. This is what was done with the 427 high riser heads back in 1964.