2 valve heads, the 3 and 4 valvers dont have this problem (although that 2 piece extended reach plug in the 3v is kinda looney, IIRC mid-late 08 and up 3v mods now have a 1 piece plug).

 

That's all that matters using the yardstick I think you are using: bottom line, end-of-the-day, how-fast-is-it performance. However, the yardstick I am using is how much horsepower are you getting from the volume of combustion being used. Ricers use this measurement to compare their mini engines against V8s. Those engines will never produce the power of a high powered V8 (with out risking granading the engine), so they resort to that measurement to justify their engine's existence.

Although the way they use it is ridiculous, the basis of what they say (more power output within a small volume) is relevent for the point I'm making.

We have 2 engines making roughly the same horsepower. One is a large displacement V8 the other is a smaller displacement V8. The large displacement V8 is engineered to be as compact as possible. The small V8 is engineered to have the power output of bigger displacement engines. Both accomplish what they set out to do.

Is the 4.6 and the LS4 both put out roughly the same horsepower and torque despite a 45 cubic inche difference. The 5.0 will evidently have similar power output to a 6.0 liter. That's impressive.

It's that "ricer" guy bragging that his 1.4 or 1.8 liter engine making 250 horsepower is superior to a Dodge SRT-8 Hemi making 425 that poisons the hp-per-displacement point. But as you might have read on other threads some time ago, everyone here marveled that Pontiac Solstice GXP's 4 banger made more horsepower (260) than most every V6 and almost made as much as V8s did not too long ago.

That's the point.

 

Pull up the weights of the engines on the internet. Be sure to use the alumunum block 4.6 used in the Mustang, not the iron block version or the version used in pickup trucks.

For S & G, pull up the weight of the Mach 1 quad cam engine... it's actually no heavier (although physically it looks bigger) than the regular Stang 4.6.

You are comparing a 5.4 to a 6.0. You are comparing an F250 (the heavier heavy duty version of the Ford F series pickup) to what? You didn't say.

I feel that I should also point out that Ford's F series trucks are heavier than a Silverado or Sierra. In short, it's the weight of the trucks more than the engine. If your friend is getting passed by Kias, I have to ask what he's hauling or what Kias he's running against. I also doubt he's had to find his sparkplug more than once.

I would resist that urge to point out the truth and it doesn't take a smart person to point out the things left out in those stories, but it's too easy to pass up.

Lightning has been out of production for about 5 years.

However, there is a very nice Super Snake that puts out over 600 horsepower under warranty with barely more than a larger supercharger and slightly smaller pulley on the same indestructable block.

 

Wasn't the Ford GT always rumored to be a bit underrated at 550 horses?

I think some folks on both sides are taking this news a little to personally. Almost as if it does or does not happen, depending on respective camp of course, there will be mass suicides. I'd think the Camaro faithful would definately want a powerful LIGHT Mustang running around. It'd mean GM would be forced to drop the poundage off their pony car or up the power if they wanted to keep pace.

 

at hp/L, regardless of context. Small nitro engines in R/C cars and such are absolute wonders in this regard though.

 

Guy is a ricer Ford fanboy

Congrats to Ford for just barely catching up to the 1993 LT5 and 2003 LS6 with a naturally aspirated engine.

 

first off, comparing 2 motors to each other that are different sizes making similar hp is insane... Ford cant just increase the 5liter motor to 6 liters and magically make 480hp... and chevrolets motor isnt going to make only 350hp if they decrease it to 5 liters you have to compare apples to apples... FWIW the lotus esprit used a 3.5l v8 that produced 355hp. OMFGWTF!!1!1!1!one one!!! they should have made it a 6 liter!!! It could have made over 600hp!!!!! again... apples to apples, not apples to pancakes.

