Mustang Refresh Spotted; Camo'ed Though
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
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.
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.
The LS2 is the same exact size externally as the 4.8 and 5.3, and that size is considerably smaller and lighter than the 4.6L or 5.4L Ford engines. Yet that LS2 delivers 400 hp (vs. 300) and gets equivalent fuel economy ratings in a heavier car ('06 GTO vs. Mustang GT). The LS3 is also the same size/weight as the 4.8/5.3/6.0, yet it makes 436 hp with likely better fuel economy than the 4.6. Of course, the LS7 makes 505...
HP per liter isn't what matters so much (other than for ricer bench racing). The mod motors get killed when you look at the overall power density in terms of physical engine size and weight, not the displacement of the piston strokes...
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 393
From: Houston Tx
Yeah, I know, I was talking about the Boss 5.8. On BON and the SVT site they're saying Ford killed plans for it and the 6.2 is only going into the trucks.
I don't care how much power it makes for it's size. The Mustang GT makes less hp than similar cars while getting the same or worse gas mileage and I find that to be crap. Not to mention the thing has almost 0 potential n/a. People with fully built 3v's are just barely making more hp than a stock 4th gen and they're not even getting close to a 05-06 GTO.
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.
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.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
I don't think Ford engines are crappy, either (though I'm not a fan of the 3.0L duratec V6). BUT, your comparisons to the 4.8L or 5.3L don't mean a whole lot.
The LS2 is the same exact size externally as the 4.8 and 5.3, and that size is considerably smaller and lighter than the 4.6L or 5.4L Ford engines. Yet that LS2 delivers 400 hp (vs. 300) and gets equivalent fuel economy ratings in a heavier car ('06 GTO vs. Mustang GT). The LS3 is also the same size/weight as the 4.8/5.3/6.0, yet it makes 436 hp with likely better fuel economy than the 4.6. Of course, the LS7 makes 505...
HP per liter isn't what matters so much (other than for ricer bench racing). The mod motors get killed when you look at the overall power density in terms of physical engine size and weight, not the displacement of the piston strokes...
The LS2 is the same exact size externally as the 4.8 and 5.3, and that size is considerably smaller and lighter than the 4.6L or 5.4L Ford engines. Yet that LS2 delivers 400 hp (vs. 300) and gets equivalent fuel economy ratings in a heavier car ('06 GTO vs. Mustang GT). The LS3 is also the same size/weight as the 4.8/5.3/6.0, yet it makes 436 hp with likely better fuel economy than the 4.6. Of course, the LS7 makes 505...
HP per liter isn't what matters so much (other than for ricer bench racing). The mod motors get killed when you look at the overall power density in terms of physical engine size and weight, not the displacement of the piston strokes...
The point you made (power output per external engine size) is dead on from a packaging standpoint. To create the most power from the smallest external dimensions, a GM LS7 engine is currently the king. It occupies a very small space and puts out 500 horsepower. Getting the same power out of a Mod engines results in something that resembles a Detroit Diesel out of my Dad's old GMC Astro (I'm talking 18 wheeler to those too young to remember the name on anything other than a Minivan). At Chrysler, they need another couple of pistons out back, making the engine longer.
However, when the point is making the most horsepower out of a set volume of air and fuel, that by no means can be dismissed or discounted. When it works to people's favor here, they use it. When it doesn't, it's dismissed as something "ricers" use.
GM has a V6 that makes over 300 horsepower out of just 3.6 liters. The same horsepower as GM's 5.3 liter V8 in the Impala SS. Horsepower per liter certainly does come into play in judging the DI V6 making it an extremely impressive engine.
Saying the physical size of Ford's modular V8 puts it in a class with the smaller in physical size of the LS2 also means that a Ford 5.4 can also be put up against a GM 4800 V8. You're reaction is going to be: "No fair! The Ford engine has bigger displacement"!! And you'd be 100% correct. Does it matter that the LS1 was 5.7 liters and the LS3 is 6.2? You betta ya fanny it is! To anticipate the next point someone is going to bring up, the idea of handicapping based on OHCs. Again, this is flawed because the issue is energy from displacement and fuel used.
