Ford 4.6L. Good or Bad?

Home  \  Domestic Cars  \  Ford 4.6L. Good or Bad?

What do you guys think of the Ford 4.6 liter V8.

Personally I really think they dropped the ball on this motor. People always say that these motors love boost, but come on really no High Comp N/A motor love boost. People just say that because they dont make any power N/A.

Sure Ive always hated mustangs cause im a GM and Mopar guy, but I try to give everything a chance, and I almost bought a 2V 4.6 mustang that was Supercharged until I found out the dang thing only made 335rwhp on 10 lbs.:orglaugh:

The 4 valves are slightly different though. I really like these motors. They have a lot more potential but parts are also extremely expensive. The only relatively affordably ported 4 Valve Ive found is from Patriot and Ive heard of some quality issues with patriot. And the cams in a whole nother thing. Most mustang guys Ive talked to all say the same wether it be 2Valve or 4V, Cams in a Mod motor arent worth it. They say that for all the money it costs and the HUGE pain in the ass it is to install them, they arent worth the gain. Plus some of the 4V mach 1 guys I know are running top of the line parts and only making around 380 rwhp on H/C/I.
Dont get me wrong the heads are great but the lack of cubes and expense seems to cancel it out.

And on the 3V i think Ford should have just thrown some 4V heads on there and charged a few grand more. Id actually want a new mustang if they had like a 350hp 4V.

Whats your guys take on the Mod Motor, excluding the Terminator motors?

posted by  Enthusiast

Oh and on a side note I know two local guy very into racing their cars. One is a 02 SS it has a Lid, Catback, Welds and a Stall. It runs 7.70s and is daily driven.

The other is a 99-04 Mustang GT. It has EVERY BOLTON available for the car, plus cams, nitrous, and welds, and it also runs a 7.70.

Seems like a lot of work to run with a near stock LS1.

posted by  Enthusiast

For one, I seriously hope you don't mean 1/4 mile for that SS.

Second, the 4.6L is a very good motor. I wouldn't let one example of a 4.6L making only 335 rwhp with an unknown compressor size supercharger running 10psi on an unknown state of tune.

posted by  PontiacFan27

No the closest local track we have in an 8th mile, Kennendale.

Well its was a Procharger HU. I odnt know about the size but doesnt really matter the car was runnin 10#s. Also the tune was done by a local shop which, Ive seen a lot of strong running cars come out of.

After looking up into low boost street setups on the 2V 4.6 it seemed to be about right. Ive seen S/C converts run door to door with only a bolt on LT1

posted by  Enthusiast

Are you thinking of buying a Stang now? Whatever happened to the ZR1?

I think if you're going to buy a 4.6 then add a supercharger, just get a SC'd one out of a Lightning or Terminator. I don't know a ton about the (originally) NA engines being good on boost, but from what I've seen with the 03-04 Mustangs, those things can handle a lot of power on stock internals.

posted by  giant016

I gave up on the ZR1 because aftermarket parts are so damn expensive and Im just not one to leave well enough alone, I am lookin into a few LT4 C4s though.

posted by  Enthusiast

You're basically comparing apples to oranges when you compare a factory rated 260hp CONVERTIBLE with a factory rated 320hp hardtop...I guess you didn't read any of the MM&FF articles comparing the GTO to the Mach 1 or the top of the line fully optioned SS with the 03 Cobra.....For what it's worth, a stock '99-'04 2v 4.6 can run in the 13's stone stock with a 5-speed, a good track, and good conditions.....the 4.6L in N/A form isn't a torque monster like your beloved LT-1, LT-4, or LS series takes a bit more finesse and driving skill to get them to where they should be.

The new 3v is an excellent engine and responds amazingly to the slightest of've got to try and look at what you're talking about in a much less biased manner...I used to be a die-hard Chevy guy too, but even I saw the light.


posted by  Sick88Tbird

im getting either an 03 or 04 mach 1 auto for my first car i dont like the setup of the whole shifting and gearbox on the manual mach 1's and im not going thru the hassel of replacing it all. so im getting an automatic transmission with either a vortech SC, or procharger SC i just need help deciding i mean the vortech with intercooler would put me upto 484hp 420lbs/ft and the procharger would put me upto about 520hp but im asking myself do i really need that much

posted by  jslow913

i'm a ford boy and i find myself constantly diappointed by the lack of a 302 in the lineup... it's not so much that the 4.6 is a bad motor, but it sounds like shit and that is an all important part of any hot rod. when your mustang sounds like it is going down the road with severe diarrhea, it doesn't really matter how fast it is...

posted by  crazycarl88

Yah and a Stone stock LT1 from 93 can run in the 13s, under good conditions also.

And an LS1 Can do it in the 12s Stone stock. Ever read GMHTP.

