|
Will the 5.0 become obsolete
Now before I get mugged and beat down let me say I loce 5.0's I got one in fact.
Okay now that being said technology is increasing every day I think it like doubles every year or somethign really crazy. Now the modular motors are rolling out and have been aorund fro a few years and alto fo the kinks are being worked out. Not sure but i think Ford has 6 spds out or coming ot wiht them. Where do you guys see the 5.0 in 10 years. I imange the mod motors will eb the 5.0 of today in a few years. Okay now that i have blabbed let me get to some questions. First off Ive read teh modular motors are reving machines. Why is that I mean cant you get your 5.0 to rev in the 7,000's? Do they mean more of in stock form tehy can rev higher? Also i hear gas mileage and afew littel other thigns are better abotu the newer motors btu their low end is pretty low. So Bascailly Im wonderign even 5 years down teh road is the mod motors gonan dominate or is the pushrod motors still gonna be a good choice. What would be better if i was not to be able to dirve for 5 years and i was gonna build a car. The newer motors have benifits but the aftermarket is kinda skimpy and expensive. ACtaully it coems down to do yu want a motor that can rev to give more horses or more torque down low and as far as i knwo oyu want a reving car. All Oppinions na dhtought would be helpful thanks guy |
I dont think that the 5.0 is going anywhere anytime soon. the mod motors will increase in popularity and aftermarket over time but i doubt that the HUGE aftermarket for the 5.0 is just gonna give up on a very popular motor.
I also believe that technology for the 5.0 may also increase. If you want an example of a high technology pushrod just look at the LS1 (i know its a chevy :p ) Im not too sure why a mod motor is more of a revver than a 5.0. I think they rev better stock because there are many people who rev 5.0's higher than mod motors. I doubt we will ever see a pushrod 5.0 in a new production Mustang again but i dont think it is just gonna stop being around in fast cars. In my opinion the 5.0 will probably always be cheaper and easier to work on then a mod motor (but i would love to have a new GT :) Later, Nick |
mod motors have been out fot about 20-25 years.
|
Are 350s obsolete? No.
|
i don't see the 5.0 going anywhere for a awhile. but the newer redesigned 4.6 sound not too bad. they have displaced the engine to 5 liters, they did it in a pretty neat way, because you can't bore out the 4.6. Its a 4.6-liter 4V all-aluminum block whose displacement has been increased to 5.0 liters by the use of new "spray bore" technology. On engines like the 4.6 that cannot be bored out because of the limited casting thickness of the cylinder walls, displacement is increased by removing the steel cylinder sleeves from the cast aluminum block and spraying the bores with a ceramic-like coating that serves as hardened cylinder walls. apparently that is what the new 4.6's are going to be like to replace the 1st generation of 4.6's. at least thats what i've been reading:)
|
Quote:
The 2v modular motors are NOT revving machines. They are just as restricted in rpm as the 5.0. Ford put a bunch of junk parts into them. I love hearing the modular guys talk. Mostly because they don't know much about their engine, engines in general, and especially about pushrod engines. The 5.0 or 4.9 if you want to get technical, has been around for 35 years now. It's model production run was 68-01. That's a very long time to be in production for ANY engine, and it attests to the incredible adaptability of the engine. Could the engine still hack it in today's performance car world? Maybe. The engine wasn't killed because of lack of potential, lack of stock performance, or high cost. It was killed because of emissions problems. Ford eventually had to address that concern with the Explorer anyway, since the 4.6L was too large to fit in the current Explorer, and they needed a V8 engine to compete in the market. The inexpensive, and now wildly popular, answer was the GT-40P head. Ford wasn't targeting performance enthusiasts when the 4.6L came out. It was a dog. Plain and simple. While hp and torque remained the same, it was elevated and the 5.0 enjoyed better low end, and of all things, better top end (for drag racing) too. The 302 is a modern oversquare design. A 4" bore and 3" stroke affords a high revving capability with relatively modest parts because piston speed is greatly reduced. With the addition of the roller cam, and SEFI it became a legend at the races, and for good reason. It was a performer you could drive to the track without getting poor reliability or poor fuel economy. In the world of high rpms, the 302 as a base design is FAR more advantageous than the square 3.55x3.54 4.6L engines. The industry has been moving to, and staying with oversquare designs for performance engines. It's limiting factor are the pushrods, and head design. The head design issue was eliminated back in 