Wards 10 best engines, 2008

* Audi AG: FSI 2.0L turbocharged DOHC I-4 (Audi A3)
* BMW AG: 3.0L turbocharged DOHC I-6 (335i Coupe)
* Daimler AG: 3.0L DOHC V-6 Turbodiesel (Mercedes E320 CDI)
* Ford Motor Co.: 4.6L SOHC V-8 (Mustang Shelby GT/Bullitt)
* General Motors Corp.: 3.6L DOHC V-6 (Cadillac CTS)
* General Motors Corp.: 6.0L OHV V-8 Hybrid (GMC Yukon Hybrid)
* Honda Motor Co. Ltd.: 3.5L SOHC V-6 (Accord Coupe)
* Mazda Motor Corp.: 2.3L DISI turbocharged DOHC I-4 (Mazdaspeed3)
* Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.: 3.7L DOHC V-6 (Infiniti G37)
* Toyota Motor Corp.: 3.5L DOHC V-6 (Lexus IS 350)

Good for GM, 2 engines this year versus none last year. Although it seems to me the Tahoe Hybrid is more a victory for the transmission than the engine.

http://wardsauto.com/home/best_engines_focus/

i would have thought theyd stick the ls7 on there of all engines.

i would have thought theyd stick the ls7 on there of all engines.

LS7 is a low tech OHV, pushrod, single cam, 2 measly valves per cylinder V8 in a tiny package that puts out great power and gets even better mpg than any engine with similar performance. What's so special?;)

* Ford Motor Co.: 4.6L SOHC V-8 (Mustang Shelby GT/Bullitt)


Please explain why this motor was even worthy of consideration?

The Ford 4.6 SOHC beats out the LS3/LS7??? Gotta raise the flag on this list http://images.corvetteforum.com/images/smilies/icon_bs.gif

Please explain why this motor was even worthy of consideration?

almost seems like just for the sake of having ford on the list

Please explain why this motor was even worthy of consideration?

The justification that Wards used last year was the number of platforms that this engine is used in, along with its performance gains over the years. Personally, I think that the engine is a joke, considering that it's running about 10 years behind GM's GenIII engines (and maybe that's being too generous).

I also think that GM's LNF should get the nod over Audi's FSI 2.0L. And, geez, how about a few more V6s in the 3.5-3.7L range? :mad: Seems to me that at least one of the HD light-truck turbodiesels should be on the list; I'd pick either the Duramax for its performance or the 6.4L Powerstroke for its jaw-dropping technology.

The justification that Wards used last year was the number of platforms that this engine is used in, along with its performance gains over the years.

True, in the last 12 years (1996 ~ 2008), the 4.6 in the 1996 Mustang GT vs. the 4.6 in the Shelby GT would have netted the Shelby a rough 125 horsepower gain. Sadly, the 1996 4.6 in a Mustang GT started its life with about 20 more horsepower than some of the "hotter" V6s on tha market at that time. Even at the time it was released, it was about 65 horsepower behind a 1996 Z28. But the gain over time alone isn't amazing in my mind. If one was to look at the base LSx that is in the Corvette, it too has gained roughly 80 horspower over its run since 1997 (LS1 350 HP ~ LS3 430 HP).

Personally, I think that the engine is a joke, considering that it's running about 10 years behind GM's GenIII engines (and maybe that's being too generous).

This is where I am with you, and what makes the 125 horse gain a joke in my mind. Even after 12 years, the 4.6 fails to match the run of the mill LS1 that was used in the 1997 Corvette, and 1998 F-Body.

The good new for the Ford fans is, with the Camaro and Challenger in the market, the Mustang will FINALLY have some real competition and Ford should want to up the ante a bit on their base V8 and mid level V8 Mustangs. I am pretty sure the 2009 (2010?) refresh the Mustang is slated for will send some firewpower the GTs way.

;)

Ehhh, I don't know if Ford will want to turn it up too much. You have to remember Mustang sales are high despite high horsepower (and always have been). I don't think they'll mess with that winning formula too much.

I still think we'll continue to see a 300hp-ish GT and special edition models for the Mustang.

I'm just glad that 3.6 from the Cadillac made it on there, if it did not, I would never pay attention to Wards again. That is a very impressive engine.

True, in the last 12 years (1996 ~ 2008), the 4.6 in the 1996 Mustang GT vs. the 4.6 in the Shelby GT would have netted the Shelby a rough 125 horsepower gain. Sadly, the 1996 4.6 in a Mustang GT started its life with about 20 more horsepower than some of the "hotter" V6s on tha market at that time. Even at the time it was released, it was about 65 horsepower behind a 1996 Z28. But the gain over time alone isn't amazing in my mind. If one was to look at the base LSx that is in the Corvette, it too has gained roughly 80 horspower over its run since 1997 (LS1 350 HP ~ LS3 430 HP).



This is where I am with you, and what makes the 125 horse gain a joke in my mind. Even after 12 years, the 4.6 fails to match the run of the mill LS1 that was used in the 1997 Corvette, and 1998 F-Body.
OMFG. Here we go again.
Fords suck because they don't make 7-zillion horsepower per liter.
Fords suck because they make 30 less hp today than a 1997 Corvette or 1998 F-body.
The 4.6 sucks because it sucks and it sucks even when it doesn't suck.

guionM, myself, and a few others have gone over this time and again.
The engine actually did exactly what it was meant to do for Ford. It got them into a modular engine design that allowed them to distribute common parts, common tooling, and wider application across their entire lineup while sharing manufacturing and tools to boot. It powers cars, trucks, and everything in between for Ford in V6 and V8 form (it's just that the V8 gets more recognition and discussion).

Which single GM engine currently powers basic transpotation (like a Crown Vic), their luxo-line (like a GM or Town Car), their pickup trucks, their SUVs, and their ponycars? And after you riddle me that one, answer me this... does that same engine come from GM with a roots blower on it that is detuned and bullitproof warrantied for 390hp/390tq? What about unique Shaker induction and valvetrain for a drag-car application? Does it offer itself in pure racing trim for factory-built race cars? How about offering VVT and the ability to run on pizz-grade gasoline? Shall I keep going?

NO, it doesn't get the best mileage of any engine, NO it doesn't make the most power of any engine, NO it doesn't have the fewest moving parts, NO it's not the smallest V8 to fit in the hole, etc. But it did exactly what it was intended to do, and it did it well. Like it or not, it is a good engine. It's as d@mn-close as you will find to being both the Jack and the Master of all trades, and it has allowed Ford to capitalize on using common parts and tooling while doing so. That's a pretty tough nut to crack, and it deserves some cred for doing it IMO.


The good new for the Ford fans is, with the Camaro and Challenger in the market, the Mustang will FINALLY have some real competition and Ford should want to up the ante a bit on their base V8 and mid level V8 Mustangs. I am pretty sure the 2009 (2010?) refresh the Mustang is slated for will send some firewpower the GTs way.
;)
Yup... we have no power from Ford to brag about at all. We are so far behind. :(
The 2003/2004 Terminator Cobras were LAME. They only had 4.6L with a slightly UNDER-rated 390/390, and they were so slow it was unreal... could hardly compare to a C5 of the day, or the Camaro.
And how many FACTORY-STOCK Corvettes and Camaros have been offered with 550hp/500tq to date?
It may have a Shelby badge on it, but it's still a Mustang.

Philosophical question for you... Why would Ford want to put it's maximum power offering in it's base units, when gas prices are ever-rising, insurance rates are rising, operating costs are rising, speed monitoring devices are sprouting everywhere in all shapes and forms, traffic and congestion is getting ever worse, and engines are getting more complex and harder for the average Joe to work on/maintain?