And about comparing a 260hp Convert to a 320hp hardtop. I was revering to 2 local street racers. One is a bolt on LT1 the other is a Supercharged and bolt on 2V 4.6 convertible mustang, they run door to door.

posted by  Enthusiast

I have never seen or heard of a stock LT1 running in the 13' cousin used to have a '97 Z28 with a CAI, full exhaust, and an LT4 ran 13.5's once at Atco on a 50* day...perfect conditions...everybody on the net said it was a freak...nobody could understand why it was so "fast"(considering he had less mods than most people who were in the 14's)...I've seen many modded lt-1's running in the low 14's. I've seen LS1's with professional drivers go 13.3's in good conditions.

Apparently, people liked the mustang's still in production...what happened to your camaro/firebird platform...oh that's right, into extinction.

Stock for stock, the LT-1's and LS-1's were faster than the 4.6 'Stangs...albeit not by much...especially when you consider the size gap between the two engines.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Okay first there is no such thing as an LT4 chip for these car, there is an LT4 knock module but I dont know what your talking about.

Sounds like your cousin needs some driving lessons.

Second just cause you havent seen it doesnt mean it hasnt happened. Ive seen a Bone STOCK Lt1 auto run a 13.64.

And usually a stock LT1 runs about a 14 flat at 100 or 99 mph. So I dont know who you were talking to on the net, because this is common knowledge on LS1tech and LS1LT1

If you go back and read GMHTP (GM High Tech Performance) they took a BONE STOCK (didnt even change tire pressure) 35th Ann SS and ran a 12.95 or 12.97.
Definetly never heard of a 2V mustang doin that.

Oh just like a ford guy, revert to the "well the mustang is still being made" arguement. Yah people liked yours more and I dont really care, people like civic alot to and it still means they are slow.

And STock for Stock the LT1 and LS1s were MUCH faster than the 4.6s.
And once again dont bitch about our motor being bigger.

And now that I think about it. There are alot of people putting LS1s and GM engines in mustangs see but Ive never seen someone put a 4.6 into a car originaly equipped with a ls1 or lt1. Wonder Why?

posted by  Enthusiast

It was the LT4 knock cousin always used to call it a chip and so did I. And, he also didn't need any driving was an auto...I taught him how to launch it and he pulled nice 60's everytime.

I think you need to post up a link to that article from GM high tech performance.

And no, the mustang/camaro did not have a big performance gap between them as you would imply. I guess all comparisons will now have to be made between the '03/'04 Cobra and your LS1' can't cry foul about that if I can't cry foul about the diffence in displacement.

For what it's worth, a civic is no where near in the same class as any performance that's completely irrelevant to this situation...even if only being used as an example. Face it man, GM was late to the dance and early to leave.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Well this is from a different article but Im still looking for the 35th SS article.

Oh and it came from here ro_ss_feature/index.html

posted by  Enthusiast

And just so you know the 99s werent even the best performing LS1, they were still sporting the LS1 intake (not the LS6 as 2000 and up were) also the 99s mayb have still had the heavier metal gas tank.

Lets see a stock N/A 4.6 do that.

posted by  Enthusiast

For what it's worth, Evan Smith is a professional driver who can make anything run faster than anybody else. I NEVER said that a stock 2v 4.6 could do that...but then again there was only a few professional drivers running those uber-high 12's in perfect conditions. I live 15 minutes from Atco raceway and am there quite often...I have yet to see ANY stock LS1 run a time like that...neither have any of my friends who are also at the track frequently.

With average drivers in both vehicles, they are very close. As a matter of fact, I've seen LS1 powered 6-speed T/A's run 12.60 once...he had slicks and full exhaust and God knows what else...the rest of the night he ran in the low 13' was a 60* night and there were no traction issues. Some of these magazines receive "ringers" from the factory...ringers meaning, cars that run faster than the production models.

I believe it was Justin Burcham, owner of JPC, who ran a "pre-production" Mach 1 to 12.90's. The production models ran close but 13.10's was about as good as it got. Anybody can run anything and claim it to be "stock", that's my point here. And we're not even on topic anymore...I think you really wanted to start a debate instead of actually receive information about the 4.6. A centrifugally supercharged 2v 4.6 should make more than 335rwhp, unless it's completely stock, untuned, and equipped with an automatic something was wrong with that combo.

Don't let one car, with a less than optimum tune/setup, turn you away...they are quick cars and very fun to drive...and speed parts are cheaper than they are for GM's...not to mention easier to work on.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Uhm no I was hoping omeone could change my mind or tell me something I didnt know but I highly doubt parts are cheaper. You ever cammed a 4.6. Trust me it expensive a pain in the ass and definetly not worth it. Ever cammed a SBC? Easy as Pie.

Ever put longtube headers on a SN95-2 Complete pain in the ass. Why do you think most mach 1 guys dont go LT, because its a complete pain in the ass. They just justofy it by saing the stock manifolds are good to 600hp and LTs arent much better than Shorties, which is complete BS.

Man down here in texas we must have better air or something cause youve got some slow guys up there. My first time ever at the track with only Gears, CAI, and LTS. No tune and the car ran like shit. Plus I had a tranny shittin out. I managed a 13.3. FIRST TIME EVER in this car.