1969-1970's Boss 302's. The Boss 302's sport head flow numbers much like today's 4.6L DOHC 4v engine. Pushrods were used on that engine safely to about 8000rpm. The most modern version of the 302 went in favor of a hyraulic camshaft. That limits it's higher rpm capability. A properly setup hydraulic lifter 302 can spin to 7000-7500rpms with out a whole lot of problems. The The 4.6L was clearly not designed with high performance in mind. It was designed with the idea of meeting Joe Schmoe's desire to have a modern engine with performance as a 2nd rule. The first generation of the SOHC engine is a flop for performance. The addition of OBD II emissions systems, along with a weak head design, small bore, passive camshafts, and a restrictive intake holds the engine back. Off hand, I'd have to say it sounds a lot like the old stock 5.0HO, only you add in the fact it has a little bore, and the 5.0HO has a good cam. When the first impressions came out from the people who race, the 4.6L was given a miserable thumbs down. For years I remember reading about this revver 4.6L that was going to come out with 350hp and I waited. What was delivered was a peaky, and relatively weak 215hp Crown Vic engine. With no aftermarket to help it, an exploding plastic intake, and other problems, the engine basically sat the way it was for several years. The Mustang GT became the laughing stock of the performance car arena. A good driver in a Probe GT could smoke one. The older 94-95 GT's could at least dip in the bag of freebies to get into the 14's, but the 4.6 was a 15 sec car, and a mid 15 car with the auto. Here GM even bought into the idea the 4.6L might be a real performer so they went and made their LT-1 even faster in anticipation for battle with the new cammer 281. They certainly didn't need to. After 6 years of pleading with Ford to make the Mustang GT a performance car from the factory, they finally released the 1999 Mustang GT. The SOHC engine had gotten more aggressive cams, and far superior heads. The ignored the need to put parts in to support modifications though. Stock for stock rotating assembly's the 302 owns the 281 for reliable power levels. LOL. The 302 used to be considered kind of glass jawed. The bottom line is, in the real world of 281ci or 302ci performance V8's, you're not going to see the rpms where pushrods become a limiting factor. Unless you're talking in excess of 7500rpms, there is no need to go to a SOHC 4.6L (not that it would handle the rpms stock anyway.) The 302 is the superior base engine for performance without a doubt. My 02GT's fuel cutoff and redline are both lower than my 87GT's. I find that to be a miserable idea to swallow. I ran 4-5 times last night with my 02GT vs my friends delapadated 87GT with 260k on it. My 02 enjoyed a slim advantage. Had the 87 come equipped with the advantage of 3.27 gears like I had, I don't think my 02 would have beat him. All the modular guys who cry and whine about the new GT's being the **** have no clue what they are talking about. Must be comparing it to the pathetic SN95 series cars. I have now raced my 87GT exhaust, H-pipe, CAI vs my 01GT to which my 87 had the advantage. My 01GT vs my friends 87LX headers, dumps, K&N, timing to which my 01 may have enjoyed the slightest advantage, and my 02GT vs my other friend's 87GT exhuast, rebuilt 130k ago 306, K&N, timing. The new GT's are not much faster, and what they are faster is probably related to gearing. By the way. ALL 3 5.0's had well over 100,000 miles on the engines. What does the future hold? The 4.6L won't be around much longer. The 5.0L is gone, but it's still very much active in the racing circuts, and the people in the racing circuits are scared of the black art of OHC's. Does the 5.0 have a performance future? Legendary engines always do. Edelbrock came out with a new head design for the FE engines not too long ago. Does the modular engine have a performance future? I think so, but the 4.6L doesn't. The 5.0L SOHC engine will probably be quite the performer in my opinion. Which would I choose to mod in 5 years? I don't know. We'll have to wait and see. I don't think the 4.6L can ever match the 5.0 in terms of performance capability on a realistic budget for the street in a N/A or forced induction setup. When you can have a very streetable N/A 302 making 330hp and running on 87oct for about $2000 including everything you need in even the exhaust section, it's just hard to do that with the 281. The PI head swap has become very popular on the 96-98GT's as it's about the biggest bang for the buck you can get. For $1500 you might get 280hp out of the Gen I car. |
the link below is one for the fr500 mustang, but it shows a bit of what ford is looking at for the future mustangs and the 4.6 and so on. this was printed in 2001-01-24
http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/m...9/article.html |
a friend of ours just got a "NEW" intake for his flat head in his duece coupe someone for got to tell him obout mod motors.