Now, am I saying Ford's Modular engines are superior to GM's LSx motors?
Depends.
If you ask me whose V8 engines are tougher, I'm inclined to say Ford's. On the flip side, if you ask me whose engines are more efficient (most power, least cost, least fuel used relative to it's displacement) GM's larger LSx engines, the LS1 in particular (LS2s get significantly lower mileage than the LS1s did) win. When you get down to the 4800 V8, things become a bit less impressive since they get hardly any better mileage than the old 5.7s did.
Couple of examples of differences between the 2 engines:
1. Two engines, 400 horsepower. Both get 15 EPA mpg in the city. One gets 22 and the other gets 23 on the highway. Both cars similar weight. Yet one is 6 liters, while the other one is just 4.6. Although it is infinately impressive that Ford got 400 horsepower out of just 4.6 liters, the 4.6 obviously is pumping as much air and fuel as the bigger engine 6 liter GTO is due to the Cobra's supercharger. Although the result's the same, it's far greater expense for a mpg difference that could be made up by doing nothing more than removing an intake silencer.
2. Again two engines. Both rated* just over 300 horsepower. Again, 1 EPA mpg between them, this time in overall fuel economy. One is 281 cubic inches, the other a 325. It's very impressive that Ford got as much power as it did from their smaller engine, there is no advantage in that it uses the same amount of fuel and cost more to make.
(* I say "rated" because apparently the Ford 3v 4.6 engines put out notable more when attached to a dyno)
So, horsepower per liter is very relevent.
Where these ricers go wrong is that they hide behind HP/L because they don't have total horsepower numbers. 400 horsepower is ALWAYS going to be more impressive than 150, regardless as to how small the engine making 150 horsepower is. Even making 400 horsepower through a 4 cylinder engine that's not only drinking more fuel than a V8, but is about to blow up any moment is hardly a noteworthy feat. Ricers don't understand that.
But when you are making that 400 horsepower with smaller displacement engines using less fuel (ie: today's performance V8s vs. those of the 60s muscle car era) then things get relevent very quickly.
Last edited by guionM; Aug 8, 2007 at 03:57 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 3,252
From: Knoxville, TN
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
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
I don't think Ford engines are crappy, either (though I'm not a fan of the 3.0L duratec V6). BUT, your comparisons to the 4.8L or 5.3L don't mean a whole lot.
The LS2 is the same exact size externally as the 4.8 and 5.3, and that size is considerably smaller and lighter than the 4.6L or 5.4L Ford engines. Yet that LS2 delivers 400 hp (vs. 300) and gets equivalent fuel economy ratings in a heavier car ('06 GTO vs. Mustang GT). The LS3 is also the same size/weight as the 4.8/5.3/6.0, yet it makes 436 hp with likely better fuel economy than the 4.6. Of course, the LS7 makes 505...
HP per liter isn't what matters so much (other than for ricer bench racing). The mod motors get killed when you look at the overall power density in terms of physical engine size and weight, not the displacement of the piston strokes...
The LS2 is the same exact size externally as the 4.8 and 5.3, and that size is considerably smaller and lighter than the 4.6L or 5.4L Ford engines. Yet that LS2 delivers 400 hp (vs. 300) and gets equivalent fuel economy ratings in a heavier car ('06 GTO vs. Mustang GT). The LS3 is also the same size/weight as the 4.8/5.3/6.0, yet it makes 436 hp with likely better fuel economy than the 4.6. Of course, the LS7 makes 505...
HP per liter isn't what matters so much (other than for ricer bench racing). The mod motors get killed when you look at the overall power density in terms of physical engine size and weight, not the displacement of the piston strokes...
The point you made (power output per external engine size) is dead on from a packaging standpoint. To create the most power from the smallest external dimensions, a GM LS7 engine is currently the king. It occupies a very small space and puts out 500 horsepower. Getting the same power out of a Mod engines results in something that resembles a Detroit Diesel out of my Dad's old GMC Astro (I'm talking 18 wheeler to those too young to remember the name on anything other than a Minivan). At Chrysler, they need another couple of pistons out back, making the engine longer.