There is a guy on tech who put his LT1 into the 12s with just headers, CAI, and a tune ONLY. his name is urbanhunter44. Look him up.

posted by  Enthusiast

I'm with you overall, but for some reason most of the stock 12 second F-bodies I've heard of are 98-00s. IIRC the cam is slighty different, even though the 00-02s regularly dyno higher.

posted by  giant016

That reminds me of an interesting conversation.

Whats your views on the bigger is better (with cams) mindet everyone moddin an LS1 has lately.

On a stock cube car stay under a 230 230 duration is usually my rule of thumb, maybe slightly bigger.

The smaller cams usually dyno less, but Ive seen alot of Trex guys get taken down by more mild cams.

Plus a smaller cam with lots of mid range would be much better for roll racing, conidering shorter gears wouldnt be required.

posted by  Enthusiast

I think it's just like the giant single-turbo Supra guys that have 1000+hp but still run crappy ETs at the track for their HP. They want to be able to say they have X amount of HP, even if it means sacrificing a nice torque curve. You're average non-car person will be more impressed if you tell them that your car has 500HP versus telling them your car runs 9s in the 1/4.

I don't know much about cam sizes as don't have the money to do the job right (new rear, built up tranny, dyno tune, and might as well throw on some heads) and can't really give you my rule of thumb. I'm just saying I'd go for whatever gives the fastest ETs but can be street driven practicaly.

posted by  giant016

A 4.6, whether it's a 2v or 4v, can still make big power on stock sense in camming one(especially a 4v) until your eclipsing the 400rwhp mark. As for the header install, no it's not that bad...raise the engine, pull the steering shaft and you're in business...most people think you have to drop the K-member, but you don't.

The stock manifolds are not good to are correct in that.

As far as cam duration, LSA's, and lift number...that will all depend on the engine combo. You can have two cams, one with more duration, one with more lift and they will operate equally in a specific rpm range. One thing I know for a fact is that LS1/LS6 cars run hard with a cam.

Oh, I almost forgot...we have to compare the factory supercharged '03/'04 Cobra's to your LS1...can your stone stock LS1's run 12.60's? I didn't think so. Are you aware of the roll-bar requirement dropping from 11.99 to 11.49? That happened shortly after the '03 Cobra hit the streets...a pulley/tune/gears and you had a low 12/high 11 second daily driver.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

An LSx sure can do 12.60 bone stock ever heard of a Vette. You want to jump up a notch then I will to. And if you read carefully in the first post I said excluding the terminator motor.

It may have been cosworth that said turbochargers (boost) were made for people who cant build engines.

I was refering to a stock cube stock headed LS1 car. Much over 230/230 you make more HP but alot of times the giant cammed guys are being outran by more mild cam guys. Some of the mild cam cars are in the 11s.
I know a bunch of Trex cars that dyno like 440rwhp CAM only and cant ET worth a damn.

posted by  Enthusiast

All 4.6/5.4 engines regardless of number of cams are "mod" motors.

The Eaton supercharger makes up the deficit in cubic inches, that's all. This is what I was trying to explain to you earlier in the are comparing apples to oranges when you discuss the power production/performance differences in these cars...they do not match up equally...yet you continue to argue the fact...or course, you're GM's have a power advantage over the little N/A 2v 4.6....but when the power swings the other way you want nothing to do with it?

Go figure!

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Sorry that wa supposed to say terminator motor, and the first pot does say that.

And I want refering to the Terminator motor cause I know it has great potential straight fromt he factory cause it comes with a motor prepped for boost and a power adder, most cars like that do have good potential.
Uh 2jz
5.4 lightning motor
Pretty much any deisel
Turbo Mopars
Turbo Porsche Flat 6s (guys are seeing 550whp from turbo swaps)

But still for your terminators we have our vettes.

posted by  Enthusiast

And for your 'Vettes, we have our GT500's...and for your Z06's, we have our 550hp GT's....Game, Set, and Match...Ford wins.

Back to the topic, the 4.6 is a very good engine, especially in terms of durability/longevity...I've seen them run over 250k miles with oil changes done every 15k miles, at best...and still perform well.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Ford..of course its good..its famous for its high quality can have better performance if upgraded with an Iceman Performance Part ( cools up the engine, causing it to run in a very fair performance...

posted by  kurt

Haha well dont forget the GT barely outperforms the Z06 for twice as much. And for your GT we have our soon to be released ~650HP Z07 or BlueDevil or Corvette SS, Which will be FI, so it will have a great aftermarket and power potential.

Game, Set, Match. GM Wins.

posted by  Enthusiast

Have any of those vehicles been released yet? No, so GM doesn't win. The Ford GT runs low-11's on street tires and handles like it's on rails, the Z06 doesn't outperform in any fashion. Sorry buddy, sometimes you have to face the facts. Good job on trolling though.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Oh I forgot to mention but your 500 hp gt500 wont outrun the base model 400 vette.

GT500s are over 4K lbs hahaahahah Way to go ford

Okay so lets say ford has it for now what are you gonna do when the new top of the line vette comes out. Admit defeat, because its inevitable, it has been approved for producion and it will be out.