Not going to ramble any more on this one - you can search this very forum and find a dozen threads with the same banter in them.

Ehhh, I don't know if Ford will want to turn it up too much. You have to remember Mustang sales are high despite high horsepower (and always have been). I don't think they'll mess with that winning formula too much.

I still think we'll continue to see a 300hp-ish GT and special edition models for the Mustang.
EXACTLY!!!
This guy has the marketing savvy. 100% of peeps don't care about racing everything in sight, many simply want a V8 for some get up and go and a deep gurgling exhaust note. The potential is there for those wanting a land missile, but not forced upon those who don't (which is a larger buying populous).
THANKS for posting this "sanity check" dude!


As for the others - I throw down KUDOS to GM for the 3.6 in the CTS. Very smooth and refined for a V6. They deserved it. Also for breaking ground with a V8 hybrid in the 6.0 . Of all the engines on that list, this is the one I would like to see get the most attention and spur all the others into developing more hybrid technologies - especially in V8 configurations.

Interesting to see Mazda is the only one on this list with direct injection. I was expecting to see more DI engines making this list given the potential benefits of it. Oh well, I guess we will see how another 12 months bodes for the DI technology.:shrug:

What does the Ford 4.6 do, that engines in it's price range (ex: LSx) don't do as well? Power? NO. Fuel economy? NO. Size? NO. Weight? NO. Versatility? NO. Number of Applications? NO. Further Performance potential? NO. So what is it? I seriously can't think of one.

I also think that GM's LNF should get the nod over Audi's FSI 2.0L. And, geez, how about a few more V6s in the 3.5-3.7L range? :mad: Seems to me that at least one of the HD light-truck turbodiesels should be on the list; I'd pick either the Duramax for its performance or the 6.4L Powerstroke for its jaw-dropping technology.I wondered about the Audi vs. LNF last year, too. Both are 2.0L turbo fours with DI, but the LNF makes 260 hp / 260 lbft (vs. 200 hp from the Audi) with a torque plateau instead of a torque curve.

:cool:

Agree also about the diesels.

Which single GM engine currently powers basic transpotation (like a Crown Vic), their luxo-line (like a GM or Town Car), their pickup trucks, their SUVs, and their ponycars? Well, I tend to count the small block "family" as an engine. But even if you want to cound just one specific variant, the 5.3L is in the Impala SS, Buick LaCrosse Super, Grand Prix GXP, Trailblazer, Envoy, Buick Rainier, Silverado/Sierra, Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon, Avalanche...

If you count the small blocks as "an engine," you've got the Escalade, the rest of the pickups and SUVs, the Caddy CTS-V, the Vette, the upcoming Camaro...

:)

I'm don't personally have a problem with the 300-ish hp Mustang 4.6L, but I don't know about putting it on the 10 best list...

Fords suck because they make 30 less hp today than a 1997 Corvette or 1998 F-body.
The 4.6 sucks because it sucks and it sucks even when it doesn't suck.


These are true statements, and the 4.6 only rarely doesn't suck.


guionM, myself, and a few others have gone over this time and again.
The engine actually did exactly what it was meant to do for Ford. It got them into a modular engine design that allowed them to distribute common parts, common tooling, and wider application across their entire lineup while sharing manufacturing and tools to boot. It powers cars, trucks, and everything in between for Ford in V6 and V8 form (it's just that the V8 gets more recognition and discussion).

The engine gets ragged on because it is totally unremarkable. Sure, it does exactly what it was meant to do for Ford. The xB's wussy little 4 banger does exactly what Toyota wanted it to do for Scion as well.


Which single GM engine currently powers basic transpotation (like a Crown Vic), their luxo-line (like a GM or Town Car), their pickup trucks, their SUVs, and their ponycars? And after you riddle me that one, answer me this... does that same engine come from GM with a roots blower on it that is detuned and bullitproof warrantied for 390hp/390tq? What about unique Shaker induction and valvetrain for a drag-car application? Does it offer itself in pure racing trim for factory-built race cars? How about offering VVT and the ability to run on pizz-grade gasoline? Shall I keep going?

I have no idea why you actually wrote this as an example. You could easily argue that GM's v8 family does the exact same thing for their entire line of vehicles, with more power and better gas mileage to boot. If you really want a roots blower, GM will have them out shortly, but I find that arguement irrelevant because GM has already achieved 390hp with a warranted naturally aspirated version of their engine. You can even get one in an Escalade. The Shaker induction thing is irrelevant, because it was a gimmick.


NO, it doesn't get the best mileage of any engine, NO it doesn't make the most power of any engine, NO it doesn't have the fewest moving parts, NO it's not the smallest V8 to fit in the hole, etc. But it did exactly what it was intended to do, and it did it well. Like it or not, it is a good engine. It's as d@mn-close as you will find to being both the Jack and the Master of all trades, and it has allowed Ford to capitalize on using common parts and tooling while doing so. That's a pretty tough nut to crack, and it deserves some cred for doing it IMO.

It is a good engine, but it does not keep company with great engines. Why it is on a top ten engine list I have no idea, but Ward's top ten engines for each year continue to surprise and disappoint me.


Yup... we have no power from Ford to brag about at all. We are so far behind. :(
The 2003/2004 Terminator Cobras were LAME. They only had 4.6L with a slightly UNDER-rated 390/390, and they were so slow it was unreal... could hardly compare to a C5 of the day, or the Camaro.
And how many FACTORY-STOCK Corvettes and Camaros have been offered with 550hp/500tq to date?
It may have a Shelby badge on it, but it's still a Mustang.

Because there was a whole lot of volume behind the blown 4 valve 4.6s(sarcasm). I thought we were talking about strategic use of engine platforms over the entire corporation. Sure, 390hp underrated hp is great, but it is a drop in the bucket in this judgement criteria when you consider how low volume it was.

Nobody is upset that a stock Vette doesn't come with 550hp, considering the package the 550hp is in is overweight and noseheavy, with no small help from the weight of that 550hp motor.


Philosophical question for you... Why would Ford want to put it's maximum power offering in it's base units, when gas prices are ever-rising, insurance rates are rising, operating costs are rising, speed monitoring devices are sprouting everywhere in all shapes and forms, traffic and congestion is getting ever worse, and engines are getting more complex and harder for the average Joe to work on/maintain?

Because it would cost them too much to do so. It is not Ford's responsibility to worry about speed monitoring devices, traffic, or congestion. Ford engines are not difficult to work on. It has been brought up time and again that the Ford engines do not make the same hp per dollar as the GM or Dodge engines. Even Colleti had a hard time finding the hp he wanted naturally aspirated when the 03 Cobra was being concieved. Ford had to go with a more costly blown setup to put the power down.



EXACTLY!!!
This guy has the marketing savvy. 100% of peeps don't care about racing everything in sight, many simply want a V8 for some get up and go and a deep gurgling exhaust note. The potential is there for those wanting a land missile, but not forced upon those who don't (which is a larger buying populous).
THANKS for posting this "sanity check" dude!

I really doubt Ford keeps the power down to keep the car from becoming a land missile. Plenty of you guys on here have stated that a large portion of the buying populous is afraid of a powerful motor, but nothing empirical has ever been shown, just people's anectodal "evidence". If power was that much of a deterent to the buyer, then why did Ford even bother going to 300hp with the S197. They could have bumped it up to 280 or even less just to generate a "new" interest in the car, and kept people's power fears abate. Why does Ford plan on putting more (from what I hear much more) power in their new GT when the car gets a refresh? If power hurts sales, that would be counterproductive.