|
The only issue that could have lead to the demise of the 5.0 would be if Ford stopped producing the blocks. The phase out of production installed 5.0's in 2001 could have lead to rumors that this was ultimately planned. But with the new aftermarket ( Dart?) pair of windsor blocks with either a 302 or 351 deck height ( or higher) avail this is no issue. Now it's possible to make a completely aftermarket 5.0 motor just like the Chevy guys have been able to do for years. Stock 5.0 blocks will still probably be made for years to come in Austraila similar to the Mexico made Chevy Goodwrench 350's that still have the 2 piece rear seal that GM redesigned back in 86.
This shoud ensure the long life of the 5.0 performance market for many years to come, regardless of what happens with the Modular motors. |
He didn't ask if they were outdated or not, I thought he was just asking if they would become less popular. The 350 may not be at the top of the technology ladder, but its lasted many years...
|
Sorry to disagree with some of you, but I don't see the modular motor going anywhere anytime soon.
I'm not as technical as Unit, and he certainly does have some very valid points. But I do have experience of my own... I own 3 Mustangs: 2 5.0s and a 4.6 In a stock setup, the 5.0s and the 4.6 have similiar red-lines, but to be honest, you can FEEL the 5.0 work harder, vibrate more, and just plain strain as it gets to around 5k. Every stock 5.0 I've ever been in does this. Does this mean that you can't easily modify the engine to change that? Certainly not. My point is, stock for stock, the modular setup is more conducive to power in the high end.... While the 4.6's days may be numbered, the modular motor is going to be here for a while. Spray-bore techniques will soon be giving us the new modular 5.0s (actually 4.9). Ford has gone "full-bore" so to speak with the modular setup. Just look at the money invested in the FR-500 and its counterparts. At this point, it doesn't matter wether the modular motor was created\designed for performance or not. This is the direction Ford has gone, and I don't see it changing anytime near the horizon. Has anyone ever ridden in a stock 83 5.0? A MASSIVE 175 HP is on tap at the crank.... and people poke fun at the early modular motors. The 5.0 has had just as many growing pains as the modular, many drivers of today were never able to have the pleasure of driving a "red-hot", "massively horsepowered" 83 GT to know just how far the engine and the car itself had come... The stock 2nd gen 4.6 GT puts out more horsepower and goes faster in the quarter than any stock 5.0 Mustang GT before it. Ford has had the modular motor in a performance vehicle for 7 years, and look how far they've come. (Lightning\03 Cobra) I love to hear folks tell me how weak the modular's bottom end is... Folks, I've been through every problem you could possibly imagine with the early model 4.6. (exploding intakes, anemic heads, crappy busted T-45, and so on...), but guess what has held up to nearly 55,000 miles of: 450 hp at the crank? 8 lbs of boost? lots of hard driving? insane amounts of track passes? You guessed it, my stock, "glass jawed" bottom end... This 5.0 vs. 4.6 stuff ripped through mod madness last week, and I deleted the thread because folks couldn't seem to get along. I hope this doesn't happen here. As far as answering your question, I think the 5.0 will be in the performance scene for quite a while longer. It's potential and ease of modification is just too great.... Will the modular set-up eventually replace the 5.0 in the performance arena? It's definately possible.... |
No.
