Exactly....so that being the case, wouldn't you consider the Mustang a bargain in comparison than the much more expensive Dodge or Chevy offerings that also run 13's?well, you guys can be happy with your 13's...lol. That's an average timeslip nowadays for anything with a moderately sporty engine.
What are we suposed to compare the car with if not its predecessor? 12's with tires might just be possible with the new line of engines, but for the time being, you gotta work with what you got. Same as Dodge...same as GM.13's is not fast folks...stop comparing your times to a fox chassis car from 20 years ago. expect 12's with tires guys, it's 2010!!
I think you're mixing your facts up a little, so feel free to listen. Ford hasn't hit a wall with the 4.6L.
Supercharging sure has come a long way in the last 15 years, thanks in large part to the companies who got their start with the 5.0 aftermarketThere have been several models introduced in the last couple of years by Ford, Saleen, Steeda, etc that have put out 400fwhp while still maintaining perfect road manners, stout reliability and knocking down decent mileage to boot. That's more than any 5.0L owner could ever hope for!
If you look for something hard enough I think you'll find it, and that goes both ways.Sure, one might be able to put together a 302 OHV with aftermarket parts that might match those horsepower figures, but I've not seen one yet that would come close to matching any of the other above mentioned benefits offered by the OHC.
At 400 hp? Nah, just the top end and bolt-ons, or nitrousAnd at that point you've had to replace everything but the block in order to just match the power output.
Neither has an n/a 4.6. Too bad ford doesn't offer a blown 302, though I bet other companies do.The OHV 302 has been around for over 40-years and it never made 400fwhp in any configuration....
I'd say they're doing ok. At least with the 5.0 around, the competition never dominated the entire mustang line-up in performance.so I'd say considering the fairly short existence the 2V/3V/4V OHC engines have been in production, they're doing quite well by comparison.
No thanks, enough people still make parts, so I'll keep on driving my dead and buried 302 OHV.I'm sorry you're still not over the fact that the 302 OHV is dead and buried, never to return, but you really need to get over it.
It's still a great little engine.It was a great little engine for its time, but times have changed and the 302 OHV had ran its course.
Yeah, light yearsThe new breed of mod motors may have their flaws, but they're still light years ahead of their predecessors from every technical standpoint.
All while maintaining perfect drivability, street manners, fuel economy and emmisions. Again....nothing anyone has ever accomplished with a 302 based OHV.
Words like "nothing" and "ever" rarely make for accurate statements. Such arguments degrade to opinions and conjecture when the person is asked to prove it! Good luck with showing that there is not one example on the planet of a 302 based mustang that outperforms the base model mustang GT in the categories you listed. You made the statement, now back it up
It seemed pretty important to the manufacturer, didn't it? Why exactly do you think the OHV line up was dropped in the first place?You don't see too many people investing time and effort into improving emissions,
I'm sorry....what 500hp 302 OHV had a stock cam again? Link please…I must have missed it?The 500hp setup had a stock cam, so I guess by your definition I guess stock 5.0s had poor drivability.
Awww, cute.....you're quoting the window sticker. Go ahead and poll the guys in the S197 section and see what kind of real world mileage numbers they're all getting and see how close your numbers are.Fuel economy - 2007 Mustang GT = 16/20, 1993 Mustang GT - 15/22Ford sure has come a long way!
Yes, it's amazing what you can do with a lot more displacement to help with the horsepower department and a .50:1 O/D ratio to improve fuel economy. Don't think the last generation Camaro's were a marvel of the automotive world. It was Fords credit/or folly depending how you look at it that they chose to saddle the Mustang with a less expensive T45/T3650 drive train instead of the T56 set up used in the bowtie cars. Sure, the 5-speed didn't knock down the kind of fuel economy that the GM’s did, but it also kept the cost of the over all package down. Last time I checked, Ford won the war of the "Pony Cars" back in 2001 with the demise of the FBody? Guess horsepower doesn’t win races after all, huh?Meanwhile the competition, in the form of the last Camaro Z28, pulled down 17/26 and outran the crap out of its crop of mustangs, and even today's GT. Let's not compare it to something that actually matters, though. Instead, let's focus on the lackluster improvements ford has made since the generation that is 3 decades old, now.
And you still haven't proved otherwise? What do I need to prove when the manufacturer did it for me? Again, you don't think Ford dropped the OHC line up because they were already "doing everything at once" do you? They weren't measuring up anymore and they got the axe. Suck it up!!!Ok, I've got it, you don't think a 5.0 can do everything at once. I think that's a ridiculous statement that you cannot prove. And anyway, I'm waiting for the n/a 450 hp 4.6 crate engine that Ford offers.
