Your comment is also a more stupid comment.. that vette would have never made 400hp if it would have to meet all the emission standards... but i can certeinly assure you that the c5r engine made a lot more power on pump gas than that vette.... lets compare apples to apples

the ls1 still is a pushrod 2v engine.. more tech yes in the engine managment and a few years in design, that is why you can have a pump gas engine with super lower emission standards that can perform even better than that 7l engine... oh please.

 

Erm, the L-88 option basically cost as much as the whole car.

Furthermore, as pointed out previously, I'd like to see SAE NET numbers on the L-88. My guess is that the LS6 and LS2 out-power the L-88 and the power density numbers are nowhere near close.

Regardless, I don't have any clue whatsoever the L-88 vs. LSx comparison has to do with the price of tea in China.

A more important comparison would be the L-88 vs. the LS7. My money's on the LS7. Any takers?

 

Point of all of this was since it went over your head that comparing the power output if a SOHC modular Ford and trashing it compared to what an older GM engine could do was stupid. Maybe sarcasm is above your grasp?



See above statement.

 

L-88 was meant to be underrated, much like the LS-1 was. The tri-carb aluminum headed L-89 was rated at 5 more HP than the L-88 option to keep the general buying public from wanting the car. Real output was in the low 500 hp range and trap speeds on slicks in the day was mid 11's in the mid 120's stock with drag options and gears from the factory. Some were set up for high speed racing and could hit 200 mph on the straightaways. The L-88 rode like a bread truck and had no heat or radio, it was not a daily driver. Anyway, this was meant to show Al how ridiculous his argument was to base the modular engine family as a failure based on the numbers a GM engine made XXX amount of years ago. Apparently no one caught that point.

 

First, I'm a Corvette nut. I have a pretty good knowledge base relative to the L-88's... and I also know there is a LOT of hype around them. Some of it deserved, some of it just hype.

Regardless, at the time Hot Rod got a blazing 13.56 @ 111.1mph out of one, dead stock.

http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/fast.htm

No threat to a Z06.

Fluke? Bad day? Unhappy gods about?

Maybe... but that trap speed is AWFUL low.


Anyhoo... Al's got a good point in that 3 years after the F-car dies, the Mustang GT may FINALLY be able to present a 2002 Z28 a good race.

I believe the 4.6L modular engines to be little short of terrible. Big, heavy, thirsty, generally low powered (apart from the blown 4.6).

Were I in the market for GT, I'd be looking hard at what the GTO is going to run with the LS2.

 

Sorry buddy but YOU Fail to grasp that we are comparing COMPETING engines!!!!!!

If its a lesser engine it was FORDS decision to strap in a crappy 4.6L in the first place... it was FORD's Decision to strap a supercharger to go pick on the z06 and came short... it was FORDS decision to do the car the way it did it and honestly.. the car looks good but the engine and tranny kills it.

 

If my memory serves me correct, i believe they (Hotrod or some mag) took an ls1 (98 i believe?) and put it on an engine dyno and it make 407hp with no accessories. Pretty much how gross figures are measured in the old muscle cars. So it is comparable to a lot of the big cube v8 engines rated at around 400-410 gross hp before the SAE NET method came into affect.

 

I think the blown 4.6 was an excellent motor. As far as it coming short on matching the ls6 output for output, i disagree. It was the blown 4.6 that has dyno'd higher on average. As for it comparing to a z06 (or the base c5 for that matter), absurd. Both cars are different in almost every aspect, and thought of drawing parrallel between the two as equals or competitors is rediculous. Not even in the same class.

As for the 05's, i don't see how the engine could kill the car as you put it . So it isn't as powerful as an ls1? So? That must automatically make it a crappy motor? Given its showing in the motor trend article (13.6 for auto), and its relatively mild tune (tuned for 87 octane and mild compression ratio) and low cubes (281), i think it does a fine job and is perfectly suited for a BASE performance model in the mustang lineup.

That's what i love about camaro, you can get the engine of a 4Xk dollar vette in a 24k z28. But for mustang, you're either happy with the GT's performance (which is more than decent if the 13.6 holds true) or you pony up the dough for the higher performance models which will be due in a couple of years (ex: rumored 5.4 Cobra with 420+ horses).

In the end, i think Fords upcoming family of modular v8's will work well for their given applications and am looking forward to what the higher performance mustangs will have in store as far as powertrain and output.

 

IT makes it a crappy motor because the engine breaks with ease... My best friend own a shop and i have seen them break so easily with all kinds of clanking noises... i have yet to see a broken ls1 or a stock broken lt1...

IT discredits the car, because unless you buy the car to rapidly pour in 20k to make it comparable to most fully bolt on ls1s, w/o going to n2o, then... why bother?? 31% stiffer chassis is not that much either really...

FORD SAID the cobra was going to target the corvette. THEY SAID THAT ... IIRC specifically the z06.

SUpercharging was the easier way to get the power, because i have it on video actually, as they said.. there was no way they could get the power they wanted.. PERIOD.