Neither motor is going anywhere. I haven't owned either, so I can't say from first hand experience the benefits/shortcomings of the motors. But I do know guys who are still building Flatheads, 289's 427sohcs, hemi's etc. I believe that every sport car has an appropriate motor(or motors) and as long as there are fox bodies and older mustangs on the road the 5.0 will still be a useful motor. The last run of 5.0's will bolt into just about any pre-mod mustang, save maybe some Mustang II's. The fact is, the exterior dimensions of the mod motors hinder the useability of retro fitting. Thats just my .02 |
Good point about the size of the modular block, Deuce....
|
hammer....you mentioned the 5.0 seemed to work harder to rev, more vibration, more noise. was it brand new? if not, you can't compare these items to the 4.6. the 4.6 is still a young engine. that 5.0 probably had 100 k at least on it. the 5.0 has been around since 68. it only got stronger. it has only built a stronger following over all of that time. you can definitely say it isn't going anywhere.
|
81 GT... You're right, the 5.0 has only gotten stronger.
I never said it wasn't a great powerplant. I have driven 5.0 GTs since the late 80s, some brand new.(although they weren't my cars...) "Struggling" at high revs may have been the wrong choice of words. But the difference above 4k rpm as far as the engine "feels" is VERY different between a new 5.0 and 4.6 (in stock applications) Just as the low end torque that the 5.0 has, is missing from the 4.6 in stock applications. As many of you know, I'm a prominent member in my local car club, and I've driven many highly modified 5.0s. (N/A-Blown-Juiced) Some of them 11 second monsters, they were extremely impressive. Now THEY revved freely and depending on the setup, LOVED the high end. What I'm trying to say is that, in a stock form, the 4.6 is a more "rev happy" motor.... especially since you don't see much until about 4k rpms... ;( |
Ah crap, now I've gone and done it. This is my last post, I just happened to have today off, and I was unable to do what I had planned so I'm here.
The 302 was always competitive or better in it's class (barring SN95). Can you say that of the 4.6L? Regardless of how weak the engine got, the Mustang V8 was NEVER a slouch, and even in the years it was underpowered, the aftermarket was still there. I'm tired of hearing that the 99GT+ is the most powerful GT ever produced. The 271hp@6000rpm, 312lb/ft@3400rpm 289 had more, the 290hp@4800rpm, 385lb/ft@3200rpm 351W 4V had more, the 320@4600rpm, 427lb/ft@3200rpm 390FE had more, the 325hp@4800rpm, 427lb/ft@3200rpm 390FE had more, and the 335hp@5600rpm, 440lb/ft@3400rpm 428FE had more. All 4 of those engines with 5 different ratings had more power than the new GT's. Nobody's going to dispute the 302 makes more noise and vibration cranking past 5,000rpms, but the 281 drops hard after the 5000rpm area. Most drivers found out they had to shift lower in the rpms than the old 5.0 to get a favorable 1/4 mile time. If the Gen I 4.6 pulls so much better up top, why does it have to be shifted lower? I will agree after 5500rpms the SN95 5.0 is at a disadvantage, but at the track, most people shift before or at that. The Gen I 281 also makes it's peak power at a higher rpm. Peak higher, shift lower equals a peakier, less usable powerband. That and I don't think too many people would choose a 4.6L over a 5.0L to make 500hp with no rotating assembly modifications. I didn't say the modular engines are going to disappear or say that the series of engines doesn't have any potential. Anything can be made fast with money. I'm just saying the idea that the SOHC 4.6L is superior because it's newer, and it has OHC's is a crock. The way the 5.0 and 4.6 2V are/were setup is for power production below 6000rpm. I don't see the pushrod engine being at any disadvantage. In fact, for performance applications the larger pushrod engine with bigger valves and more aftermarket is superior. If you were to apply canted valve technology to the 302, which has been done, and set it up for a 5250rpm peak power, it would blow the new away. All the what if's aside, I'm completely unimpressed with SOHC engines. With only 2v per cylinder, I don't see them gaining much of anything over the pushrod 2v engines. The additional size, and weight associated with a SOHC engine offsets any potential gain in efficiency. I'm done. |