Oh and I guess youve driven a GT before huh, you would know just how it handles. Ive seen a bone stock Z06 with nothing but DRs run low 11s to. The GT has a good traction advantage being mid engine, help the Z0 out a tuny bit in the traction department and all the sudden they run very much alike.

posted by  Enthusiast

Just so you know octane magazine reported a 7:42 lap time for the GT at the Ring. I do believe everyone was blown away when it ran a 7:29. Ill try and find were I read about it. But these cars are much more equal than you think here are lap times for each one at different tracks
GT Corvette Z06
Top Gear Track 1:21.9 1:22.4
GingerMan Raceway 1:32.45 1:32.75
Hockenheim Shorttrack 1:14.1 1:11.5
Vairano testtrack 1:19.810 1:19.5
Oschersleben 1:42.84 1:40.3
Daimler-Chrysler Proving Ground 1:19.6 1:15.4
Virginia International Raceway 3:00.7 2:58.2

Also power to weight ratio is damn near identical on these cars on .01 seperates them.

posted by  Enthusiast

Reviewing the Hockenheim shorttrack results leads me to believe that the Z0 may actually handle better, as on the short track, as place were power has less of a chance to shine, and grip and other handling characterists are more valued the Z06 actually lapped almost 3 full seconds faster than your beloved GT.

posted by  Enthusiast

And did they have the exact same drivers in each car for every comparison...I'm certain they didn't. What I've been trying to say this whole goddamn thread is that none of this is relavant...

You asked if the 4.6 was a good motor and the first response you got, you started arguing...WTF? That's called trolling, you didn't care what the response was...

If you have to ask if a "4.6 is a good motor" then you obviously aren't that well rooted in the automotive world and apparently not much of an "Enthusiast". And how many times did I say the LT-1 and LS-1's were faster than a 2v 4.6...enough to not be having a debate over it.

Good day to you jackass.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Sorry you got your panties in a wad. I didnt even want it to turn into this but you had to go there.

I was hopin some people could show me some hard running N/A 4.6s especially the 3 or 4 valves, but nobody did.

I wanted facts and different mods. Im not even that big into mustangs, hell I was about to buy a mach 1 and I still only even know of two head porters for the 4V motors. Im sure there are a ton more.

I was hopin someone could show me some built strong running na 4.6s and prove me wrong, but no.

From personal experience I hate this motor, but Im not against changing my mind. I used to hate the LSj also until I saw some strong running ones. 260whp from a few mods is pretty good for a 4 banger.

posted by  Enthusiast

...and for our Mustang you have your...nothing. Game, set, and STFU. Camaro is dead.

The Corvette had a significant price disadvantage against the do they compare?

I took my Fox to the track, guess what I ran?

posted by  What

Your NA argument is just as silly as import's hp/L. With a size disadvantage, the 4.6 needs a power adder to be fast and remain civil. I do know NA 4.6s running 11s though.

posted by  What

Ahh the classic, well the camaro is dead arguement. Dont forget its coming back and as always it will be faster than the mustang.
Who cares if its dead its still faster than the brand new 05 Mustang GT.
Civics are still here, and that makes them......SLOW.

The new LS2 vs GT500. Well most GT500s are going for over the price of a C6 and the C6 will easily out run them. The Gt500s are just too heavy.

There you go Id like the here about the N/A 4.6s in the 11s

Oh and what'd you run.

posted by  Enthusiast

There are 50-state legal '99 and '01 4v cobras running in the high-11's that are docile enough to be daily drivers...I have one in one of my MM&FF mags, I'll have to look it up for ya. By the way...what GM motor has 4-bolt mains and is crossbolted on top of it all and can handle 1000+ hp on the stock short block? oh that's right, not a damn one.

The "bolt-on" camaro that you said ran 7.70's in the eighth mile...what was his trap speed and 60' times? I believe this to be horse-crap, I need some more info please.

Stock GT500's run 12.20's at high altitude in the summer heat on stock tires, with the traction control turned off, it'll still belt out 12.50-12.60's with it on...LS2 'Vette won't do that...not without going into the PCM with a tuner.

Please supply me with more into on that 7.70 eighth mile pass, as well as mods done.


posted by  Sick88Tbird

If those 50 state legal cobras are Boosted than I dont care, You can make anything fast with boost, if not Id love to hear about them

About the bolt on camaro its an 01 SS. It has Welds a Stall, Gears, A lid and exhaust, and he was running 7.70s. The car I do believe is faster now cause I know hes been sprayin it and it may have a cam now, havent talked to him in a while.
Here is his profile for tech
Here is one of his threads youll like it
Post 24 is da best

About being able to handle 1K hp try the LS7. Ive seen a stock shortblock one with twin turbos makes it to 1200+rwhp, seems as the thread has been cleaned from tech though.

Also all the LS1s have 6 bolt mains.

And about the crossbolted maines or splayed mains, thats common in LT1s almost everybody that builds an LT1 has 4 bolt splayed mains on. I was gonna have it done when I was building one. 300 dollars at my machine shop.

posted by  Enthusiast

The 11 sec daily driver cobra's I was telling you about are NATURALLY ASPIRATED!