More Power = More Cost and More Weight. I think that's why they're not sending the GT into the 400hp range we might see the Camaro in. But that's just a hunch.

I'm sorry, but I see the modular as pretty underwhelming too (in general) when compared to its competition. I certainly can't see it as one of the "10 Best".

Of course, that is just my opinion.

Yup... we have no power from Ford to brag about at all. We are so far behind. :(
The 2003/2004 Terminator Cobras were LAME. They only had 4.6L with a slightly UNDER-rated 390/390, and they were so slow it was unreal... could hardly compare to a C5 of the day, or the Camaro.
And how many FACTORY-STOCK Corvettes and Camaros have been offered with 550hp/500tq to date?
It may have a Shelby badge on it, but it's still a Mustang.

I don't recall bashing the 2003 ~ 2004 Cobras? I recall specifically mentioning examples of the 4.6 that was cited in the article, which is the SOHC 4.6. In case I missed something, the DOHC 4.6 wasn't on the list...

:think:
Ford Motor Co.: 4.6L SOHC V-8 (Mustang Shelby GT/Bullitt)

My statements were in response to the possible answer of the engine's current power level and where it came from power wise as the reason why its on the list. To argue that statement involved comparing the original 1996 SOHC 4.6 to what is currently offered in Shelby GT and Bullit. The point is, the statement of power increase isn't sufficient. The GM motors that got snubbed did the same thing in increaseing power, and didn't make the list.

I always thought of the mod motor as an expensive, dirty burning, heavy engine. I don't get good gas milage, and with 300 HP V6's coming out it is pretty lame. The 5.3L might make the same power, but is also lighter, more efficiant, and cleaner burning. Get up into the LS2/LS3/L76 (whatever they call the G8 engine) range and it is no contest. Ford might have had success with blowen mod motors...but I think GM's blown LSx's will make that an afterthough:)

Ford in general is just pretty lame anymore.

I don't know how Ford's 4.6L engine got into the list. It's gives the award very little credibility.

For starters, it weighs more, takes up more space, produces less power/torque and probably uses more fuel than an LSX. It's not exactly state of the art as far as V8 engines go.

A lot of 6 cylinder engines in that list... what there aren't any good 4 cyl engines?

As for the others - I throw down KUDOS to GM for the 3.6 in the CTS. Very smooth and refined for a V6. They deserved it. Also for breaking ground with a V8 hybrid in the 6.0 . Of all the engines on that list, this is the one I would like to see get the most attention and spur all the others into developing more hybrid technologies - especially in V8 configurations.

Interesting to see Mazda is the only one on this list with direct injection. I was expecting to see more DI engines making this list given the potential benefits of it. Oh well, I guess we will see how another 12 months bodes for the DI technology.:shrug:

Isn't the 3.6 in the CTS DI?? or did they put the base CTS motor on the list?? Maybe it's because I work on them day in and day out, but I'm somewhat surprized at the DISI motor getting to the list.


A lot of 6 cylinder engines in that list... what there aren't any good 4 cyl engines?

The Audi 2.0 and Mazda 2.3 are both 4 cylinders. Definatly an over abundunce of 3.5-3.7L motors, though I think that is is simply a reflection of what is on the market at this piont.

Perhaps some of the Ford Mod fans are having difficulty comparing the Mod to the LSx, which has more than its share of fans on the site. In which case lets compare it to the 5.7 Hemi. Which makes the comparable power to the 6.0 GM engines (albeit w/ less mileage) and is found in a few different vehicle lines.

i like the 4.6 but i don't see why its on the list.

Interesting to see Mazda is the only one on this list with direct injection. I was expecting to see more DI engines making this list given the potential benefits of it. Oh well, I guess we will see how another 12 months bodes for the DI technology.:shrug:

The 335i engine is DI (plus twin turbo) and I think the VW 2.0 and Mercedes diesel are as well...

The Audi 2.0 and Mazda 2.3 are both 4 cylinders. Definatly an over abundunce of 3.5-3.7L motors, though I think that is is simply a reflection of what is on the market at this piont.

But they're high spec turbo models. They're not NA. I should have rephrased my question to ask why no 4 cyl NA engines.

I agree there is an overabundance of 3.5-3.7L engines... all V-configuration. There should only be ONE CLEAR WINNER, IMO. They can't all be as good as each other. And, no, I don't believe they are 3 of the best engines in the world.

Which single GM engine currently powers basic transpotation (like a Crown Vic), their luxo-line (like a GM or Town Car), their pickup trucks, their SUVs, and their ponycars? And after you riddle me that one, answer me this... does that same engine come from GM with a roots blower on it that is detuned and bullitproof warrantied for 390hp/390tq? What about unique Shaker induction and valvetrain for a drag-car application? Does it offer itself in pure racing trim for factory-built race cars? How about offering VVT and the ability to run on pizz-grade gasoline? Shall I keep going?

Um, I'm not seeing anything here that the GM small-block doesn't do (with the exception of coming with a Roots blower, and we just need to wait a year for that), so what's the big deal? In fact, most of the things you've listed are qualifications that several American V8s from the last half-century could brag of.

NO, it doesn't get the best mileage of any engine, NO it doesn't make the most power of any engine, NO it doesn't have the fewest moving parts, NO it's not the smallest V8 to fit in the hole, etc. But it did exactly what it was intended to do, and it did it well.

It doesn't seem like simply showing up for work qualifies an engine as one of the "10 Best" :lol: If Wards put together a list of the 10 most mediocre engines, I'd nominate the 4.6L in a heartbeat. To me, the Wards list should contain the type of engines that are so spectacular that I'd buy a car just for what's under the hood. I really don't get that vibe from the 4.6L.


Interesting to see Mazda is the only one on this list with direct injection. I was expecting to see more DI engines making this list given the potential benefits of it. Oh well, I guess we will see how another 12 months bodes for the DI technology.:shrug:

Four of the nine gasoline engines on this list have direct injection (the others being the Audi 2.0L, GM 3.6L, and Lexus 3.5L). That's an impressive showing for a relatively new piece of technology.

I dont see why the 4.6 is on there.
I also dont understand the VW 2.0Turbo DI motor. I know a few people that are having problems with them. Fuel regulators, the wastegates, MAF's blowing out, etc etc.
I have not heard of any problems from the LNF, and you also have Mazda's 2.3Tubro DI motor as well, which makes just as much power.
I dont understand why GM's whole Gen IV engine is up there. Displacements from 4.8 to 7.0, small size. From world class fuel economy to world class power and everything in between. They run silent, they produce great power, and can be found in cars, trucks and SUV's, to sports cars and its aftermarket is massive. Every hot rod and pro-mod muscle car has some Gen III/IV motor under the hood it seems. Variable Valve timing, Active Fuel Management, and comming soon...direct injection.
We are talkign WORLD wide engines. The Gen IV's are sold across the world, and in tons of applications. The Mod motors are really poor in respect to the Gen IV's. Power output is lower, its fuel economy is worse, emissions are worse, and the Gen IV's are used in more vehicles then Ford's 4.6.
The hybrid version is yet just another reason why the Gen IV's should be put in. When the Gen V's arrive, with AFM, DI, VVT and hybrid modes, if the whole Gen V doesnt get an award, then Wards is a sham.