 

Break with ease? News to me. From my understanding, they hold up just as well. I think you're experiences are isolated cases. I've been in the mustang community for a while, and have never heard of mass failures of 4.6 engines. I've heard of a stock 98 4.6 Dohc supporting 22lbs of non-intercooled boost and lasting 60+ 9 second runs in the strip and personally know of a 4.6 Sohc that runs 14psi on a daily basis, but them continuously breaking down with ease? Doubt it.

Where’s bob cosby when you need him. Ask him about his 20k in mods and timeslips. They’re not as lacking as you think.

Lemme ask. Why bother spending 2k in bolt-ons for an ls1, when you could run faster for a couple of hundred bucks in a blown Cobra? In fact, why buy a newer car? Why not buy an old cheap Fox or 3rd gen if cheapness of mods and going fast for the least amount of $$ spent is your priority. Not EVERYONE bases their buying decision on ability to run 10 sec 1/4 miles or engine alone.

Btw: While the sn95's (excluding 03+ Cobra) weren't as fast as the 4th gens, they still offered a very nice bang for your buck in terms of stock and modified performance. Perhaps 2nd only the the 4th gen f-bods in terms of performance value for your buck. GT and Mach 1 are still great performance buys. Again, that hardly qualifies it as crap.

In output? YES since the Cobra does put out 405+ horses...as far as the whole package, doubtful. That's just them BS'ing and pulling peoples legs. Cobra isn't half the car the vette is. In the end it is a pony car, and the vette a world class sports car.

281 cubes does limit you. 4 ways manufacturers make power with their engines...1) Small displacement N/A engine 2) small displacement engine with F/I 3) larger displacement N/A engine or 4) larger displacement engine with F/I.

Ford went with what best suited their goals and objectives. Asking why they went F/I is like asking why GM went with 346 cubes instead of 281?

Getting a Cobra to make 405+ with a N/A 281ci v8 is no easy task. They could have gone with a larger dicplcement v8 engine (5.4 dohc could have done it), but they stuck with the 4.6 and blower combo instead.

The LSX motors are awesome and I would say that they are superior to Fords modular v8 family, but that doesn’t necessarily make the 4.6’s crap, especially the 3 and 4 valve version.

 

Believe me they are crap... while they could have made a complete 6 point mains they still use 4 mains with some kind of spacer that really looks aweful..

While the short-block perse looked good I still see them too much breaking and not producing... they simply do not widstand harsh conditions...

don't put the same excuse about buying an older car and putting in the $. that is not the point.. that is the stupid comment that most make on why buy a ferrari or such big dog cars...

You can mod a corolla to run like a vette but it wont ever be a vette...

anyways... to each its own.. the engine is a crappy engine by my standards.. it requires huge ammounts of power...

I remember seeing a fully modded cobra on the dyno day with 21psi boost.... i was like damn... i'm getting my *** handed because i had only 8psi after my aftercooler installed.. veredict. they did 427 and i did 555 oopss... what happened to the heads, cam, and all that **** in there????

Sorry man... but.... its still a crappy engine.

 

Then why did you try to bolster your "its crappy" argument with a bang for your buck comment when the 4.6 mustangs clearly offers a bang for your buck value 2nd only to the 4th gens? You made it sound like a civic. You seemed to have stressed bang for you buck, yet paint the 4.6's as a crappy performance/bang for your buck buy when it is clearly one of the industry leaders.

By power, you probably meant mods. If you decide to go the N/A route, then yeah...the 4.6 won't come anywhere near the potential of the ls1 as far as hp. But most 4.6's go the F/I route, and they're putting up good numbers....especially the Dohc cars. Mach-1's will get into 12's with bolt-ons, and 11's and quicker with F/I or a good N/A combo, etc... Not the expensive money pit you make them out to be. 2 valve GT's are more limited, but they can go the F/I route and put up decent numbers without a 20k investment.

A fully modded Cobra with 21psi of boost putting down 427 at the wheels? You don't think there's something VERY wrong with those numbers?

Again, i see the LsX engines as being superior, but i wouldn't call the 4.6's "crap". Like you said, to each his own i guess .

 

i remember a few years ago (2000, iirc), Corvette Fever magazine dynoed an all-original stock '67 427ci 425HP vette, and it put something like 279 to the wheels...not quite the ground-pounder by today's standards (I also realize HP ratings were taken differently back in '67)

 

To me they are real crap... SOHC or DOHC doesn't come even close to the ls1x... as a matter of fact.. the 5.0L was a lot more responsive to mods than the 4.6

Bang for what buck??? mod for mod the mustang ends up being more expensive in the end and performs less.

 

I personally believe the LS1 to be the best mass-produced performance engine every made. Bar none. However, I don't see where the DOHC fails to respond to mods like the 5.0 or the LSx or anything else. Could you please provide specifics?

I'd also like to see, in print, where Ford says they were targetting the Z06 with the Cobra. Vette? Yes. Z06? Don't think so - but I'm willing to admit being wrong if it can be proven.

The motor in the 03/04 Cobra, while hardly indestructable, is still pretty stout. Internally, the weakest area is the piston skirts and the pin area. We start to see failures here at about the 550 RWHP level and above. Of course, it is very easy to get a lot more power than that out of a mostly-stock 03/04 motor, so people do blow them up. Then again, put a 250 shot of N2O on virtually any stock motor and see what happens to it.