Mustang Refresh Spotted; Camo'ed Though
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 1998
Posts: 14
From: San Francisco, CA, USA
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
The old 5.8 V8 is dead.
This 5.8 is an entirely different beast.
Wouldn't go so far as to call Ford's V8s "crappy".
It won an award from Ward's as one of the 10 best engines.
GM's 4.8 V8 (LY2) rates 295 horses and 305 torque.
Ford's 4.6 V8 rates 292 and 300 in trucks.
GM's 5.3 in the Impala SS & GXP has 303 horsepower & 323 torque.
Ford's 4.6 in the Mustang has 300 horsepower and 320 lbs/ft of torque.
Despite being 3/4 liter smaller than GM's 5.3, it produces the same power.
The truck version of the 2V 4.6 is right on par with the slightly larger GM 4.8.
Alot of people make the mistake when comparing GM's and Ford's V8 of forgetting that Ford's 4.6 V6 is a relatively small engine when it comes to displacement, and throwing the engine in with big 5.7 liter V8s from GM & Chrysler, and 6 & 6.2 V8s from GM.
As far as getting power out of a small sized engine, Ford has done a splendid job.
Where the Ford V8s fall short is that the heads carrying 1 or 2 cams and big valves of 2, 3, or 4 per cylinder and related valetrain gear inside those relatively free breathing heads gives the engine a physical size similar to old big block Chrysler Hemis! This means packing these engines into anything whith wheels means the engine bay is going to need the space to fit a big block, despite that the engine going in is barely any bigger than the larger V6s that were going into some rides not too many years ago.
This 5.8 is an entirely different beast.
It won an award from Ward's as one of the 10 best engines.
GM's 4.8 V8 (LY2) rates 295 horses and 305 torque.
Ford's 4.6 V8 rates 292 and 300 in trucks.
GM's 5.3 in the Impala SS & GXP has 303 horsepower & 323 torque.
Ford's 4.6 in the Mustang has 300 horsepower and 320 lbs/ft of torque.
Despite being 3/4 liter smaller than GM's 5.3, it produces the same power.
The truck version of the 2V 4.6 is right on par with the slightly larger GM 4.8.
Alot of people make the mistake when comparing GM's and Ford's V8 of forgetting that Ford's 4.6 V6 is a relatively small engine when it comes to displacement, and throwing the engine in with big 5.7 liter V8s from GM & Chrysler, and 6 & 6.2 V8s from GM.
As far as getting power out of a small sized engine, Ford has done a splendid job.
Where the Ford V8s fall short is that the heads carrying 1 or 2 cams and big valves of 2, 3, or 4 per cylinder and related valetrain gear inside those relatively free breathing heads gives the engine a physical size similar to old big block Chrysler Hemis! This means packing these engines into anything whith wheels means the engine bay is going to need the space to fit a big block, despite that the engine going in is barely any bigger than the larger V6s that were going into some rides not too many years ago.
Last edited by guionM; Aug 8, 2007 at 06:18 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
I love this forum!!!
A spy pic comes out and everybody starts speculating on 700-cubic-inch, 900hp monster motors.
It is an engine mule - the body is exactly what's out already.
When looking at that red car with the pillow-top hood camo... think turbos and intercoolers with appropriate IC ductwork... like the old SVO. Hmmm...
After all, it IS a V6 car in the photo.
You guys kill me!
A spy pic comes out and everybody starts speculating on 700-cubic-inch, 900hp monster motors.
It is an engine mule - the body is exactly what's out already.
When looking at that red car with the pillow-top hood camo... think turbos and intercoolers with appropriate IC ductwork... like the old SVO. Hmmm...
After all, it IS a V6 car in the photo.
You guys kill me!
Last edited by ProudPony; Aug 8, 2007 at 07:01 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 253
I love this forum!!!
A spy pic comes out and everybody starts speculating on 700-cubic-inch, 900hp monster motors.
It is an engine mule - the body is exactly what's out already.
When looking at that red car with the pillow-top hood camo... think turbos and intercoolers with appropriate IC ductwork... like the old SVO. Hmmm...
After all, it IS a V6 car in the photo.
You guys kill me!
