OK, i'll tell you that repeating over and over again a statement does not make it more right. And personal opinion (which is what you say at the end anyways) is just that - personal opinion.

Let's hear some facts. Let's hear some data. Let's hear some real-life observations.

When it comes to bang for the buck - it falls short of 4th gens, but that was stated already. Other than that, it seems to be a pretty good motor for mods, especially going F/I route. Seeing how LSx is the best bang for the buck, everything else is crap if I follow your logic

As for it falling apart and not standing up to pressure... On a drag day, at your local drag strip, average out the number of Mustangs running in the 12's, 11's, 10's, and 9's and then compare to fbodies. Oh, and let's strap some 8-12 psi of boost on a stock LS1 and make a couple of runs with them .

It's fine to be of certain persuasion, but it's not fine if that persuasion clouds reasoning and goes against available info.

 

I've been following Corvettes for over 20 years and I also have a good knowlege base of them, and you should realize that the L-88 could come in many forms, made either for drag racing or for high speed runs. I have seen test in both Corvette Fever and Vette magazines back in the mid 1990's testing stock L-88's to the times I mentioned on modern tires, not bias ply tires of the day. I've also seen times for a 68 L-89 vette running high 1-teens on modern tires. There were too many variables back in the day to get a consistent figure on what they could and could not do, whether they were auto or not, whether they were saddled with 2.77 gears or 4.11's, coupe or convertible etc. Hopefully you get the idea. Since the GT is nowhere near the price of the GTO, I would wait for the new Cobra to come out since it is in the same price range as the GTO.

 

I understand fully, your comparison is just ridiculous. Too bad YOU
can't comprehend that. I also did not realize that the Mustang was competing with a 3 year old dead car or with cars 10K+ ahead of it in price. That's new to me.



Crappy in who's opinion? In your all mighty know-it-all opinion? Yep, the Mach I with a a full liter less displacement almost running the same times as the all mighty LS-1. Yep, that's crappy allright. I guess the LT-1 really sucks, huh?



Cobra is $35,000 and the Z06 is over 50K The car was made to what the enthusiasts buying the car wanted, not to compete with the Z06 Vette (a completely different class of car) The car is a pulley swap and exaust away from the 11's and 120+ traps, how is that falling short for the money? They did more than "strap on a supercharger", the entire package is different.



A 6spd tranny, 415 (real) flywheel horsepower and internals that is all forged and can take 900+ horsepower kills things? Damn, I hate to see what your standards of a "good car" is

 

Thank you, someone with some sense.

 

Beat me to it again.

 

People... why don't you ditch the ltx and lsx and all get 4.6 in the maro then????

One of the reasons i don't use them...

Sorry i never had all the mods done to most of the cars that i test here, being from the GM side, very few tell me what mods do they have in there... i do the same..

but how about this:

5.0L engine (Never answered when i asked if it was a stroker, so i'll leave it at 5.0)
Procharger DISC i think it was (although the intake pipe was 4" so not sure if it was a D1R) running at 17psiG (he told me)
Worked heads and "special cam" oh please...
it was auto though...

they guy claimed he was going to spin the dyno and he was going to burn up the tires on the dyno... first run... 461.. second run 431... third run 426.... oh welll keeps getting worse... lets put it down... actually... he is supposedly a mechanical engineer nad argued with me that air cools better than water!! ok.. next please

for 17psi worked heads and cam and a huge supercharger a lot bigger than a T-trim INTERCOOLED, the guys is ONLY pumping 460 on RACE GAS? you have got to be kidding me... BTW car had no a/c and no P/s...

I'll gather more info from other cars from a few people here and i'll post them...

Here are some pics of the ford engine

http://www.cartechpr.com/img1.jpg
http://www.cartechpr.com/img2.jpg
http://www.cartechpr.com/img3.jpg
http://www.cartechpr.com/img4.jpg
http://www.cartechpr.com/img5.jpg
http://www.cartechpr.com/img6.jpg

Didn't witness this personally... but i have seen a few broken blocks with only 500rwhp!!! WTF?