It wasnt the fact that the 2.0l was 2 liters, it was the fact that it was a four cylinder... I know chevrolet said something about it being their highest hp/L motor produced or something, but that is irrelevant... a 2 liter v8 that made 260 hp wouldnt be impressive to me besides the fact that it would be one tiny v8... a four cylinder that makes v8 power, thats more impressive... its not the size, its the number of cylinders. Besides if your going to go by the size of the motor, wouldnt it be better to go off the physical size instead of internal displacement? I would rather have something like a ls7 which is 7 liters, but could fit under the hood of almost anything, than a 5 liter motor that is bigger than some old fat blocks... idk if you have seen the motors, but they are monstrous... I dont care what the internal size is, the 5l displacement/hp advantage is worthless if its physically bigger than a 7 liter...

 

We don't need them to do it to want it. It's what we ALL WANTED from the beginning, but didn't get. I just have my doubts on them actually delivering for a change and catching up with the times. If I was Chevy, just incase, I'd be preparing more powerful engines in the meantime, because their tank is probably not getting any lighter.....

 

As I heard afew times in Indy last weekend, it is what it is.

 

In spite of the lack of IRS? Three years ago you were insisting on that, equating not having it to square wheels (jokingly I'm sure).

So I'm curious as to why you'd agree with the adjective "incredible"?

 

If Hyundai can get 375hp from a 4.6SFI in a luxury sedan, I would think Ford could get 400 from a 5.0 in a sporty car where freer flowing intake and exhaust could be deployed.

But the rumors have this engine coming in the '11 model year, not '10, so it may be a good 18 months or so before we have any real info on it. In fact, we may have to wait for August or September 2010 for official info.

I don't mind a solid axle, so if this comes in at 3600 pounds, it's going to be awfully appealing.

 

Yeah I was shocked when my Supervisor told me about his F250 having Spark plug issues like this. Something about the threads not being deep or something? I dont know, but this is the kind of reputation thing that puts Ford at the bottom of the list for me. Some people swear by them, and to that I say God bless, its not for me... Noone wants to spend time figuring out if they got the good ford or the bad ford. This is the reason, if it isnt good or doesnt fit the image you want you dont sour your reputation by putting your brand name on it. Cough Cough, Pontiac G3

 

Yeah, on the 2v engines the hole for the spark plugs doesn't have a whole lot to thread into. When you change plugs in the engine, you just can throw them in there and run them down with a ratchet until you feel like they are tight enough. A torque wrench is needed to make sure they have been tightened properly.

I cant see where its a big problem though when you look at the number of 2v 4.6/5.4 PI engines out there (every Mustang and V8 Truck from 99 up). The cracking plastic intake manifold was probably bigger deal.

 

Since you want the comparison his is a F-250 ECSB with a practically empty toolbox in it nothing in the bed. Mine is a 04 SCLB 2500 HD with a utility bed on it full of tools, and extra crap in the bed. I definately weigh more than him. Yes we race our work trucks.

Everyone I know with a mod motor has had at least ONE spark plug shoot out. That taps out at about 5 people, that being said at least TWO of them had it happen twice.

Why shouldn't I compare the 5.4 to the 6.0? Its not my fault the Ford engineers didn't have the brains to figure out "hey we might want to go bigger someday". You make it sound like I'm comparing a 305 to a 454. Its what Ford offered so they obviously felt that it compared. Years back Ford was looking into going back to pushrods then all their financial problems came along and then started slapping blowers on the mod motors to make them fast.

The mod motor to me is just an overcomplicated under achieveing POS. Ford should have improved on the original SBF like Chevy did. The old 5.0 was a great motor and lots of Ford guys I know don't touch anything ford after 93. I know your going to tell me that 5.0 is less than 6.0 but regardless they just caught up to the power level of the LS2 from 2005. The LSx motors are way more amazing in stock to slightly modified trim than the mods. The LS1 cars dating back as far as 97-98 with just bolt-ons and a cam are making 400 RWHP find a mod car that can do that.

 

I was referring to GM not being stupid enough to place a $4k premium over the Mustang's V8. If the Mustang's base GT is around $26k, then GM would be killing the Camaro by starting $4k above that for the same thing. Same goes with the V6 model. Mr. Lutz and Scott have kept saying how close the Camaro will be in pricing to the Mustang, with a "small" premium. That to me means $1500 at the very most. I hope that helps.