A spy pic comes out and everybody starts speculating on 700-cubic-inch, 900hp monster motors.
It is an engine mule - the body is exactly what's out already.
When looking at that red car with the pillow-top hood camo... think turbos and intercoolers with appropriate IC ductwork... like the old SVO. Hmmm...
After all, it IS a V6 car in the photo.
You guys kill me!
So it could be one of MANY configs. (a bunch of which were said to be in V6 bodys from the get go..yeah..even the v8s)
Could be anyone of the following configs.
- Regular 3.5L V6
- TwinForce 3.5L V6
- 5.4L 400+hp
- 4.6L S/C (380+hp)
- 5.8L BOSS (400+hp)
- 6.2L BOSS (400+hp)
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,028
From: Chicago, IL
The old 5.8 V8 is dead.
This 5.8 is an entirely different beast.
Wouldn't go so far as to call Ford's V8s "crappy".
It won an award from Ward's as one of the 10 best engines.
GM's 4.8 V8 (LY2) rates 295 horses and 305 torque.
Ford's 4.6 V8 rates 292 and 300 in trucks.
GM's 5.3 in the Impala SS & GXP has 303 horsepower & 323 torque.
Ford's 4.6 in the Mustang has 300 horsepower and 320 lbs/ft of torque.
Despite being 3/4 liter smaller than GM's 5.3, it produces the same power.
The truck version of the 2V 4.6 is right on par with the slightly larger GM 4.8.
Alot of people make the mistake when comparing GM's and Ford's V8 of forgetting that Ford's 4.6 V6 is a relatively small engine when it comes to displacement, and throwing the engine in with big 5.7 liter V8s from GM & Chrysler, and 6 & 6.2 V8s from GM.
As far as getting power out of a small sized engine, Ford has done a splendid job.
Where the Ford V8s fall short is that the heads carrying 1 or 2 cams and big valves of 2, 3, or 4 per cylinder and related valetrain gear inside those relatively free breathing heads gives the engine a physical size similar to old big block Chrysler Hemis! This means packing these engines into anything whith wheels means the engine bay is going to need the space to fit a big block, despite that the engine going in is barely any bigger than the larger V6s that were going into some rides not too many years ago.
This 5.8 is an entirely different beast.
Wouldn't go so far as to call Ford's V8s "crappy".
It won an award from Ward's as one of the 10 best engines.
GM's 4.8 V8 (LY2) rates 295 horses and 305 torque.
Ford's 4.6 V8 rates 292 and 300 in trucks.
GM's 5.3 in the Impala SS & GXP has 303 horsepower & 323 torque.
Ford's 4.6 in the Mustang has 300 horsepower and 320 lbs/ft of torque.
Despite being 3/4 liter smaller than GM's 5.3, it produces the same power.
The truck version of the 2V 4.6 is right on par with the slightly larger GM 4.8.
Alot of people make the mistake when comparing GM's and Ford's V8 of forgetting that Ford's 4.6 V6 is a relatively small engine when it comes to displacement, and throwing the engine in with big 5.7 liter V8s from GM & Chrysler, and 6 & 6.2 V8s from GM.
As far as getting power out of a small sized engine, Ford has done a splendid job.
Where the Ford V8s fall short is that the heads carrying 1 or 2 cams and big valves of 2, 3, or 4 per cylinder and related valetrain gear inside those relatively free breathing heads gives the engine a physical size similar to old big block Chrysler Hemis! This means packing these engines into anything whith wheels means the engine bay is going to need the space to fit a big block, despite that the engine going in is barely any bigger than the larger V6s that were going into some rides not too many years ago.
this is getting into the horsepower per litre discussion, which is a ridiulous measurement.. the 4.6 makes the power it makes with such low displacement because it is an overhead cam design.. generally such designs are smaller displacement yet make more power than cam-in-block engines
for instance.. GM's 3.6 v6 makes more power than the 3.9
that and.. you touched on this.. OHC engines tend to be physically larger than Cam in Block engines of the same displacement or even bigger..
horsepower/liter is ridiculous.. a more practical comparison would be horsepower/total engine volume or horsepower/engine weight
Last edited by FS3800; Aug 8, 2007 at 09:16 AM.