It doesn't seem like simply showing up for work qualifies an engine as one of the "10 Best" :lol: If Wards put together a list of the 10 most mediocre engines, I'd nominate the 4.6L in a heartbeat. To me, the Wards list should contain the type of engines that are so spectacular that I'd buy a car just for what's under the hood. I really don't get that vibe from the 4.6L.

That pretty much sums it up perfectly.

I'm not sure you can argue that fuel efficiency and especially emissions are worse with the Mod Motor than with the GEN IV. Fuel mileage is very much a function of the total package. You can easily find metrics to support good or bad for that total package, but I don't know of anything that can be used to measure just the motors. Ditto emissions (and even more so).

If that data is out there, it would be interesting to see. And I'm not saying that one is more efficient/lower emitting than the other. I'd simply like to see the data before I believe what someone says on the internet.

Bob

Also if you consider Ford's 4.6 dark past with having a number of issues over the years. Though most have been taken care of, its still a puts a mark on the engine, and it should not be on the list.

The 4.6L is a boat anchor of an engine. It sucks in most regards other than it sounds cool.

I really like my car a lot, but the engine is the worst part of it.

My LS2 should be on there although technically, a variant of it is in the Tahoe. :)

The 4.6L is a boat anchor of an engine. It sucks in most regards other than it sounds cool.

I really like my car a lot, but the engine is the worst part of it.funny thing its the only thing i like about mine.:lol:

I had a Camaro before so I know what you mean.

I completely understand why people put LS1's into Fox and SN95 Mustangs. It would be about the perfect car for me.

Please explain why this motor was even worthy of consideration?

They know it will piss GM guys off every time they include it on the list.

What does the Ford 4.6 do, that engines in it's price range (ex: LSx) don't do as well? Power? NO. Fuel economy? NO. Size? NO. Weight? NO. Versatility? NO. Number of Applications? NO. Further Performance potential? NO. So what is it? I seriously can't think of one.

The 4.6 3v is abput 20 pounds lighter in dressed weight compared to the LSX engines. 4v engines are heavier though

I had a Camaro before so I know what you mean.

I completely understand why people put LS1's into Fox and SN95 Mustangs. It would be about the perfect car for me.i have a 07 GT.;)

It's a GOOD engine, not a GREAT one...so it shouldn't be on the list. As for why it's not making a gazillion hp, it doesn't have to. It fills a slot in the mustang lineup (base performance v8) and does its intended job well. There are other variants/v8's with higher outputs available in the mustang....heck upto 550+hp in the KR if you have the $$$.

I think people are putting too much stock in this list. This is the same list that had the newer N/A Rotary engine on there for 2 straight years...and i think we can all agree that the only list that engine belongs on is "10 worst".

The 4.6 3v is abput 20 pounds lighter in dressed weight compared to the LSX engines. 4v engines are heavier though

Source for this? The 3V is still as big as a BBC. It's hard to believe it weighs less than an LSx

Source for this? The 3V is still as big as a BBC. It's hard to believe it weighs less than an LSx


My pleasure (http://www.fordracingparts.com/download/catalogs/2008-pp.pdf) , page 94

Did you know…
The new 3-valve 4.6L engine in the 2005-08
Mustang weighs only 420 lbs. dressed.

I believe the commonly held weight for a dressed LSx engine is around 445-450 lbs.

4.6 3V total dressed weight = 421 lbs. Source: http://www.classicmustangshop.com/2005mustang_specs.pdf

LS2 total dressed weight = 443 lbs. Source: http://wheeltalk.fancal.net/?p=634

I cannot vouch for either source, so if there is something somewhere that says something different, please post.

My pleasure (http://www.fordracingparts.com/download/catalogs/2008-pp.pdf) , page 94

I believe the commonly held weight for a dressed LSx engine is around 445-450 lbs.

Wow, I would never have believed it, judging from the physical size of the engine.

As was mentioned before, powering a wide range of applications doesn't make it a "great" engine. Using that criteria, the old GM 2.8 V6 would be a "great" engine because it powered cars, S10s and midsize SUVs.

The only difference between the Ford 4.6 and the GM small block in terms of widespread use is that the GM motors have different displacements; however, they are largely based on the exact same architecture, and therefore you could argue are the same motor.

A "10 Best Engine" list should be reserved for either the most technologically advanced or the best bang-for-buck motors. The Ford does not meet either criteria, then again, at this point in time, neither does the LSX.

Wow, I would never have believed it, judging from the physical size of the engine.


Its probably a very light duty piece the same way Ford did the old 5.0's which could take about 500-550hp and around 6500 or so RPM max before problems started. Though not quite as weak as its 5.0 predecessor (I've heard upwards of 800hp and 600hp seems to be a number passed about as safe). I see the cam phasers are the fly in ointment on this motor. If you want to run a substantial amount of spring pressure you have to lock out the phasers. I wonder if the aftermarket will respond (there are alot of 05+ Mustangs out there and the cam phasing is seen as a desireable feature) with a stronger cam phaser, IIRC the VVT compatible cams are ground with alot of retard on the cam timing.

Gave this up after first post, but couldn't pass your post by without respectfully reading and desire to reply.

As was mentioned before, powering a wide range of applications doesn't make it a "great" engine. Using that criteria, the old GM 2.8 V6 would be a "great" engine because it powered cars, S10s and midsize SUVs.
We could list many "great" engines that have come and gone. We actually did a thread like that a year or so ago in this forum. Never said it should be on the list BECAUSE it powered many cars/trucks/SUVs alone. That was part of a bigger plan that is noteworthy towards making the engine "credible" IMO. Other technologies and benefits are present in the engine too.

The only difference between the Ford 4.6 and the GM small block in terms of widespread use is that the GM motors have different displacements; however, they are largely based on the exact same architecture, and therefore you could argue are the same motor.
Different displacements = different cranks, rods, pistons, and/or numerous other parts, adding to complexity of tooling, parts distrubution, etc. While the 4.6 does have numerous head designs and induction systems, it is essentially the same engine at it's core. We could argue "architectures", but if we do that, the 4.6's V6 cousins are allowed into the game as well (since that was the modular design intent) and that opens up even more material to argue the modular platforms benefit over individual casting design for every engine offered.

At best it's a wash, but honestly, I saw the engine take Ford from a variety of basic designs made all over the world to just a few engines that shared LOTS of parts, and for that is has been a huge influence for Ford. Moreso than other carmakers that I am aware of. Again, that alone does not make it a best engine, but adds a few more chips to the pile anyways.

A "10 Best Engine" list should be reserved for either the most technologically advanced or the best bang-for-buck motors. The Ford does not meet either criteria, then again, at this point in time, neither does the LSX.
I respect this statement tremendously. :bow:
I agree with you too. IF you and I were to make the list, we would probably use criteria just as you mentioned above. However, you and I did not make the list nor did we get to pick the engines.

I said before that I don't think the 4.6 is any kind of God-send to the motoring public. But I can give it credit for the milestones it has achieved, and it is still kicking today as one of the few engines in a performance car that allows you to fill-up with 87 if you so choose.

for other dissenters - you are entitled to your opinion, and I don't belittle them, but beat on the 4.6 with facts, not fiction. The weight issue just discussed is a good point at-hand... apparently someone here learned something recently.
I can't stand it when people start proclaiming that engine should not be on a best engine list because "it doesn't make as much power as an old LS1", or some of the other nonsense reasons that were going in this thread.
GOOD GOD. If that were the criteria, nothing short of a 1966 427 SOHC or a true 426 HEMI would have made the list until the last 2-3 years, and there would be about 4 on the list today.
Furthermore, if any person - GM fan or otherwise - can't respect that Ford has a modular mill that is capable of 650 warrantied HP right off a showroom floor in a modular platform, then you need to give up the internet race rooms and go out on the street for a while for some fresh air.