However, when the point is making the most horsepower out of a set volume of air and fuel, that by no means can be dismissed or discounted. When it works to people's favor here, they use it. When it doesn't, it's dismissed as something "ricers" use.
GM has a V6 that makes over 300 horsepower out of just 3.6 liters. The same horsepower as GM's 5.3 liter V8 in the Impala SS. Horsepower per liter certainly does come into play in judging the DI V6 making it an extremely impressive engine.
Otherwise, it is little more than something for ricers to brag about.
Saying the physical size of Ford's modular V8 puts it in a class with the smaller in physical size of the LS2 also means that a Ford 5.4 can also be put up against a GM 4800 V8. You're reaction is going to be: "No fair! The Ford engine has bigger displacement"!! And you'd be 100% correct.
Does it matter that the LS1 was 5.7 liters and the LS3 is 6.2? You betta ya fanny it is! To anticipate the next point someone is going to bring up, the idea of handicapping based on OHCs. Again, this is flawed because the issue is energy from displacement and fuel used.
Now, am I saying Ford's Modular engines are superior to GM's LSx motors?
Depends.
Depends.
If you ask me whose V8 engines are tougher, I'm inclined to say Ford's.
On the flip side, if you ask me whose engines are more efficient (most power, least cost, least fuel used relative to it's displacement) GM's larger LSx engines, the LS1 in particular (LS2s get significantly lower mileage than the LS1s did) win.
When you get down to the 4800 V8, things become a bit less impressive since they get hardly any better mileage than the old 5.7s did.
Couple of examples of differences between the 2 engines:
1. Two engines, 400 horsepower. Both get 15 EPA mpg in the city. One gets 22 and the other gets 23 on the highway. Both cars similar weight. Yet one is 6 liters, while the other one is just 4.6. Although it is infinately impressive that Ford got 400 horsepower out of just 4.6 liters, the 4.6 obviously is pumping as much air and fuel as the bigger engine 6 liter GTO is due to the Cobra's supercharger. Although the result's the same, it's far greater expense for a mpg difference that could be made up by doing nothing more than removing an intake silencer.
1. Two engines, 400 horsepower. Both get 15 EPA mpg in the city. One gets 22 and the other gets 23 on the highway. Both cars similar weight. Yet one is 6 liters, while the other one is just 4.6. Although it is infinately impressive that Ford got 400 horsepower out of just 4.6 liters, the 4.6 obviously is pumping as much air and fuel as the bigger engine 6 liter GTO is due to the Cobra's supercharger. Although the result's the same, it's far greater expense for a mpg difference that could be made up by doing nothing more than removing an intake silencer.
We have lightened the Cobra by ~200 lbs. We have improved its handling. We have improved its braking. We have improved its MPG. We have improved its acceleration.
Why? Because the blown 4.6 is WAY larger and WAY heavier than the N/A 6.0.
Once again - real world metrics that anyone can use and understand.
2. Again two engines. Both rated* just over 300 horsepower. Again, 1 EPA mpg between them, this time in overall fuel economy. One is 281 cubic inches, the other a 325. It's very impressive that Ford got as much power as it did from their smaller engine, there is no advantage in that it uses the same amount of fuel and cost more to make.
(* I say "rated" because apparently the Ford 3v 4.6 engines put out notable more when attached to a dyno)
So, horsepower per liter is very relevent.
Where these ricers go wrong is that they hide behind HP/L because they don't have total horsepower numbers. 400 horsepower is ALWAYS going to be more impressive than 150, regardless as to how small the engine making 150 horsepower is. Even making 400 horsepower through a 4 cylinder engine that's not only drinking more fuel than a V8, but is about to blow up any moment is hardly a noteworthy feat. Ricers don't understand that.
But when you are making that 400 horsepower with smaller displacement engines using less fuel (ie: today's performance V8s vs. those of the 60s muscle car era) then things get relevent very quickly.