You posted the same profile twice...7.70's would equate to high 10's or low 11's in the quarter...he's not running 7.70's with those few mods...even with 4.56's and a real loose convertor...that time is either with spray or it's BS.

Looks like you have no proof about stock block LS7's taking that much power, so it's irrelevant. I know 4-bolt mains with the outter bolts being splayed was used at GM but they don't cross-bolt the mains like Ford does.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Well you dont have to believe it but its true, and there are alot of guys who will tell you the same. It has 4:10 gears and a 4400rpm converter. He drags alot of people you wouldnt think he should. Join tech and ask about him. He has a ton of videos on there.

Most guys say the same thing about him when they first here.

And the second link I was tryin to post was a thread he started abotu mokin a KB cobra and then all the mustang guys go there panties in a wad. Apparently they troll the racing section so when anyone comes out and says they beat a mustang they all jump you and then make excuses cause they are slow.

Looks like you have no proof the terminator motors are hangin on at 1K hp. Ive seen a few last at 800 but Ive seen a lot pop at 600.

posted by  Enthusiast

Read post # 56

posted by  Enthusiast

Nicks Car vs a C6 Z06 with this....
07 Z06 - LG h/c, ported intake/TB, CAI, LG headers, Borla Stinger(pulled from sig

That car moves out for a lid, catback car

posted by  Enthusiast

A cobra not withstanding 600rwhp...lmao...the only way that happens is a really BAD tune. Ask anybody building a turbo cobra.

So basically you hang out there and suck LS1 c*ck?...because that's what it looks like from what I've seen on that forum...they have you brainwashed pretty good.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

No comment on the LS1s?

I was at a local mustang shop USA motorsports gettin the car dynoed and a TT terminator showed up and he said the motors were shit and his let go at like 650rwhp, so he built a stronger one and is runnin a prototype TT kit. He runs on low boost and makes 700rwhp but the shop turned it up to dyno it and has dyno graphs of it at like 890rwhp.

posted by  Enthusiast

Oh and I have a quote for you fromt he owner of that mustang shop, concerning the power potential of the 4.6s N/A.

"you cant make chicken salad with chicken shit"

Haha from a mustang guys mouth

I got another good one from him, a 3000gt with hail damage showed up and he goes DAMN looks like a fat girls ass.:clap:

posted by  Enthusiast

If he can't make a 2v 4.6 run...he should close shop's not hard or expensive to build a 490-550rwhp 2v.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

N/A are you crazy.
And even the guys on the mustang forums will tell you 500rwhp rfeliably is expensive and hard and requires alot of boost.

Still dont believe me about the 7.70s and someone said he had got it down to a 7.40 though, dont know if it was on the pray on the 7.40 or not though

posted by  Enthusiast

I wasn't talking about building a N/A 500hp 2v...I was talking about a turbo/centrifugal....even KB's on a 2v will get up near 500rwhp with gobs of tire shredding low end grunt.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Well 500hp on a 2V requires a build motor, not cheap or easy.

NO comment on the Z runnin 7.70s or all the other bolt on, full weight LS1s running 11s

posted by  Enthusiast

No, 500hp on a 2v does NOT require a built motor, it requires a supercharger or turbo if that's your thing, around 10-12lbs of boots, full length headers, off-road h or x pipe, minimum of 42lb/hr injectors, aftermarket MAF, and preferably cams along with a GOOD tune...that's not a "built motor".

NO, I don't have any comments on the Z running 7.70's...we don't have anything like that rolling around my way...just like they don't have any silly fast cobra's down his way.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

I wa just reading up on a 499rwhp 2V, with full bolt on and a turbo.
It was built by a very rebuiltable mod motor builder. And even on a great tune the Shop owner said it was just a matter of time before it popped and the owner was aware and said hell I just wanted to do the top before the bottom. After talking to him he doesnt think it will lat long at all either, hes prepared for a stronger bottom end soon.

There was a post about it on

posted by  Enthusiast

That's probably one of the few mustang oriented forums that I'm not on...a stock 4.6 2v will handle that power fine, as long as it's not that power level, the survival of the engine depends on the driver. I personally know a guy with 518rwhp on his '02 GT with an intercooled pro-charger, full exhaust and cams and a bullit intake...he's had the car set up that way for 2yrs now...he races it regularly and drives it every weekend...he's got a very conservative tune on it and doesn't race every honda civic when he's on the streets.

It's when you've got the car running against an aerodynamic wall through 5th gear when a-holes lose a motor and then wonder what happened. Also, too much timing in the tune up will cause you to lose a motor. Shops don't like building 500rwhp 2v engines for customers because most people will absolutely abuse that power.

But looking over that guys car, his times are impressive for his small parts list...however, how long would you want to drive a car without overdrive and 4.10 gears?

Also, I came across an '03 Cobra that's had a 4R70W slid in place of the factory T-56 trans and he's got a 4800 stall convertor, a KB blower and exhaust...runs 10.60's in the quarter. With 3.73 gears and overdrive it's a highway friendly car too.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

The car should still have overdrive though, its a 4l60E, And after talkin to him and seein it run I am seriously considering building a car much like his even though I am a serious manual proponent. Automatic are just so much easier on the rear.