To know that Ford is offering (and has recently offered) a GT with 550hp, a GT500 with 500/500, a GT500KR with 540/525, an SVT Cobra with 390/390, and several factory-prepped racers ranging from 400-600hp right out of the trailer, and then say "Ford should want to up the ante a bit on their base V8 and mid level V8 Mustangs." is simply to demonstrate that said person does not understand how Ford markets the Mustang. And that should be under another thread all together - regardless of the 4.6 making some list.

To know that Ford is offering (and has recently offered) a GT with 550hp, a GT500 with 500/500, a GT500KR with 540/525, an SVT Cobra with 390/390, and several factory-prepped racers ranging from 400-600hp right out of the trailer, and then say "Ford should want to up the ante a bit on their base V8 and mid level V8 Mustangs." is simply to demonstrate that said person does not understand how Ford markets the Mustang. And that should be under another thread all together - regardless of the 4.6 making some list.

Proud,
Once again the statements I made were in direct response to the statement that power increase over the years is a valid reason for the motor to have made the list. Also, once again, you are using the DOHC 4.6 as your shining example of what is possible from Ford with a warranty horsepower wise. The issue with your examples, as I stated before, is the motor that won the award is the SOHC 4.6. No where in the article was the DOHC 4.6 mentioned. Since the award goes to a "Best Engine" and not a "Best line of engines that share the same displacement", I just can't see why citing the DOHC examples matters. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a blower, good heads, and supporting parts are going to make a monster out of most motors. I 100% agree with You that Ford has raised (and will continue to raise) the bar with thier DOHC offerings. The issue here is we are still talking about the SOHC 4.6...

:shrug:

Different displacements = different cranks, rods, pistons, and/or numerous other parts, adding to complexity of tooling, parts distrubution, etc. While the 4.6 does have numerous head designs and induction systems, it is essentially the same engine at it's core.

While we are discussing the blown DOHC 4.6s, isn't it true that they don't share the same rotating assembly as the standard 4.6 that would be found in the Mustang GT? IIRC, the blown motors use better rods and forged pistons, etc. The point of course being its more than just a blower and some heads that seperate the SOHC from the blown DOHC versions.

Proud, those are all great reasons why it deserved to make the list in 98' but why 2008?

Because it's increase the power out put by 125hp? Well in 98 it made a pathetic 225. Also the modularity of the motors isn't much more than any SBC. Heck, IIRC depending on which foundry poured the casting can't the dip stick be on different sides of the motor?

The 4.6 is definately a capable good motor, but not one of the 10 best in 2008.

The 4.6 3v is abput 20 pounds lighter in dressed weight compared to the LSX engines. 4v engines are heavier though

I'm sorry but your figures are BS! Well I did say sorry.

Bet you can't prove your claim!!! :eek:

The 4.6? :lol:

Why not just throw the TBI 305 from a 1989 RS Camaro on there while were at it. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry but your figures are BS! Well I did say sorry.

Bet you can't prove your claim!!! :eek:

Prove me wrong, I cited an official source, and its been backed by another post (with in a pound) for the 3v 4.6

Proud,
Once again the statements I made were in direct response to the statement that power increase over the years is a valid reason for the motor to have made the list. Also, once again, you are using the DOHC 4.6 as your shining example of what is possible from Ford with a warranty horsepower wise. The issue with your examples, as I stated before, is the motor that won the award is the SOHC 4.6. No where in the article was the DOHC 4.6 mentioned. Since the award goes to a "Best Engine" and not a "Best line of engines that share the same displacement", I just can't see why citing the DOHC examples matters. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a blower, good heads, and supporting parts are going to make a monster out of most motors. I 100% agree with You that Ford has raised (and will continue to raise) the bar with thier DOHC offerings. The issue here is we are still talking about the SOHC 4.6...

:shrug:



While we are discussing the blown DOHC 4.6s, isn't it true that they don't share the same rotating assembly as the standard 4.6 that would be found in the Mustang GT? IIRC, the blown motors use better rods and forged pistons, etc. The point of course being its more than just a blower and some heads that seperate the SOHC from the blown DOHC versions.
OK - first of all, I am responding because it seems to me that you sincerely care about understanding my position, and are not flaming for fanaticism. I said in my first post I was not going to ride this wave again - like we do every time it comes around or like Z/28 versus SS threads - there is no winner because it is subjective subject matter.
That said - I responded and I mean the following with no sarcasm or malice, but sincere thought.


I guess the main miscommunication here is that I am trying to defend the 4.6 <categorically> as not being a completely sh1++y engine, whereas some folks take it as me trying to justify it making this stupid list.

Let me restate... I am not trying to justify it being on the list, rather I am trying to defend it as a decent engine that has done well for Ford.

Let me say this one more time... I am not trying to justify why it made the list or why it is on there, I am simply defending the engine as a whole from people who don't understand why Ford CHOSE to leave the 4.6 SOHC at 300hp for the last few years (and lower in years prior).

It was someone else's decision to put it on the list and they need to justify it themselves. I can see reasons for it to be considered, but certainly there are other engines that are making more unique headway and probably deserve it more at this time - no arguments from me.

SOHC, DOHC, 2V, 3V, 4V... I don't care.
Power levels... I don't care.
Aluminum block or cast iron block... I don't care.
Forged rods or machined... I don't care.
Blower or n/a... I don't care.
All these parts are interchangeable, moveable from one unit to another, and are made with mostly the same tools and staff in the same plants.

You are correct - the biggest difference between the blown and n/a units is the cast iron block and forged internals. But I don't think Wards (nor I) were trying to place the blown units on the list. It was I who used the blown variants to argue against the power comments that were being thrown about, which implied that the 4.6 does not make/can't make power like an LS1 could 10 years ago. My point was the 4.6 can and does make power, when configured properly and chosen to do so. Ford chooses not to do so in base units. That's really the end of the discussion regarding power capability.

I don't mind bashing the 4.6 for it's shortcomings - and I can help with some trivia of my own if we can do it fairly and earnestly. But I can't stand it being thrashed like a red-headed stepchild when it does not deserve it, and I can't take the unfair/unjustified comparisons to other powerplants when they come around. It should be as plain as paper in a book that Ford does not care about elevating power levels in the base GT, so the fact that another car company chooses to do so does NOT mean that the powerplant in the Mustang is "uncapable" of making more power.

That's it in a nutshell. :yes:
I'm not trying to justify it making some list... but I'm not going to stand by and accept random bashing and conjecture about it's capability from people who don't seem to understand what it is doing for Ford in marketing and sales. Other cars and their companies have already demonstrated what the endless pursuit of pure power and speed will get for you... sometimes "enough is enough" and it should be left alone. :)

Y'know I'm curious as to why they included the 4.6 3v on the list despite the arguements here, so I've taken the summary list of complaints and emailed Wards.

I cannot for the life of me wonder why you have included this clearly inferior engine in your list. It is both larger, heavier and down on power compared to the superbly engineered units from GM (GM's smallest V8 out powers it will using less complicated valve gear), it also consumes more fuel and produces more pollutants than GM's obviously superior V8 as well.

I think thats most of the sundry list when mod motor detractors get riled up.

There was a bit more, but thats it in a nutshell, hopefully I will get a response?