Bob
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 253
Remember they said the Bullitt was getting a 4.6L 4v engine and swore up and down it was.....
unhun.And shouldn't we really be talking Torque here not HP
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,870
. It's not F-bod beating, but 2nd best doesn't exactly qualify it as "crap". You are right on the N/A part. That's something most smaller displacement engine suffer from. F/I or N/A hp is hp though. Also keep in mind, this isn't really the engine for the serious enthusiasts that want maximum hp and mod potential (See below).
People with fully built 3v's are just barely making more hp than a stock 4th gen and they're not even getting close to a 05-06 GTO.
The LsX motors are great and really have no equal when all things are considered but let's try to be a little bit objective here
.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 138
From: San Diego, CA
Isn't the LS2 364 ci...
Imo, GM's motors are way ahead of Ford.
1. Ford still produces a major portion of their motors with iron blocks...(self explanatory)
2. Ford hasn't yet developed an affordable alloy block, and has been unable to source one.
3. For their displacement, they are very large. http://www.autoblog.com/media/2006/0...0-engine-1.JPG
4. Complexity
If only Ford had a nice pushrod motor to put in the BOSS...
Imo, GM's motors are way ahead of Ford.
1. Ford still produces a major portion of their motors with iron blocks...(self explanatory)
2. Ford hasn't yet developed an affordable alloy block, and has been unable to source one.
3. For their displacement, they are very large. http://www.autoblog.com/media/2006/0...0-engine-1.JPG
4. Complexity
If only Ford had a nice pushrod motor to put in the BOSS...
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,977
From: SeVa
[QUOTE=camarolvr69;4792080]Isn't the LS2 364 ci...
Do all GM trucks now come equipped with aluminum blocks? Thats the majority of Ford's iron block business, and using an iron block is not an inherantly inferior technology, iron is by far a much better cylinder block material than aluminum from a great many standpoints unless your solely concerned about weight, although a CGI block might pare that down too.
Ford's mod blocks are pretty hi-tech too, features similar technology to the LSx engines (Y- block, cross bolted mains, crank driven oil pump, windowed mains to equalize crank pressures - atl east some of the cobra blocks I've seen).
Now if you guys wanna get all snobby, just stick to cylinder heads, I'll bow my hat to you. Otherwise I'll be as adamant on my position about Ford MOD blocks as Bob is about "power density" (a metric I really find useless when mentioned with the S-197 cars since they were designed to fit the engines, both tall and short deck from the get go).
Power density is useful if say, your gonna shoehorn an engine into a gocart.
and on that weight thing, a fully dressed 4.6 3v V8 weighs 420 lbs compared to the fully dressed engine weight of the LS3 of 440 pounds. Although you can still rag on the 4v engines which I figure to be about 80 pounds heavier (all of it cylinder head)
and on that price thing Ford suggested retail price for the 3v 4.6 is 6,700.00 GM's suggested retail price is 7,900 for the LS3
Ford still produces a major portion of their motors with iron blocks...(self explanatory)
Ford's mod blocks are pretty hi-tech too, features similar technology to the LSx engines (Y- block, cross bolted mains, crank driven oil pump, windowed mains to equalize crank pressures - atl east some of the cobra blocks I've seen).
Now if you guys wanna get all snobby, just stick to cylinder heads, I'll bow my hat to you. Otherwise I'll be as adamant on my position about Ford MOD blocks as Bob is about "power density" (a metric I really find useless when mentioned with the S-197 cars since they were designed to fit the engines, both tall and short deck from the get go).
Power density is useful if say, your gonna shoehorn an engine into a gocart.
and on that weight thing, a fully dressed 4.6 3v V8 weighs 420 lbs compared to the fully dressed engine weight of the LS3 of 440 pounds. Although you can still rag on the 4v engines which I figure to be about 80 pounds heavier (all of it cylinder head)
and on that price thing Ford suggested retail price for the 3v 4.6 is 6,700.00 GM's suggested retail price is 7,900 for the LS3
Last edited by bossco; Aug 8, 2007 at 09:48 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
