Fordnatics List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

I had the opportunity to put about 300 miles on a Lincoln Town Car over the
last 3 days. I don't normally rent these but when given the option of a Tempo
or a Town Car for the same price, the choice was obvious. Let me say that the
term 'living large' has new meaning for me now :-) It was powered by the 2V
version of the mod motor . I found the motor to be smooth and powerful enough
to produce good acceleration in such a large car. Which brings me to my point
(finally). I don't understand all the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth
over replacing the 5.0 with this engine. In a lighter Mustang body and
appropriately tuned and geared I have to believe that the car will be every
bit as quick or quicker than any 5.0 Mustang to date (except Cobras). Yeah I
know that it is more complicated and expensive and there are no speed parts
yet, but todays cars are more complicated and expensive than the ones our
parents drove. It is just the natural movement of technology. As far as the
speed parts give the aftermarket six months and there will be more stuff than
you can shake a stick at

Just my $.02. What do you guys think?

Ray Schumin
(email redacted)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Fontana Peter" <(email redacted)>


> Just my $.02. What do you guys think?

Right now I've got a '69 Mustang convertible with a 302-2v in it (that
motor's destined for my boat). I've got about $5000 budgeted for an engine.
I can buld a "new" 351W using EEC-IV SEFI and get over 400HP (flywheel) for
this kind of $. Or, I can hang back until the fall and try to pick up a 4.6
DOHC from a wrecked '96 Mustang Cobra - I'm hoping I'll be able find one -
maybe it'll be under $5000. This'll have about 370 HP at the flywheel.


> As far as the
> speed parts give the aftermarket six months and there will be more stuff
than
> you can shake a stick at

Think about when the current Windsor design was introduced - it's taken my
entire lifetime to produce the aftermarket and factory hipo parts that are
available now. Don't expect a boatload of stuff right off the bat for the
Romeo motors. One more thing to consider - Paxton is advertising Mark VIII
blower kits for $5000, while their 5.0 kits are $3000. Expect this pricing
trend to be prevalent.

In support of you - I'm still on the fence. You've got to figure a design
that's 30 years newer than the Windsor has something that's worth the
trouble. I'm drooling over the DOHC and 32v aspects.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Dave Williams)


-> Think about when the current Windsor design was introduced - it's
-> taken my entire lifetime to produce the aftermarket and factory hipo
-> parts that are available now.

I can document that almost everything you can buy for the 302 now was
available in 1965 - stroker and destroker kits, roller cams, roller
rockers, electronic or multiple coil ignitions, forged pistons, billet
steel or aluminum rods, billet steel cranks, gear cam drives, fuel
injection, yadda yadda yadda. You could even get some of the Ford Indy
cylinder heads if you knew what strings to pull.

Relatively inexpensive aftermarket heads for the Ford have only been
around for five or six years, but that's true even for Chevys.


-> In support of you - I'm still on the fence. You've got to figure a
-> design that's 30 years newer than the Windsor has something that's
-> worth the trouble. I'm drooling over the DOHC and 32v aspects.

DOHC gets you exactly nothing compared to pushrods. The four valve
heads are a good deal, but that's the only real advantage the Mod engine
has over the Windsor. To counteract that, the engine is physically
larger than a 460. You'd need to carve out the shock towers and
relocate suspension pieces to get one into an early Mustang.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Rader = Darn Jar All Dry Error <(email redacted)>

> DOHC gets you exactly nothing compared to pushrods.

Really? Maybe I've just been handed a bill of goods, but I thought
that valvetrain drag was a significant factor in pushrod engines. No,
I don't have any numbers, but if they exist, Dave Williams must have
access to them.

Not that I care, since I'm a tightwad and will be putting a 351W in
my Mustang when I get the garage .

Ron "Oh, To Have An Indoor Place To Work In The Winter" Rader

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Brian Kelley)


Ray Schumin writes:

> Which brings me to my point
> (finally). I don't understand all the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth
> over replacing the 5.0 with this engine.

> In a lighter Mustang body and
> appropriately tuned and geared I have to believe that the car will be every
> bit as quick or quicker than any 5.0 Mustang to date (except Cobras).

I have driven new Mustangs with the SOHC engine. A '94 Mustang with
the SOHC engine has superior performance to a '94 with a 5.0. But
with the SOHC engine, I would not call the difference substantial. A
'93 Cobra should not too much difficulty out performing that
combination (heavier new Mustang + SOHC).