I'm a fan of the GM LSx powerplants, but I still want to see real evidence that shows the Modular produces more emissions and provides less efficiency (gas mileage). I suspect Ward's might want to hear the same, given that this is a large part of the basis of your arguement.

Bob

I'm not saying that as fact (I sent a missive to Ward's saying that, hence the quote from my email) I think the mod motor does a good job in terms of efficency and emmissions (despite what detrators like to tell me) and I've made several pissy comments in various replies to that effect, the article explaining Ward's inclusion isn't very informative, it essentially cites the reason for including the 4.6 3v this year is due to the FRPP/Shelby GT engine tuning which gives the 3v another 20hp and 20 ft/lbs of torque in premium fuel trim. I'll hazard a guess that the Bullitt engine tuning might get it on there next year with its adaptive ignition system , or not. They also cited bang for the buck and the sound of the exhaust.

Given this criteria then I think its safe to assume GM loyalist will be satisifed with Ward's in 09 when F5 hits since its going to be within 500 bucks of the Mustang and if GM's base V8 is 430 to 450 hp, that'll take the spot, until then Ford's 3v 4.6 is the champ based on he article

I'm a fan of the GM LSx powerplants, but I still want to see real evidence that shows the Modular produces more emissions and provides less efficiency (gas mileage).

The Ford Explorer and Crown Vic meet Tier II Bin 5 standards, while the F-150 meets Bin 8 standards (lower numbers mean less emissions). The Chevy Tahoe falls into Bin 5 and the Hummer H2 is in Bin 11, so I don't think it's fair to make the blanket statement that the Mod motor is inferior in terms of emissions.

BTW, the difference between the various upper-end Tier II bins is fairly small - any modern engine runs exceptionally clean.

Prove me wrong, I cited an official source, and its been backed by another post (with in a pound) for the 3v 4.6

It's not so much your figure for the 4.6L 3V but the fact you claim it's 20lb lighter than an LSX that I'm disputing.

Depends what you mean by dressed weight as there's different interpretations bandied around. Does that include exhaust or not? Is that dry weight or not?

Only the official factory figures are accurate, IMO, as long as we're comparing apples and apples. No good quoting weights from different internet sources as I can Google just as well as anyone... and come up with vastly different figures ;)

I've read anywhere from 380lbs to 490lbs for the LS1.

these are the best engines of 2008, the bullitt 3v 4.6 is a new motor program, hence why it is on the list. Its an updated version of the older 4.6 with a higher redline, a few more horsepower, etc. It is designed to be more of a roadcourse motor than the standard gt motor, which is why it made the list this year. The ls2 and ls7 arent on the list because they are yesterdays news. Wards is a newspaper. Nobody wants to read news about old engines theyve heard about for the last 5 years

Prove me wrong, I cited an official source, and its been backed by another post (with in a pound) for the 3v 4.6

Since I want to prove you wrong, would this link be considered acceptable?

http://www.smokemup.com/tech/ls1.php

LS1 weight is listed at 390lbs... (auto I'd assume). LS2 is lighter again.

As I said previously, you can almost come up with any figure but I fail to believe the 4.6L is lighter than the LSX.

Since I want to prove you wrong, would this link be considered acceptable?

http://www.smokemup.com/tech/ls1.php

No, because by your own words....

...Only the official factory figures are accurate, IMO, as long as we're comparing apples and apples. No good quoting weights from different internet sources as I can Google just as well as anyone... and come up with vastly different figures ;)....

...that isn't good enough, thus no matter what anybody posts that may show the 3V weighing less than the LS2/3/whatever, you're not going to believe it (unless perhaps it comes from Lutz himself....and then you'd likely find a loophole).

However, if one was to use the weight that you referenced, it is highly unlikely that this is "fully dressed weight", as there is no mention of things like exhaust manifolds, water pump, etc.

I suggest you go on not believing it. Heck I didn't believe it either....till I did the research.

Bob

Since I want to prove you wrong, would this link be considered acceptable?

http://www.smokemup.com/tech/ls1.php

LS1 weight is listed at 390lbs... (auto I'd assume). LS2 is lighter again.

As I said previously, you can almost come up with any figure but I fail to believe the 4.6L is lighter than the LSX.

That seems to be the bare weight of the motor, I'm quoting the dressed weight since thats the only official figure I have. I dont have any idea what the bare weight of a mod motor is, but the block is nearly the same weight as an LSx block 85 lbs. (mod) vs 87 lbs.(LSx). The 4.6 3v bare might very well weigh more??? but dressed it comes out lighter by about 20 pounds (insignificant except in the case of this pissing match).

Since I want to prove you wrong, would this link be considered acceptable?

http://www.smokemup.com/tech/ls1.php

LS1 weight is listed at 390lbs... (auto I'd assume). LS2 is lighter again.

As I said previously, you can almost come up with any figure but I fail to believe the 4.6L is lighter than the LSX.

you are wrong also.

http://camaroz28.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5054916#post5054916

I can post links as well

Chevrolet's website use to show more detailed specs on the engines. They listed the 2004 Corvette LS1 full dressed engine mass at 450lbs for an automatic, meaning they included the flexplate.

Ford shows the 3v 4.6L fully dressed engine mass at 420lbs, but does not specify auto or manual trans, so one would assume that the flexplate/flywheel was not included. So if they exclude that part from the "fully dressed engine mass" specification, what else do they exclude?

Even if the LS1 may be heavier by a few pounds, it still offers A LOT more displacement, with smaller exterior dimensions, and makes a ****load more power. The Mustang gets slightly worse fuel mileage and is rated as a higher polluting vehicle. Remember, these cars are now similar in weight with similar gearing. That means even with the additional 70+ cubic inches, the LS1 is far more efficient.

By way of the EPA's scoring system the 4.6 in a Mustang garners 6(LEV II - BIN5) as well as a 7(ULEV II) emmissions status and produces 10.20 tons of carbon a year, I suspect this is due to its M5/A5 tranmission configuration. Were Ford to upgrade to an M6/A6 emmissions would drop and economy would improve by simple virtue of reduced engine speed. I would hazard a guess that AFM also plays into this since deactivating cylinders effectively reduce the size of the engine.

Ultimately till Ford produces an M6 4.6 3v Mustang even though gearing is similar, its still not an apples to apples comparison and doesn't give an actual indicator of the engines effciency, those ratings do apply to over all vehicle effciency.

I haven't read much on the LNF 2.0 turbo used in the Solstice/Sky. Upon first glance, it seems like a great package -- 260hp and up to 28mpg on the freeway, 21 in town. Based on Ward's criteria this year, it sure would seem to fit nicely in the top 10. But what kind of turbo lag does it have? Does it have usable power down low? Does it feel smooth/sound great at all RPM's? What kind of footprint does it leave on the earth?

Audi's 2.0 FSI turbo motor was heralded for being incredibly smooth and refined--reviews tout it has having zero turbo lag, with a very usable, even distribution of torque throughout the powerband. It's also slightly more fuel efficient (22/32, I believe) but it only has 200hp. It's also a very "clean" and efficient engine. (The Germans haven't lost their edge...yet). I can see why it made the top 10, but it almost seems like old news since it's been out since 2006, especially since there are more powerful setups using only 2 liters out there.

Ultimately till Ford produces an M6 4.6 3v Mustang even though gearing is similar, its still not an apples to apples comparison and doesn't give an actual indicator of the engines effciency, those ratings do apply to over all vehicle effciency.