THe other guy i saw at the track... Mustang GT 2000 (IIRC) from what i know from the body shop i saw and they told me (different from what he said).. the guy is running worked heads and cam (and probably stroker) 12psi non intercooled from a t-trim... he did 113mph on the 1/4. but need to be more specific.. man i can go on and on and on about all the mods i've seen on 4.6L that really unimpress me about the engine... period.. i've seen it on my friends shop breaking, broken rods.. broken rod caps.. spun bearings (most common, but that could be through lots of misuse)... in the end... believe what you want.. if you are so daring.. put a 4.6 in a camaro and then...

The cobra is the only car that will respond well to mods... yes its virtually indestructible, seen lots of good things, but the car is a bit heavy to compete... strap a twin screw, set of headers and teh car will rip to the 600rwhp and the low 11s mark... 650 good gas, good tires, skinnies up front and it'l rip 10.7 not bad for a 50k car here.

and sorry for overrepeating myself...

Where did i heard the cobra was after the z06? i think it was a car adn driver program testing the car with jim scout...

 

The reason I responded to your post was because you made general, all-encompassing comments. There is no doubt that there are some poor-running 4.6s with stupid mods. Just the same, there are some very good running cars with light (or stupid) mods.

Been there, done that....err....had the 4.6, traded for an LSx, then traded that for a 4.6. We each have our individual biases and reasons, I am no different.

I don't understand where this fits into your post.

Completely understandable, but it does not at all support your claim that the 4.6 does not respond well to mods. In fact, it hurts your claim.

I thought this was about 4.6s? Regardless, there are plenty of 5.0s with heads, cam, intake and a blower making well in excess of 500 RWHP, and in some cases, near 600 - with the stock cam. One needs to only reference the NMRA's Real Street class for valid examples.

For true daily drivers, 450-500-ish RWHP is not uncommon.

Please do. However, it is likely that if you try, you can find plenty of "mediocre" cars out there. I can probably find plenty of not-so-mediocre cars out there. In the end, the real story is going to be somewhere in the middle.

A stock 5.0 block is only good, reliably, to about 500 RWHP. Those pics don't surprise me at all. The engine (the roller block came out in 1985) was never made for that kind of power. However, other 302 blocks are out there that can handle significantly more power. This is little different from folks running iron LSx blocks in their high HP F-bodies (see many examples on LS1Tech.com for evidence).

I can show you a car with basic bolt-ons and aftermarket cams (stock untouched heads) that does almost that MPH. Bill Putnam, Atlantic Blue 2000 GT. Look him up at www.modulardepot.com.

Nobody is saying that the 2V 4.6 is in LSx territory for power. Then again, I don't think it is quite as bad as you are trying to lead others to believe.

That it doesn't impress you is without question. It is likely nothing I put here will change your mind. That is not the point of my response, however.

Silly arguement. I've never, ever seen a "broken rod" or "broken rod caps" in a 4.6. Seen spun bearings, collapsed piston land ring areas, etc - but none of what you say. Kind of hits in the credibility department.

Disagree. There are examples of 2Vs running as quick as 8s in the 1/4. Certainly the 4V is a better basis to start from, but that doesn't mean that the 2V doesn't respond well to mods - keeping things relative to the starting point.

I'd love to lose 300-400 lbs out of my Cobra. That hurts a lot, no doubt about it. FYI...my 04 Cobra is ~140 lbs heavier than my 99 T/A was.

Are you referring to a DOHC here or something else? Certainly 600 RWHP should be good for far better than low 11s, unless you are talking real street tires. 650 should be enough to go deep, deep into the 10s, and well into the 9s with a well setup car.

You did?

Please provide proof or evidence. It is easy to make any claim you wish on the internet. It is another thing altogether to back up said claims.

 

Well... its got to be the climate here then really... because out of all the mustangs i've seen only 2 or 3 perform where they are supposed to and they have quite a few bucks in... I post what i see not what i get on the forums or on the net.

 

I take it that the factual data I requested to back up your claims is not going to show up?