The factory will not gear that engine any differently than the previous
Mustangs for fuel economy reasons. It would probably benefit from a
gear change a little more than the 5.0 does.

> Yeah I
> know that it is more complicated and expensive and there are no speed parts
> yet, but todays cars are more complicated and expensive than the ones our
> parents drove. It is just the natural movement of technology. As far as the
> speed parts give the aftermarket six months and there will be more stuff than
> you can shake a stick at
>
> Just my $.02. What do you guys think?

What speed parts? And in six monthes? Not heads. Not cams. Intakes
are unlikely because of the hood clearance limitations. In the case
of the DOHC version (which is the one I am most familiar with), the
intake is very good and probably cannot be much improved upon unless
you have more hood clearance. Head porting will be very, very costly
because of the complexity of the valve train (disassembly and
re-assembly are vastly more difficult). Swapping the cams out will
also be very difficult, they will be expensive (4 of them, special
design and manufacturing process).

The big possibilities for the new engine will be larger MAF/TB,
porting the lower intake, possibly porting the heads, possibly a cam
swap, headers.

A 5.0 with ported production heads, MAC full length headers, GT-40
intake, B303 cam, 75mm TB, 80mm MAF, 24 lbs injectors and fuel
regulator will impressively stomp a DOHC 4.6L Mustang. Still, for
*many* folks too stubborn to go drive a new Camaro, 'vette, turbo
300ZX, etc, the DOHC 4.6L engine will be a rocket and the fastest thing
they have ever driven. We'll hear them rave. And it is pretty fast
for a production engine that meets '96 emissions (but there are
a lot of fast production cars out there, many faster).


With the configuration of the new engine, it seems that a blower or
turbo may actually be the best way to get serious performance.

Brian


- ---
(email redacted)
Not speaking for Ford.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Brian Kelley)


Peter Fontana writes:

> Or, I can hang back until the fall and try to pick up a 4.6
> DOHC from a wrecked '96 Mustang Cobra - I'm hoping I'll be able find one -
> maybe it'll be under $5000. This'll have about 370 HP at the flywheel.

Where did you ever come up with that absurd number?

I can assure you that the 4.6L DOHC engine from the factory will not
produce the 1.36 HP/cu inch that 375 HP would require.

Brian


- ---
(email redacted)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Fontana Peter" <(email redacted)>

> Where did you ever come up with that absurd number?

> I can assure you that the 4.6L DOHC engine from the factory will not
> produce the 1.36 HP/cu inch that 375 HP would require.

Working backward from 300hp at the brakes (Super Ford 1/95 issue), figuring
20% loss of gross output to driveline.

For instance, it is my understanding that an engine with 400hp at the
flywheel might put 320 on the ground.

Of course these are all (except the SuperFord 300 bhp number) generalizations
etc, but judging from your tone you either think:
- SuperFord's claim the '96 Mustang Cobra is way off (can't be too far off -
the Mark VIII is rated at 280)
- The '96 Mustang Cobra's drivetrain absorbs much less than 20% of the gross
output.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Dave Williams)


-> Working backward from 300hp at the brakes (Super Ford 1/95 issue),
-> figuring 20% loss of gross output to driveline.

Um. "Horsepower" is an elusive figure. What makes some of this fun
is, engine and chassis dynos are calibrated differently. Chassis dyno
horses are much larger than engine dyno horses. My Clayton chassis dyno
has conversion tables in it, but their "rear wheel HP" is about half of
"rated crank HP." Same amount of power, different units.

Losses in an average manual transmission are on the order of 5hp for
older boxes running in hypoid oil, less in a T5 or T56 with roller
bearings and ATF. A C4, and presumably E4OD, are reportedly around
15hp. I suspect this loss is much lower when locked up. The loss in
the rear end varies with load and speed, probably around 7 or 8 hp at
average cruise.

Your driveline losses are the same whether you have the 2300 or the 4.6
DOHC; right around 12hp for a manual, 22hp for an auto.


These guys that claim enormous flywheel figures and then claim it all
evaporates by the time it gets to the rear wheels are full of it.
Either they don't know what they're doing, dyno-wise, or they're trying
to scam people.