Unit,
I think you get WAY too defensive about this stuff. Do you get this flustered in a general conversation face to face? You have your opinions and facts, I have my opinions and facts. We both have our favorite engines, and they happen to be different.... so what? It doesn't mean that I don't respect you and value you as a fellow member. It doesn't mean I don't respect the heck out of the 302... Quote:
Quote:
I'm speaking of a base model 302 5 litre V-8, that's it... Quote:
To be honest, I just don't understand your resentment. There are just as many rusted-out, bondoed, oil-leaking, "I can beat anything 'cause its a 5.0" blowhards as riced out, trash talking, slow as heck "wuzz up?" 4.6 drivers. I don't expect you to think that the modular motor is God's gift to engineering, but at least give the cars and the drivers respect if they deserve it... No matter what they might drive. (Even those crazy imports....yecchhh!) |
I replied to a similar post about 6 months ago, and received nothing but flack from everyone except Kell. He seems to be changing his tune a little bit now, but it's hard to say.
10 years from now, the pushrod 5.0 will be around, but it will be very "old school". There won't be very many of them in use. They are a dying breed. I'm not criticizing them, it's just the truth. Take care, -Chris |
I think the 302's will be around for many years to come. As said before the aftermarket has built the 302 any part you could want. Its become what is probably Ford most commonly used engine. And as far as comparing the gen 1 4.6L's against a 82-83 Mustang is not fair. When the 82 was introduced it WAS faster than most of the production domestic cars around. But that was a different time and that engine was a huge leap from the late 70's. And as far as saying it no comparison to the old 289's, and 302's is wrong. Those were the original engines in the Mustang GT's and those engines made good power. I dont want to start any arguments but if i had to choose one of the engines to keep the 4.6 would be gone. The 302 has been around for a long time and has a great history. If your walking around on the streets and say you have a 4.6L people may not know what your talking about. But when you say you have a 5.0 everyone knows.
|
i like the 5.0's they will be around for a long time, but i like my 4.6, hey it's all ford, geez cant we just get along. :rolleyes: :confused:
|
LOL. When I started getting into racing (early 1980's), there were very few parts for the Windsor engines. All the serious Ford guys were into the 351C. People laughed at the Windsor engines, but since they were what was being built, it was a fact that they would take over, even if no one believed it. Then they went fuel injected. No one took the EFI engines seriously, and swore that no one would ever race them. It would always be a carburetted world. Now it's the mod engines. They are the future, and as popular as the Windsor pushrod engines are today, they are fading. Fast. I think they'll be in the minority in 5 years, let alone 10.
Take care, -Chris |
Quote:
I have to agree with Chris. 10 years from now, the 302 will have been out of new cars for what 17 years? That means kids starting to drive will have never had a new 302 in their lifetime, assuming licensing age is still 16. It seems reasonable enough to assume 20 year old technology is old school, after all the '82 had carbs.;) I don't think it changes the fact that it will still be around, and the 'die hards' will still be building them. |
Quote:
But then the only 'vintage' Mustang engines I've ever been exposed to first hand were BOSS 302's. How lucky am I? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Just curious. :) Take care, -Chris |
Quote:
|
Yeah, he was flown to the local hospital after the crash, so an autograph was out of the question, although I might be able to pull some strings.
I knew you'd like it. I made sure to get a piece that had part of his 94 on it too, for verification. This is a picture from the paper of him being pulled from the wreck. The piece you now have is the part you see sticking out in front, on the passenger side (all red). Take care, -Chris http://homepage.mac.com/pkrwud/.Pict.../NewsClip.jpeg |
Quote:
|
I'll mail it tomorrow.
