MustangWorks.com - The Ford Mustang Power Source!

Go Back   MustangWorks.com : Ford Forums > Website Community > Blue Oval Lounge
Register FAQ Members List Calendar

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 07-09-2002, 08:58 PM   #1
vetteeatr
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Olney, Illinois, USA
Posts: 212
Default 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
__________________
!988 GT

World Windsor Sr.'s, Harland sharpe rockers, 3.73 gears, pulleys, no ac, hurst shifter, 10:1 pistons, BBK full length headers and H-pipe with flows.

Under extensive work for porting and fly cutting to accept my new cam and to match my soon to have systemax intake *DROOL*

Best E.T. 13.20 with edelbrock RPM intake and 70mm TB
vetteeatr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2002, 12:07 AM   #2
MidNiteBlu 5.0
I got something to say
 
MidNiteBlu 5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,557
Default

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 )

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
__________________
91 LX Hatch 5.0 - made for the twisties
89 LX Hatchback 5.0 5spd. stolen/stripped 4/7/05
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/...splay.cgi?3494
1987 Toyota Pickup
Ricer Haters Club Member #33

Want a custom gauge cluster for your Vintage Mustang?
www.jmeenterprises.com
MidNiteBlu 5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2002, 11:58 AM   #3
Dark_5.0
Registered Member
 
Dark_5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Staging lane
Posts: 4,337
Default

mod motors have been out fot about 20-25 years.
__________________
92' LX-Big brakes, Lots and lots of suspension, GT40X heads, Ported cobra intake, stock cam, Vortech SC trim.
00' Lightning-Stock
88'CRX-13 second ego killer
Dark_5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2002, 12:08 PM   #4
Mustangbelle306
Yay for Chickys
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,532
Default

Are 350s obsolete? No.
Mustangbelle306 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2002, 12:49 PM   #5
digital3.3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2002, 01:18 PM   #6
Unit 5302
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 5,246
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Mustangbelle306
Are 350s obsolete? No.
That would depend on if you're asking Farmer Joe or not. LOL.

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.
Unit 5302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2002, 01:33 PM   #7
digital3.3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2002, 01:35 PM   #8
BilLster
Registered Member
 
BilLster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ontario canada
Posts: 446
Default

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.
__________________
89 with 331 t3'/t4 hybrids. upr Suspention worked out finnaly . 9.89 144 mph .
BilLster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2002, 02:05 PM   #9
Chevyguy
Backyard Mechanic/Chemist
 
Chevyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Acton MA USA
Posts: 435
Default

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.
__________________
2001 Crown Vic Maurader Airbox/MAF, DR chip Edel IAS shocks Single exhaust :wtf:

93 P-71 Vic interceptor Backup car now

90 5.0 LX Notch SOLD

74 Chevy Laguna type S-3 454 under construction
Currently apart undergoing bodywork.
Chevyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2002, 03:29 PM   #10
Mustangbelle306
Yay for Chickys
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,532
Default

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...
Mustangbelle306 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2002, 03:36 PM   #11
Hammer
AKA "Dr. Evil"
 
Hammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South Fork Ranch
Posts: 1,721
Default

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....
__________________
Uncle Sam
"What the hell is up with all the gauges?
Calling Captain Kirk, your ride awaits... Phasers on stun...."
Hammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2002, 03:46 PM   #12
The Deuce
Registered Member
 
The Deuce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,325
Default

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
__________________
1997 Mustang GT "The Freak" - 13.80 @ 101.70, 2.07 60'
1995 Honda VFR750 - not much @ really fast (actual data pending.)
1964.5 Mustang 289

Rice Haters Club Member #13
The Deuce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2002, 03:59 PM   #13
Hammer
AKA "Dr. Evil"
 
Hammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South Fork Ranch
Posts: 1,721
Default

Good point about the size of the modular block, Deuce....
__________________
Uncle Sam
"What the hell is up with all the gauges?
Calling Captain Kirk, your ride awaits... Phasers on stun...."
Hammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2002, 04:17 PM   #14
mean81GT
Registered Member
 
mean81GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 299
Default

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.
__________________
I'm a glutton for punishment.
mean81GT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2002, 04:55 PM   #15
Hammer
AKA "Dr. Evil"
 
Hammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South Fork Ranch
Posts: 1,721
Default

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... ;(
__________________
Uncle Sam
"What the hell is up with all the gauges?
Calling Captain Kirk, your ride awaits... Phasers on stun...."
Hammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2002, 05:04 PM   #16
Unit 5302
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 5,246
Default

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 5302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2002, 05:30 PM   #17
Hammer
AKA "Dr. Evil"
 
Hammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South Fork Ranch
Posts: 1,721
Default

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:
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.
The modular aftermarket grows bigger and becomes cheaper everyday...

Quote:
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.
How can you compare a 351, 390, 427, and 428 with a base model 99GT?
I'm speaking of a base model 302 5 litre V-8, that's it...

Quote:
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.
When did I ever say that? In fact, I don't believe I ever said it was superior to begin with...

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!)
__________________
Uncle Sam
"What the hell is up with all the gauges?
Calling Captain Kirk, your ride awaits... Phasers on stun...."
Hammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2002, 11:05 PM   #18
PKRWUD
Junior Member
 
PKRWUD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ventura, California
Posts: 8,981
Default

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
__________________
Webmaster:
Rice Haters Club
Jim Porter Racing
Peckerwoods Pit Stop


Support Your Local
RED & WHITE!
PKRWUD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2002, 12:08 AM   #19
RoadWarrior
Registered Member
 
RoadWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Edmonton,Alberta,Canada
Posts: 317
Default

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.
__________________
Fast Company
RoadWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2002, 12:24 AM   #20
Crazy Horse GT
Registered Member
 
Crazy Horse GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sale Creek, TN. C. S. A.
Posts: 4,652
Default

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.
__________________
95 gt vert, lot's of stuff, it aint slow.

04 sonic blue v - six my beater
89 rs camaro iroc turbo hood, other stuff, my wifes ride
84 lx stang cammed up 289 hi po, etc
65 falcon, maybe by the year 2020.

black 00gt, gone but never forgotten.

R H C- member # 1
o.b.c. da prez- member # 1 if your under 40 dont ask.
goodbye for now odie,r.i.p. 11-27-03
Crazy Horse GT is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:48 PM.


SEARCH