I do love cobras but it seems they are developing supra syndrome. Very few of them make good numbers and still run good ETs.

LIke the old saying, "How are a 400 HP supra and 800 HP Supra alike? They both run 12s"

Dont get me wrong there are some that can still make a stron pass down the strip, but there are so many more that make great numbers and cant do anything but a 60 or higher roll.

posted by  Enthusiast

I thought I read somewhere that he had a turbo-400 in that car...maybe it was someone else's. If you're a chevy guy and want to go quick, I'd say go for it.

A lot of cobra's do have the supra syndrome...the IRS in that car is known for not planting well and rowing a 6-speed in a potentially 10-sec car is not a task many can do But, with a live axle and an automatic they will fly...but not too many people are doing that...a lot of guys just want a big power number....friggin mustang

The powdered metal connecting rods in the 2v are the main cause for concern when you get up towards the 500hp mark...I just read an article, with a '98 GT that had CNC ported heads, cams and a 2.2L KB running 10lbs, it made 601hp...the stock short block is probably not long for this world but it did make plenty of dyno runs on it's journey from 500hp to the 600hp mark.

I also found an article from MM&FF...stock 2v with a centrifugal that made 350hp with a full stock exhaust, so if that's what you were talking about at the beginning of the thread, then I could agree with that.

The later f-body's have an extremely well set-up rear suspension too. Thumbs up to GM on that.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Yah I really like the etup on the F-bodys I just wish it cam with a 9" or 12 Boltor Dana 60, hell Id take a 8.8".

But no stick u with the 10 bolt that you can break on the street with street tires.

posted by  Enthusiast

I think a Dana 60 in an F-body would be a little The 8.8 can stand for some upgrades too when you start looking at shooting for 11's.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Amen to that. Pretty much the #1 reason I won't be doing serious upgrades untill I'm done with school.

posted by  giant016

Well we call the T56 the rear killer.

And the Dana S60 is the newest rear for our cars. They are also currently the cheapest and some say they are just as strong if not stronger than the 9".

Its what I plan on doing if I ever do a rear.

posted by  Enthusiast

LOL, yeah powershifting a T56 will send a rear to an early grave...good ol' chevy guys turning to Ford or Mopar for driveline

posted by  Sick88Tbird

I considered doin a 14 bolt but never really tried.

posted by  Enthusiast

I ran w/them when I had just bolt ons no nitrous....w/nitrous I would have killed him.

It seems to me that your just hardcore bowtie. I agree with you on the 4v I wish I had it.

I can't wait until the new camaros come out to see what they actually have hp wise I no what they claim they are going to have but how many times will that change when they come out.....just like the day they were to come out that has changed too in the past...they look sharp no doubt about it.

posted by  Fizze06

Man theyll have the LS3 and it will probably be rated like 30 or 40 hp hy of the vette but we all know it will be the same dang motor.

About me being die hard bowtie, not really man. I joke about hating for but I really actually liek ford traditional V8s but not the mod motor.

I found out why the 2V are such dogs stock they flow like 160cfm on the intake side, that is PATHETIC and ported they are gettin liek 230 BLAH.

The 3valves arent all bad though as ported one are flowing a little lower than ported LT1s around 270 cfm, that could make decent power.

posted by  Enthusiast

I dunno, mixed feelings. They are supposedly very reliable. My main beef is that they aren't compact and thus not very good for motor swaping. I wish Ford had done another 3-4 years on the 5.0. They could have taken it up there. If they had switched over to alluminum block or 4/6 bolt mains with GT40 heads as standard, they could of had a real contender on their hands. Instead, they didn't, which was the wrong move performance wise imho, but maybe it was good as far as reliability and such.

Will be interesting to see what they pop out with in 08 when the "Boss/Hurrican" V8 comes out.

posted by  rudypoochris

I don't think ford even wanted to consider building a 300-350hp 5.0...thin wall casting block...not the best for reliability...though I've seen stock 5.0 blocks handle 550-650rwhp...they won't do it for long. It would have been nice, but oh well.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Well they have 3/8" between each bore which really isn't that bad. The issue is that the block cracks at around 500hp for the late model HO blocks. The early model versions hold more, same if you have a girdle and balance the vibrations out well.

posted by  rudypoochris

LOL,to respond to the very first post.

I'm 26 Live in Los Angeles and race often on the street and build cars/engines/street bikes as a hobby.

What it comes down to is if you can play or you cant, and who crosses the finish line first. I don't really care if you yourself have to see what you can get performance wise on a low budget, thats your deal, don't rag other engine because you cannot do what is necessary, most of know to get any real performance out of any car were going to have to get into the power- train.