It absolutely is a fair comparison. The 3V Mustang and the LS1 F-body are nearly identical in vehicle weight and size, have the same drivetrain type, and are geared almost the same. The only way a more fair comparison could be made is if the Mustang had a 5.4L 3V. However, the Ford would still be behind in, every, single, category.

It absolutely is a fair comparison. The 3V Mustang and the LS1 F-body are nearly identical in vehicle weight and size, have the same drivetrain type, and are geared almost the same. The only way a more fair comparison could be made is if the Mustang had a 5.4L 3V. However, the Ford would still be behind in, every, single, category.mustangs GTs never came with a 6sd manual and f-bodys never came with a 5sd auto. so all millage numbers can't be compared.;)


the mustang does like gas tho. wish it had a t-56.

But what kind of turbo lag does it have? Does it have usable power down low?

It feels like a V8. No, scratch that - it makes more power down low than a lot of V8s. F'in' incredible engine, I tell ya. Sounds good, too (at least to my ears).

you are wrong also.

http://camaroz28.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5054916#post5054916

I can post links as well
So I'm wrong because you told me I'm wrong. That makes a lot of sense. Interesting that the '20lb' difference is a figure that's often quoted on this forum... and used as 'gospel'.

Maybe you can clarify for bossco what the 'dressed weight' actually implies as I'm reading different definitions depending on weight specifications.

Like I said, I've read figures that range from 380-490 lbs for the LS1. The Ford SOHC figures are less varied but open to interpretation.

Oh, Mr Bob Cosby, if you did the research, maybe you'd like to share it? Just facts please as Googling doesn't count.

For those having the weight pissing match why don't you just call a couple of crate engine vendors and ask for shipping weight? And to keep things equal you can find out exactly what the degree of dress the engine is when shipped.

Can't really argue w/ that information can you?

It absolutely is a fair comparison. The 3V Mustang and the LS1 F-body are nearly identical in vehicle weight and size, have the same drivetrain type, and are geared almost the same. The only way a more fair comparison could be made is if the Mustang had a 5.4L 3V. However, the Ford would still be behind in, every, single, category.

Weight and size, but not areodynamics nor final drive when you consider the double overdrive of the F4's M6.

What did your average F4 turn in engine speed at 60 mph? I can tell you my GT w/ 3.55 and a M5 in 5th is turning nearly 2000 rpm and I would guess a car equipped with 3.31 (IIRC maybe 3.27) with an M5 only slightly less so.

Hence, EPA & Mileage is indicative of the overall configuration of the vehicle and not the engine itself. You can say a Camaro is more efficient than a Mustang based on EPA and Mileage ratings but to single out the engine based on "its a 3500 lbs V8 RWD with similar rear gearing" and then proclaiming another V8 trumps it in effciency alone proves nothing. The only way to effectively demonstrate that the LSx is more efficient in terms of mileage and emissions would be to put the engine on a dyno and run them at the same engine speed and meausre the amount of fuel consumed / power produced, and emissions produced.

If you could provide some BSFC numbers of a stock LSx vs. a stock 3v 4.6 that would settle the matter right there (well in regards to effciency, but maybe not emissions) since that metric does not relate to the over all vehicle configuration and is solely dependant on the engine alone. If BSFC numbers are better for the LSx, then I concede the argument and declare the LSx the more efficent engine.

It feels like a V8. No, scratch that - it makes more power down low than a lot of V8s. F'in' incredible engine, I tell ya. Sounds good, too (at least to my ears).

I've read the contrary as I was pretty curious about that little motor. I've found reviews which say turbo lag is fairly noticeable and that it has unrefined qualities at high rpm's. But, that could also be related to the lack of sound deadening, etc in the Solstice/Sky. It's a sports car, not a luxo-barge, so that's forgiveable. In regards to turbo lag though, I'd hand the award to the Audi FSI motor. It's not the top performer, but it's got probably the smoothest power delivery I've ever felt from a turbo 4.

Weight and size, but not areodynamics nor final drive when you consider the double overdrive of the F4's M6..

All I know is that what I stated is fact. The LS1 F-body gets better fuel economy and has a lower emission status than the 2005+ Mustang GT. Whether it's due to the Ford having an inferior engine or an inferior car I'll let you decide ;)

And what the hell is an F4? Are we comparing fighter jets now!?

Finally, you're getting way too in-depth on a pretty simple comparison. Even if the BSFC of the 3V is better than the LS1 (which I SERIOUSLY doubt), to make it a more efficient engine it would require the difference to be proportionate to the displacement difference (which will never happen).

And what the hell is an F4? Are we comparing fighter jets now!?


4th gen f-bod

4th gen f-bod

I kind of figured that. But I've NEVER heard anyone refer to a 4th gen F-body as an F4. Not here, not anywhere. I'm a member of A LOT of F-body enthusiast sites, some for a decade or longer, and have never run across that before.

For those having the weight pissing match why don't you just call a couple of crate engine vendors and ask for shipping weight? And to keep things equal you can find out exactly what the degree of dress the engine is when shipped.

Can't really argue w/ that information can you?

Go on, you thought up the idea. Test it out!

So you think speaking to a somebody over the phone will give you an accurate answer?

Blahhh

All I know is that what I stated is fact. The LS1 F-body gets better fuel economy and has a lower emission status than the 2005+ Mustang GT. Whether it's due to the Ford having an inferior engine or an inferior car I'll let you decide ;)

Hah, inferior, never! ;)


Finally, you're getting way too in-depth on a pretty simple comparison. Even if the BSFC of the 3V is better than the LS1 (which I SERIOUSLY doubt), to make it a more efficient engine it would require the difference to be proportionate to the displacement difference (which will never happen).

Naw BSFC is a pretty good indicator between differing engines because its fuel consumed divided by power produced. Since gasoline produces a specific amount of heat, BSFC numbers tell you how effciently the engine converts that heat into usable power regardless of size so it makes for a useful comparison between any engine.

As an aside, I found this while looking for BSFC numbers on both the LSx and Mod motors.

Performance and Emissions
of the 1999 LS1 Engine (http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~efroeh/papers/LS1_Engine.pdf)

The engine actually did exactly what it was meant to do for Ford. It got them into a modular engine design that allowed them to distribute common parts, common tooling, and wider application across their entire lineup while sharing manufacturing and tools to boot.

Like it or not, it is a good engine. It's as d@mn-close as you will find to being both the Jack and the Master of all trades, and it has allowed Ford to capitalize on using common parts and tooling while doing so. That's a pretty tough nut to crack, and it deserves some cred for doing it IMO.
Saving the manufacturer a bunch of money is not (or at least should not be) one of the criteria for a 10 Best Engines list.

I am not trying to justify it being on the list
You keep saying that, but you haven't said whether or not you beleive it should be on the list. Most of us here are arguing that it should not be on the list. What is your stance on that?

I haven't read much on the LNF 2.0 turbo used in the Solstice/Sky. <snip> Does it feel smooth/sound great at all RPM's?
I was driving behind one a couple months ago. IMO, they sound awful.

For those having the weight pissing match why don't you just call a couple of crate engine vendors and ask for shipping weight? And to keep things equal you can find out exactly what the degree of dress the engine is when shipped.

Can't really argue w/ that information can you?
Actually, I can. Shipping weight includes the weight of the crate and packing materials. The 4.6's crate is probably going to be much larger, and therefore probably going to weigh a bunch more.

Some numbers for you guys to play with:

2005 Mustang GT 5spd
MPG: 17 city/25 highway

2002 Camaro Z28 6spd
MPG: 19 city/26 highway


2005 Mustang GT A5
MPG: 19 city/23 highway

2002 Camaro Z28 A4
MPG: 18 city/26 highway


If you just look at these numbers, you can say that even with seven years of engine advancement and driveline advancement over the 1998 LS1 Camaro, the Mustang still does not get as good of gas mileage, while making significantly less power.