Regardless, if you are implying that I get my data only from the internet, then you are badly mistaken. I see lots of cars - of all makes and models - that do not perform as well as I think they should. Conversely, I see some "over-achievers" too.

 

Never said or implied you took your data out of the net.. just said i didn't...

my factual data was the one i posted... it is the one closest to me at the moment.. don't like it.. sorry... still mod for mod.. the lsx and ltx will be a better choice than the 4.6.. if you defer then its your choice and or opinion, i got mine...
Like i said.. if you like the 4.6 so much.. get a camaro and put in a 4.6 ford in it.

People defend what is theirs.. so do you... you got a cobra, you don't want it bashed... the cobra i like it regarding to power. the rest.. i don't.. i test drove it and i don't like its moves... and that is MY OPINION.

Oh and i forgot.. that cobra 03 that had 647rwhp that did 10.7 HERE.. that car broke 4 pistons.... with the kenne bell supercharger... so they are not that indestructible.

 

Maybe to add some tempering to the conversation...

My issues of contention with the 4.6 are not related to aftermarket performance. The core of the issue is the constraints placed on a production vehicle that uses the motor - size, weight, fuel economy.

I don't think Ford is dumb, I think they bought into the OHC argument and didn't want the Mustang to appear as technologically behind the times. What they didn't count on was GM's ability to keep extracting more power out of 2V OHV designs. I think the LSx family was a pretty serious shock to Ford.

That being said, due to the dedicated classes running the 4.6 in drag racing (like Bob's), the 4.6 has a bigger aftermarket push in that area. GM, on the other hand, has pushed technology through the LeMans series which has resulted in the C5R engines but not a grass-roots push to keep upping the aftermarket power levels of the LSx into the +1000hp levels where 8's and 7's become commonplace. At that power level, folks resort to the old small block.

Moving forward, GM needs a dedicated racing class devoted to the LSx family of engines to start making up lost ground in the high power level contest.

SO, I would suggest the following to Chevrolet/Pontiac/Cadillac:

1) There needs to be a series of dedicated drag-racing classes that require LSx architecture.

2) The first class should be a "stock internals" class, but you can do anything you want to intake and exhaust (no FI, no nitrous, 91-94 octane gas only) with a spec tire and any rear end you want to run - as long as it isn't a spool or locker. 6.0 liters of displacement (based on stock LS2 internals) is allowed in any car. A specified weight of the car WITH DRIVER and fluids is required (which will result in Camaros and Corvettes ADDING weight but GTOs and CTSv's can remove it), but all safety equipment must remain in place (bumpers, head lights, air bags, etc...). Separate classes for manuals and automatics.

3) Class #2 would again have a specified tire and weight of car, but you can basically do anything you want to the motor (no FI or nitrous)... it just has to remain an LSx with 2 valves. Octane rating cannot go over 93. Same conditions as above for the rear end - anything you want, no spools or lockers. Manual transmission cars get a weight benefit relative to automatics, both run in the same class. Cars are equalized for weight WITH DRIVER (again, Corvettes and Camaros add weight, CTSv's and GTO's get to remove it). Safety equipment must remain in place.

3) Full-bore knock your socks off class. FI and/or nitrous allowed, still has to run on 93 octane, spec tire, any rear end you want. Displacement is up to the owner but must utilize an LS1, LS6 or LS2 block and heads (aftermarket heads like AFR are allowed) - no iron, no C5R's.

I'm not a class-racing expert, so maybe Bob could chime in here, but the keys to success are:

1) GM support. Real support. Meaning money. Every marketing division selling an LSx based car needs to provide engineering support.

2) Aftermarket support. Real support. Meaning money. This includes GM Performance Parts and their reducing their outrageous pricing on certain components by counting on added sales volume.

3) Getting the GM-based performance magazines to buy in and support the classes through content (GMHTP, Chevy Hi-Performance, etc...).


This should eliminate any advantages the 4.6's have ever had.

 

Ok - sure seemed like it, but I'll take your word for it.

Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. If you are basing your entire arguement on this one case, then ok. Your choice. Not smart, but your choice.

I have no real arguement here, however, this was not the issue you were trying to make. You said the 4.6 didn't respond to mods as well as the 5.0 or the LSx. I am disputing this.

Ok.

Already covered this in more than one reply. Dumb statement.

Forgive me, but I didn't say you were "bashing" the Cobra. I know what it can and can't do, and have a fair idea of what the LS1 can and can't do. Rather, my intent was to offer evidence to refute your arguements that we have gone over already.

Cool. I have no desire to even attempt to change your opinion. I do have a desire to post realistic, factual information, and to point out the differences between fact and opinion.

Did I not say this? Did I not also say that 550 RWHP was about the realistic, reliable RWHP for an 03/04? Did you just forget to read that part, or conveniently skip over it?

There are plenty of 03/04 Cobra's making 600+ RWHP that have no issues - yet. Some might live a long time, some might die tomorrow. That should be expected when you increase the power on a stock motor by almost a factor of 2.

Pacer....believe it or not, I'm not a big fan of the 4.6 architecture. IMHO, Ford did not design this engine with performance in mind - they did it with $$$$ in mind from a manufactoring standpoint (hence the term "modular", which the engine never really was). If they had, it would have been smaller, lighter, and easier to increase displacement. The 4V heads are wonderful pieces, misunderstood by many. However, they would work much better on a shortblock with better bore to stroke, less heft, and less width.

To hit your points specifically...

1) Agree 150%. Would love to see it. There are a few upstarts here and there, but nothing has gotten serious with it, and without a new F-body, its hard to be confident that anything will.

2) "Stock internals" is neat, but is virtually impossible to tech once folks get serious. Still, something along that spirit is easy to work up. The only caveat is that the racers need to be ready to prove their legality - sort of like THIS. That was my teardown after winning the NMRA Kansas City race back in late June. We had the motor out of the car, head off, crank and piston out, in less than 2 hours. Fun times - but necessary when you want to have a credible class of racing.

3) Impossible to tech street gas. There are simply too many varieties. The only real option is a "spec fuel" that can be tested at the track, upon request. It's a pain in the ***, but is the only way to keep C44 and the like out of the picture.

People will be breaking rear ends left and right if you don't allow spools or lockers. Been there, done that.

3) (you have two #3s) No problems excepting the pump gas thing, soley for reasons mentioned above.

Second set of points...

1) Absolutely. Ford supports the racers (especially in FFW races), and GM could do the same.

2) Absolutely necessary for success.

3) Ditto.

Something along those lines would most certainly go a long way in improving LSx performance.

 

I would like to see your results of the 4.6 inside the camaro... pics? oppinions??

and my point with that they respond better to mods is that at the tracks.. the best times are always run by the 5.0L and not the 4.6.

Even still i haven't liked a ford engine till the 5.4L s/c on the GT and one has to to that car.

 

Totally irrelevant statement.

Inaccurate statement. For example, my 99 Cobra went 11.60 with an internally stock engine, no power adder. Bolt-ons, gears, slicks, suspension mods only. It made 315 RWHP with those mods.

My 88 Coupe was probably one of the quickest similiarly-modded 5.0s. It went 12.52 with an internally stock engine, no power adder. Bolt-ons, gears, slicks, suspension mods only. It made 237 RWHP with those mods.

For further comparison, the quickest manual-transmission LS1 with an internally stock engine, no power adder, bolt-ons, gears, slicks, suspension mods only, is an 11.54. That's .06 quicker than my car, even though he made probably 35 RWHP more than I, yet weighed somewhat less. The owners posts as "01-Z" on LS1Tech.com.

The 5.4 has the same issues as the 4.6 - in some cases worse (wider).

But in here's the the issue. You are obviously GM-blinded and GM loyal. That's your choice, but an open mind can sometimes help.

Personally, I'm certainly Ford biased, but I am first and foremost an enthusiast.

 

Are you serious? Show me a Mustang with an LT1/LS1.