:) Take care, -Chris |
Quote:
|
Quote:
hehehe :) Take care, -Chris |
As far as I'm concerned, with almost 500hp at the crank in a street driven/legal car, I don't car what technology is in the motor, if I finish first, I'm happy.
I don't think that anybody will ever sell 500hp affordable cars to everybody. So I don't think my car will be outdated anytime soon. |
Unit - All of those engines you mentioned were rated in gross horsepower, so it takes over 300 hp by those ratings to match up to the 260 net hp of a new GT.
|
Future of the 5.0
My User Name indicates my preference but I have to say this: It doesn't matter if the pushrod 5.0 is superior to the 4.6 OHC engine or not, the fact that Ford is churning out tens of thousands of 4.6 V-8's in their various lines and not 5.0 V-8's is what will cause the modular 4.6 to dominate, eventually. It's as much a matter of both math and marketing as anything else.
I can't offer a time-frame but the 4.6 will dominate simply because it'll be the only Ford V-8 engine readily available. Like it or not, pushrod technology will slowly become a distant second in buyer preference as young guys grow up knowing only OHC tech and see the 5.0 as antique, just as another generation saw the Ford flathead V-8 - which dominated during the late 1940's - early '50's Hot Rod era - until the Chevy V-8 was introduced in '55. Then, within a few years, flatheads were abandoned by anyone looking for real power. The 5.0 won't 'die' like the flathead, it'll still be seen as there are zillions still around but eventually they will just age out of the market and while you may still see a few 5.0's powering 'old' Mustangs and kit cars in 25 years, they'll be considered ancient and out-of-date. Guaranteed. Frankly, right now, I still prefer my 5.0 for a multitude of reasons but I have no illusions that it will still be around in another decade and I've adjusted to the fact that no matter how much I like the 5.0 and whatever the current shortcomings of 4.6 the modular V-8 will be powering my next Mustang. Of course, I intend to hang on to my 5.0 powered LX quite a few more years before I surrender to 'progress' and a 4.6. Hopefully, by then they'll have improved even more, aftermarket parts will be plentiful and the factory-stock 'Stangs will be running low 13's all day. I can live with that. |
Quote:
Don't get into older Mustang's with me. You don't know what you're talking about, and I do. It won't be a pretty debate. I said I was done with this topic, so quit addressing me. The idea I'm somehow defensive on this issue is asinine. I emailed Hammer to try and clear that up. The bottom line is, the more I learn about the new 4.6L, the less and less impressed with the engine's so called "potential." It will never be able to compete engine vs engine with the 5.0. Will it remain around? No. Ford will phase the engine out of production shortly. The 5.0 SOHC will replace it, and the 4.6L will likely fade into the background as the 289 and 260ci V8 did back in the 60s. The 289 was one hell of an engine, but it was setup to crank. The 302 that replaced it is superior in many ways, but it was never really setup so aggressively. The 4.6L was not designed to be a high performance engine. It's stroke is too long for a small displacement V8, it has only 2v per cylinder, and with a small bore engine, that restricts head flow capability. There is no evidence to support SOHC 2v V8 engines designed for normal cars are significantly superior to OHV pushrod engines that I've ever been able to find. Bending the port around the pushrod hurts a pushrod engine vs an OHC engine, but tunnel port heads allievate that problem. Unfortunately, tunnel port heads are much more susceptable to cracking and other issues you don't see as often or ever on standard design OHV heads. Regardless, if you have an engine that redlines where the SOHC 4.6L does, I can't see a performance advantage over the 5.0L pushrod engine, period. As to PKRWUD's comment. Yes, the 5.0 will become more scarce. Especially if the SOHC 5.0 is released. It will not disappear. Will it become obsolete? As I quoted above, it's already obsolete, just like the SOHC 4.6L was obsolete when it hit the market originally back in 1992. Will the 5.0 pushrod be looked upon as a dinosaur in 5-10 years? Maybe. In comparison to a SOHC 2v engine? Not if the person who's casting the opinion knows much about engine technology. The 281 has it's merits. The 302 has it's merits. Neither is the optimal configuration for today's performance engines. The real question to me is why do the 281 