View Single Post
Old 07-11-2002, 06:55 PM   #35
Unit 5302
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 5,246
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by blue00gt
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.
And they were all grossly underrated for insurance purposes. Not to mention there isn't nearly the difference between gross and net as you think their is. Do you even know what the difference is? Net is measured as installed in the car. Gross is basically an engine dynoed with minimal accessories. Alternator, water pump. On an older engine that may not have come with all the extra accessories, there is less of a difference. Here's some data to make my point. My dad ran a 427 powered 1963 XL Convertable at the 1/4 mile for a few years. It's the same 427FE engine I have now. The engine was rated at 425hp. By your statement, that would maybe be 350hp net, correct? It trapped 100mph short shifting because of a strange cutting out problem at the top of 3rd in a 5000lb body. If you were to use the standard calculation for weight reduction and trap speed, that would be 117mph in your 00GT. The 427FE later was given a dry sump oiling system, far more aggressive heads, and a more aggressive camshaft grind. It remained rated at 425hp. The 290hp Boss 302 engine really made more like 400hp. My uncle has seen the dyno numbers on a detuned 8.0:1 CR Boss 302 engine that dynoed 364hp from the same builder who had his 69 Boss 302 engine. The 428CJ was rated at a ridiculous 335hp, in actuality it made better than 400hp.

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.
Unit 5302 is offline   Reply With Quote