Fuel economy - 2007 Mustang GT = 16/20, 1993 Mustang GT - 15/22Ford sure has come a long way! Meanwhile the competition, in the form of the last Camaro Z28, pulled down 17/26 and outran the crap out of its crop of mustangs, and even today's GT. Let's not compare it to something that actually matters, though. Instead, let's focus on the lackluster improvements ford has made since the generation that is 3 decades old, now.
Chris
Ford loyalist complaining about GM's bigger displacement is like GM loyalist complaining about Fords superchargers.
I beg to differ. I am looking for a platform to build upon, and it is much easier and less complicated to add a supercharger than to add cubes.
That went totally over your head huh? What if you bought a car with the cubes allready there? Then added a supercharger. I am talking stock vs stock which is what this whole thread was based on. And I stand firm that any ford fan that whines about other companies bigger engines or any gm fan whining about ford because they have a supercharger need to get out of being a car enthusiest point blank.
That went totally over your head huh? What if you bought a car with the cubes allready there? Then added a supercharger. I am talking stock vs stock which is what this whole thread was based on. And I stand firm that any ford fan that whines about other companies bigger engines or any gm fan whining about ford because they have a supercharger need to get out of being a car enthusiest point blank.
It didn't go over my head; it's just nearly irrelevant to me. I get frustrated when people say that "this whole thread" is about some specific aspect of the argument, because they always 'cry foul' when someone has a good point to make outside the scope of their argument.
Stock vs. stock, I'm not arguing with you. But I don't buy my cars for what they are stock. I'm going to mod them, so I buy them with the modding potential in mind, and more cubes would help me a lot because I'm going to add a power-adder one way or another. I'd rather have more cubes to do that to. I don't see how you can say that my argument is illegitimate or off-topic.
Tell ya what Chris....since you're so adamant that I'm wrong, I'll wait for you to show me an example or two of any 302ci OHV (factory or aftermarket) engines that fit the criteria.
....I'll be waiting.
It seemed pretty important to the manufacturer, didn't it? Why exactly do you think the OHV line up was dropped in the first place?
I'm sorry....what 500hp 302 OHV had a stock cam again? Link please…I must have missed it?
Awww, cute.....you're quoting the window sticker. Go ahead and poll the guys in the S197 section and see what kind of real world mileage numbers they're all getting and see how close your numbers are.
Yes, it's amazing what you can do with a lot more displacement to help with the horsepower department and a .50:1 O/D ratio to improve fuel economy. Don't think the last generation Camaro's were a marvel of the automotive world. It was Fords credit/or folly depending how you look at it that they chose to saddle the Mustang with a less expensive T45/T3650 drive train instead of the T56 set up used in the bowtie cars. Sure, the 5-speed didn't knock down the kind of fuel economy that the GM’s did, but it also kept the cost of the over all package down. Last time I checked, Ford won the war of the "Pony Cars" back in 2001 with the demise of the FBody? Guess horsepower doesn’t win races after all, huh?
And keep in mind, without that wonderful 5.7L under the hood, they wouldn't hold a candle to the measly 4.6L that is the OHC.
Not n/a. Please do not pretend to be so ignorant. You know I'm going to shoot you down and embarrass your lack of knowledge if you try to compare the ratings on the LS1 F-body with the current 4.6 GT or any cobra.Fords making as much power now with 281ci as GM did with 346ci.
I don't have the blinders my friend. In point of fact, you're the one who has consistently overrated the 4.6 against two engine families that I've discussed. You don't seem to get the fact that I am an enthusiast of all types of cars and engines. I even like the modular, and love the '03+ blown modulars from ford. I just happen to like the windsors and LS1s, too.If you can't call that progress, then I'm afraid there's no help for you and your OHV blinders have made you deaf, dumb and blind to anything that doesn't have pushrods.
Now you won't even back up the statements you made regarding the numerous 4.6 powerplants that make upwards of 400 hp n/a? You clearly think you can get away with stating opinions as if they were the final word of God. No evidence, no logic, just bias.And you still haven't proved otherwise? What do I need to prove when the manufacturer did it for me?
Which line-up?Again, you don't think Ford dropped the OHC line up
because they were already "doing everything at once" do you? They weren't measuring up anymore and they got the axe. Suck it up!!!
You realize that the EPA lowered their mileage estimates, right? They used to be higher, and spot-on in my opinion, but a majority of people were never getting that mileage because they barely understand how a car works, let alone have been trained to drive one. So now the EPA estimates are for your driver who constantly has his or her foot on the accelerator.
When I'm goofing off in my 2008 I still get 18 in the city, 22 mixed, 25 highway. If I don't play around, I get 22 in the city and a tenth or two shy of 27 on the highway.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?