guys expect the SOHC 281 to compete with a legend? The DOHC 281 is another animal entirely, and quite frankly the DOHC 330 impresses the crap outta me. I really don't think camshaft operated engines have a long time left. It won't be too long before valves are controlled by electronics and hydraulics in my opinion. I wouldn't doubt that to be an actual event in 10 years. Realistically, I think it's pretty damn hard to predict 10 years into the future, period. Do you think in 1977 people thought there would be a 302 producing 225hp, 300lb/ft of torque, and getting 20mpg around town? Do you think in 1968 People thought the top engine offering in a tiny Mustang II would be a 134hp 302? Maybe they predicted the gas shortage in 1963? My honest prediction, even though any prediction could be grossly inaccurate? Cars will gradually move to AWD. They will be powered by engines that run on recyclable fuels, they will not have camshafts, or catalytic converters, nor will the cars be large. Standard driving will be accomplished with an auto-drive feature, possibly mandatory in rush hour, and there will probably be a self-drive option. The days of the high performance street car will be mostly over, and licensing an old gasoline powered car for the street will be nearly impossible. This will be how it is within the next 15 years. Most of it probably within the next 10 years. |
5.0 vs 4.6
Unit 5302:
Interesting post bit I think you're a bit too pessimistic about the rapid demise of the gasoline engine - much less the death of the street cars that we all know, drive and love. Predictions are easy and I have no way to contradict yours except with my own perceptions of what the public wants, what they'll pay for it and how much government intervention will affect the situation. I do know that in 1950 it was commonly predicted that we would all either be 'driving' cars that basically drove themselves or wizzed around the sky like in a Star Wars movie. Not even close, were they? Electronics have certainly played a big part in engine development the last 20 years and will continue to do so in the future, that's clear. Whether this extensive use of electronics ends the automobile as we know it any time soon is still questionable. I read lots of pie-in-the-sky predictions about the 'Car of the Future' in various journals that preclude the modified street car as you described it but most assume a lot, such as costs being feasible. Reliability factors are often ignored in these rosy scenarios, too. Granted, in 1968, no one saw computers coming and no one saw the ECM becoming the brain of the average car in 20 years so anything is possible but people are still people and change is often resisted so a lot of dire predictions for the end of the gasoline engine don't faze me much, but then, as Dennis Miller used to say: I could be wrong. One place you are very right is in your assessment of the HP ratings for 1960's Ford V-8 engines being way under-rated, mostly for insurance purposes, as you stated. This isn't arguable and those who do don't know all the facts and just assume that because the HP numbers were gross instead of net, they were wildly inflated. On the contrary. Even with the gross ratings, the HP ratings on the performance Ford engines were always low. I forgot that the 5.0 SOHC is replacing the 4.6 so that will change things a bit. How much remains to be seen. In any case, I love the 5.0 and always will for many reasons familiar to all who know 5.0's. The 5.0 pushrod engine will near-disappear in time, as the big blocks did, because they won't be manufactured any more, parts will dry up and folks will 'move on' to other engines to play with. My prediction: We'll survive - and have fond memories of the mighty (pushrod) 5.0 to bore our grandkids with someday. |
Back again... ;)
Thanks for the explaination of gross and net measurements Unit... Good stuff for the newer guys.... I think I need to explain myself here... I'm more a fan of the SOHC\DOHC modular family of engines than a fan of the 4.6 2v. (although it has served me quite well) Whether or not you believe that the 4.6 itself has potential or not, which obviously creates a good discussion ;), the modular OHC family of engines, which is growing to include a 4.9 2v and 5.0 4v soon, in my opinion has PLENTY of potential that's hard to deny. Just look at the FR-500, Cobra R, Lightning, and of course, that darn 03 Cobra... and oh yea, Thanks for the email Unit. I truly appreciate it. See folks... we CAN all get along. ;) |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:39 PM. |