I have a 2000 GT 4.6 2V which I had a custom build done on, all forged internals, ARP head/rod/main bolts, bearings, etc. Went mid Comp cams to keep it smoggable, stuck with the Pi heads and had custom work done to them by a well known head guy in the PSCA world here in Northern Los Angeles, the heads were flow bench tested, and the engine was dyno tuned, I also did a few other things, injectors, rearend/axles/detroit locker, exhaust etc during the entire process. The build did not cost an insane amount (Nowhere near a new GT Mustang for a price example) and the car put down N/A 304.3 Hp to the wheels all said and done, not bad N/A on the 2V, and bullet proof. More than your stock LT1 is putting down to the wheels no doubt about it.

Now the beef of my setup and why I had the engine built brick shit house tough, is a Kenne Bell inter-cooled supercharger, I have the 14 psi pulley and and I also bought the 9psi pulley for smog reasons. I mostly run the 14 psi setup, on the dyno at 14 psi, it put down 571.5HP at the wheels, thats 5.2HP over what Kenne Belle advertises its 14psi chargers on HP positive gain, not too shabby.

Here where I live in Northern Los Angeles, I have never been beat by any Camaro I have raced on the street period! Especially all the LT1's I have raced which it has been many. My friend has an 2002 SS LS1 with AFR heads cams, Intake manifold, whisper lid, gears, Granatelli Mass air/T, exhaust, very nice car. I'm in no way a Camaro hater, I love American Muscle period, but I smoke him like a Cojimar cigar on a cool evening.

I know I'm charged and my friends SS is not, if his was it would be no joke! But the point is, when the engine and drive-train are built correctly and the correct power adders have been installed the 2V 4.6 modular it is quit devastating to the competition, at least it is here in Los Angeles area LOL.

I have smoked many a Murcielago here on sunset light to light. My built 2V 4.6L is rated at well over what I run, I could go higher in boost if decided and be quite alright, I have been driving my stang on the road now for almost 3 years 14 psi (9 psi briefly) with no problem, so structurally there is no question to its reliability and potential.

So to answer the question 2V or not? Its up to you and what you like, they can all be awesome with the right knowledge and a little money, (I spent total half what a new GT cost for everything and theres no comparison in performance). But if you still doubt the 2V 4.6L and you have something to prove, head out to California Los Angeles area and I'd be glad to re-educate that LT1 I'm running classes all the time LOL.

posted by  Jackal1111

Yah true I came to realize a few months ago that in a race budget doesnt matter. Its who wins. Arguing who spent more is useless cause if you ahve a small budget its a handicap, get used to it, if you can't hang well then sorry.

I still think the LS1 and Lt1 are better engines but I am alittle biased, and with enough money you can make ANYTHING fast.

And if I had the money Id love to head out there and run you, but dont expect a little n/a lt1 to show up, id have to put the big jets in for you.:badrazz:

posted by  Enthusiast

Hrm...sounds tempting...I have 2 cars (soon to be 4 if the wife lets me touch the Scoob) that might just be enough to give you a run (Atleast one would give him a decent run, the other a run that's is completely unexpected. I'd never win with the second, but I'd hang).

Jackal, you ever run your car in the 1/4? If so what was your best time?

posted by  Satty101

Just to add fuel to the fire. For a long time Shon Herron held the bolt on only LT1 record with a 11.80 in the 1/4. It was recently broken I think ~11.6X but I don't remember who broke it. You can search ls1tech in the lt1 forum and find it though.

Thats a lot of work and money (built bottom end, H/C) just to get to ~300rwhp.

My 1996 WS6 put down 277rwhp / 297rwtq with only 1.6RRs, a cat-back, and K&N drop in air filter, TB airfoil, and TB bypass free mod. I have since gotten a tune but don't have new numbers but I would guess +10-15rwhp with that. Oh btw my car is an auto with 3.23s.

The only thing it takes to get a manual LT1 over the 300rwhp is CAI, long tubes and a decent cat-back. To get an auto there add a tune to the above.

^ lot cheap and easier than doing just a H/C not to mention doing a bottom end build. :2cents:

FYI I think any well built performance car deserves respect regardless of the make...even if it started out a 4cyl grocery getter.

posted by  Jaywalkersw

The previous generation Ford 4.6L 2v motors were kind of weak in their stock form. That's not to say they couldn't be made to perform well. The current generation 4.6L 3v is a much stronger motor, both in low-end torque, and high-end power.

Of course, the 4 valves RULE!!:thumbs:

posted by  03Mach1

ok i can pretty much solved this i got a settlement a few years back and pretty much pissed my money away on camaros,mustangs and 1 ws6 the one camaro had a tuned port 305 so thats out of the converstation next was a 97 gt bone stock except a pro 5.0 short shifter bbk off road x-pipe slp loudmouth 1 mufflers the car had 49,000 miles on it the best time i had with that car was a 14.8 @ 96 mph @ Numedia Raceway in Numedia,PA which from what im seeing is a pretty good time for this car it never had any motor issues never smoked wasnt bad on fuel the only issue was the intake manifold cracked which was a common problem with these first gen. 4.6 2vs i paid 8k for the car sold it for 9,500 with 61,000 miles on it now next was a 02 ss camaro with a 6 speed i put a complete borla off road exhaust on it the car had 32,000 on it at 34,000 miles and i didnt even have a chance to beat on the thing a lil the head gaskets failed and it started eatin coolant next with roughly 42,000 on the clock and 1 pass down the track the oil pump took a shit and the one and only pass i got was a 14.0 once new pump main and rod bearings were replaced i put 1500 more miles on it and got to the track again this time i didnt care if it blew sky high i pounded the hell out of that thing and barely pushed it to a 13.6 on the day of me sellin the car it developed a wrist pin knock with 52,000 miles on it and 5 passes down the track next i got an 03 cobra i changed the pulley on the blower put a sct tune on it and the thing turned 12.2s easily sadly it wouldnt hook comin out of the hole as this is the story for all mustangs only problem i had with this engine was a maf sensor crapped out i pound the living hell out of this car i bought it with 20,000 it now has a very hard 65,000 miles and no noise leaks or smoke oh and it also has a complete slp exhaust headers included now next was a 01 ws6 convertible first off what a gorgeous car however i couldnt keep transmission mounts or dash panels in the car and it would always give me a puff of blue smoke at start up and knock pretty loud til i ran 15-40 w motor oil i bought the car with 40,000 miles off of my 54 yr old neighbors wife i sold it with 44,000 miles and the best time was a 13.4 @ 99.87 mph and the next car was a 00 gt with a 2v 4.6 windsor yes thats right there still is fords out there with windsors in them not to many people know it the car had 26,000 on it i paid 13,6 for it bbk headers bbk off road x-pipe borlar mufflers and a bbk cold air intake i pulled a 13.7 @ 100 mph i then put 2200 dollars in it including patriot stage 3 heads crowler cams nitroius cams i cant remember the duration and lift performance improvement intake 75 mm dragon plenum spacer plate and elbow timing advanced 2 degrees granitelli coil packs and a fuel pump from an 03 cobra and put an sct tune on it and i ran a 12.7 @ 112 mph sadly a drunk driver totaled this car ironically on the way home from the track after making that run so i only put roughly 9 thousand miles on the car before i did any top end work and roughly 4 thousand on it after the work was done but before and after the engine work i never had a problem with it the first gen 4.6 2v was sluggish but could still somewhat hold up to a beating my cobra is amazing the camaros i wasnt impressed with and the ws6 i wasnt too disappointed with performance wise just all the problems kinda sucked but sadly if the price was right id buy another one hope i helped you guys out

posted by  HoffysGT

. , : and shift key. :thumbs:

posted by  ChrisV

The 2011 Mustang GT will have 400hp, right? It should be on sale in a year or less.

posted by  oplease19

Hello Im another texas boy and would love to have the ability to run a 12 second pass n/a up here on the high plains.. I live in lubbock and own 2 stangs one a 95 cobra with an old paxton blower and a 2004 gt with a p1sc supercharger... my buddies 1996 ta bone stock runs 14.4 at 96 , and his brothers 2002 ta ran a 13.9 at 101 bone stock...just as a reference :clap: I bought this car in dec of 2007 and had it modded probably within 6 months or so.. I took it to the track and bone stock with a 2.2 60' it did 14.86 at 95mph I had a set of slicks and bolted them on and it did a 14.2 at 95.45 with a 1.9 60' bone stock 70,000 miles and in 5000' air ... which is a 13.2 in good sea level air... i managed to get the boltons on the car almost all of them.. 70mm tb plenum 3.73 gears upper and lower control arms , CAI , and a tune and it dynoed 258hp and 304lb ft of torque... I took it to the track and borrowed some 16"et streets and cut a 1.76 60' and got a 13.67 at 95.63 with a 20 mph head wind and 5500' air... I think corrected thats a 12.70 at sea level .. on a bolt on car... I know of one in ennis texas that did a 12.1 with similar mods and cams , man I would kill for that air... you can make them quick with just simple things even without boost, I have yet to dyno my car with the procharger as i learned that dyno numbers dont mean jack shit at the track, and ours has been closed for a year now...Im hoping for a 12.50 or so in decent air like 4500' for us is

posted by  stacy532

i was lookin at a stang and i found superchargers vortec has some runnin up to 819 wbhp but they also have corevettes tunnin over 1000 here is the link

posted by  shangybear

I've had my share of mustangs, i had a 02gt with cai and cat back run a consant 13,8 and that is street tires and shity 60' times. I've build alot of very low budget cars, i'm poor as shit but i love cars so i did what i could with what i had. All stock bottom end 5.0 with ebay parts and light coupes and there wasn't much that ran with them.

Now im a firm believer in alot has to do with the driver. Some people just can't drive and i feel bad for ya. U take the same car with a great driver and its a hole new story. I have done my homework and the next car i buy will be and 03 04 mach (only because i cant aford a cobra). With a on3 turbo and a stock motor with a kmember and catback they are making 515 rwhp and 550 the torque. I also plan on running a 4r70w and i think that i will have a car with pretty damn good power for the money and it will last a long time. Go ford or go home.

Austin   19 Feb 2012 17:11

Your Message