You can argue that the 5sp hurts the Mustang when compared to the 6spd of the Z28, just as you can argue that the 4spd auto hurts the Camaro when compared to the 5spd auto of the Mustang.

I think it would be tough to compare emissions as one car (the mustang) has more than three years of newer emissions technology than the Camaro. That is a ton in todays world. Then again, if the Camaro was cleaner in 2002 than the Mustang is in 2005, then it would pretty much be a no-brainer.

As for the gearing comments, we are never going to have two identical vehicles from two different manufacturers. The gearing difference is small in these cars and relatively insignificant.

What is significant, is that one car appears more efficient even though it has 7 year older technology...

If you just look at these numbers, you can say that even with seven years of engine advancement and driveline advancement over the 1998 LS1 Camaro, the Mustang still does not get as good of gas mileage, while making significantly less power.

You can argue that the 5sp hurts the Mustang when compared to the 6spd of the Z28, just as you can argue that the 4spd auto hurts the Camaro when compared to the 5spd auto of the Mustang.
...

What is significant, is that one car appears more efficient even though it has 7 year older technology...

One thing you failed to include in that equation is that one vehicle does it on 92/93 while the other does it on 87 happily. I know which I'd rather have at the pumps today. :)

Hell, if those stats (mileage) alone were the factor, My 1987 5.0 Mustang still averages 28-30mpg with 234,000 miles on it.
My 89 LX 50 automatic averages 25 city/highway - tank after tank.
Lots of Vettes and F-bods break 30 cruising highways.

Point ---> mileage alone does not make or break the engine or car.

I agree with your perspective though. My posts can be pulled up from the past - many times I have said that I am totally disgusted with ALL carmakers for not putting fuel economy and technology up front. It's a d@mn-shame that I can drive a 1972 Pinto with a 4-spd and a 2.3L engine and get 32mpg, then get into a brand new "anything" that advertises and boasts about getting 30 mpg from a 4 or 6 cylinder. They ALL have drug their feet in the economy statistics.

WORSE YET... I can drive a truck that weighs 6900 pounds and has an engine making 310hp/560 ft-lbs of torque, pull a trailer AND a car on the trailer... and get 20mpg. But the car on the trailer can be a 2005 Mustang that only averages 20mpg by itself with an engine that makes less hp and tq. Now figure THAT ONE out! :(

2002 Camaro Z28 6spd
MPG: 19 city/26 highway

Wrong.

http://homepage.mac.com/jakerobb/camaro/windowsticker.jpg

Saving the manufacturer a bunch of money is not (or at least should not be) one of the criteria for a 10 Best Engines list.
Don't recall saying that it was a reason to make the list. DID say that it was a significant point in justifying that the engine was a good one for Ford, and it is not a total piece of crap as some were indicating at that time. Simple as that.


You keep saying that, but you haven't said whether or not you beleive it should be on the list. Most of us here are arguing that it should not be on the list. What is your stance on that?
Ok - honestly, I would have rather seen a different Ford engine on that list than the 4.6 3V that is there. With regards to technology and innovation, it is not the best Ford has to offer IMO... so no, I don't think it should be on the list. But not because it is a sh1++y engine... because there are better ones that could make such a list this year.

DON'T BE CONFUSED. I am defending the engine as a dependable, long-lasting unit that has done exactly what Ford intended it to do. I am NOT defending it's position on the list.

Wrong.

Under current EPA MPG testing, Camaro (02) gets;
3.8 M5 - 17/29 - 2142
3.8 A4 - 17/28 - 2142
5.7 M6 - 17/26 - 2430
5.7 A4 - 16/23 - 2556

Under current EPA MPG testing, Mustang (08) gets;
4.0 M5 - 17/26 - 2250 (annual fuel cost)
4.0 A5 - 16/24 - 2367
4.6 M5 - 15/23 - 2502
4.6 A5 - 15/22 - 2502
5.4 M6 - 14/20 - 3038

Under current EPA MPG testing, Corvette (08) gets;
6.2 M6 - 16/26 - 2556
6.2 A6 - 15/25 - 2702
7.0 M6 - 15/24 - 2702

Under current EPA MPG testing, Camaro (02) gets;
5.7 A4 - 16/23 - 2556


That seems crazy to me. I don't drive my 2002 Z28 (A4 & 3.23s) like an old lady. I am usually the guy that excelerates (note: not races) upto speed much quicker than people around me. I don't hestitate to mash the gas when I want or need to to get in out of traffic. I still average 19 MPG in the city. I have never checked it for highway only, but with about 1/4 city and 3/4 highway the average is somewhere around 24 MPG.

:shrug:

DON'T BE CONFUSED. I am defending the engine as a dependable, long-lasting unit that has done exactly what Ford intended it to do.

And if this was "Wards Several Dozen Best Engines 2008" list, then such an accomplishment would merit inclusion :p

Hell, if those stats (mileage) alone were the factor, My 1987 5.0 Mustang still averages 28-30mpg with 234,000 miles on it.
My 89 LX 50 automatic averages 25 city/highway - tank after tank.
Lots of Vettes and F-bods break 30 cruising highways.


Those cars weighed less and achieved that gas mileage when emissions standards were far more relaxed and technology was finally catching up. Remember how bad the efficiency was in the 1970's when emissions regulations first hit and the technology was not ready.

The point was that in two similar weight cars with similar gearing, gas mileage is a decent way to compare efficiency. At the highway speeds we are talking about, aerodynamic drag has virtually no effect. Actually, rolling resistance from the Camaro's larger tires, and it's greater rotating mass from it's larger brake rotors and wheels(?) would be much more significant than aerodynamic drag.

To the person who quoted 2008 epa estimates: converting a past car to todays standards is a pure guessing game!

I am surprised the government site had the mileage wrong for the Camaro, 19/28 is damn impressive! Even if it is on high-test gas, which is the price we pay for that extra 50 horsepower!

Even if it is on high-test gas, which is the price we pay for that extra 50 horsepower!

If you do the math, your average LS1 owner is paying roughly an additional 1 cent per mile to use 91+ octane. That seems a fair price to pay to smoke Fords on demand :)

Under current EPA MPG testing, Camaro (02) gets;
3.8 M5 - 17/29 - 2142
3.8 A4 - 17/28 - 2142
5.7 M6 - 17/26 - 2430
5.7 A4 - 16/23 - 2556

Where did you get those figures? I'm surprised anyone has tested a six-year-old car that's no longer in production on the new standards.

That seems crazy to me. I don't drive my 2002 Z28 (A4 & 3.23s) like an old lady. I am usually the guy that excelerates (note: not races) upto speed much quicker than people around me. I don't hestitate to mash the gas when I want or need to to get in out of traffic. I still average 19 MPG in the city. I have never checked it for highway only, but with about 1/4 city and 3/4 highway the average is somewhere around 24 MPG.

:shrug:

I've got an 07 GT and I do better than the EPA ratngs as well on average.

Where did you get those figures? I'm surprised anyone has tested a six-year-old car that's no longer in production on the new standards.

EPA's website, the have listings from 1985 to 2008 using the new guidelines. right here (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm)

I dont think they tested alot of cars, I'm pretty sure they developed some sort of formula for conversion from old to new.

Interesting observation, in 1985 Mustang had 10 different engine/transmission combos.