Does Ford think we're Stupid? 315 horse? what the hell!

martyd · Nov 29, 2008

Not trying to get into the middle but I just last saturday bought a bone stock 89 LX 5 speed. I had to drive it around 4 hours to get back to where I am staying now. All interstate driving but over a semi major mountain range climbing from around 3500ft elevation to 6000ft elevation then back down to 4000ft elevation. I was not to easy on the car, running it up to over 100mph a few times, dropping a gear and doing 65mph to 90mph pulls more than a few times and I ended up averageing 29mpg.

This is a 20 year old bone stock car right down to the air box and exhaust.

FastDriver · Nov 29, 2008

With the light weight and really low rear-end gears, those old mustangs can really pull down good numbers when they aren't abused. It's hard not to abuse them, though. It's so much fun!

Chris

anticubicle · Nov 29, 2008

Five Oh Brian said:
v8only, just how fast do you think a new musclecar should be. 05-09's with the "worthless little 4.6L" run mid 13's in the 1/4 mile bone stock and the '10's with the 3.73 axle package should be good for low 13's in the 1/4 mile bone stock. Dude, that's fast for mass produced entry level V8 that gets reasonable fuel economy & seats 4.

My "worthless little 4.6L" is only good for low 12's in the 1/4 mile and I'm ashamed of its pitiful performance after reading your post. I am embarrassed to tell you about its paltry existence. I'll be sure to post again when I have a Mustang with a monster cube engine under the hood thumping out 1,000 hp to please you.

Back to reality, though. 315hp may not sound like much to you, but Ford is delivering a damn good performer that does many things well and looks great doing it. 315hp is way more performance than most drivers need or can handle. Sure, 400+ hp in a Camaro or Challenger/Charger sound impressive, but focus more on the power to weight ratio and you'll realize that Ford is doing wonderful things for the Mustang faithful in an era when performance cars are soon to be a dying breed.

You sir just made the best post ever. Thread should've been closed after your post. +1

anticubicle · Nov 29, 2008

A few things people are forgetting....

1. The Challenger and Camaro may make more HP than the S197 platform Mustang GT however they are also considerably heavier.

2. The Challenger and Camaro both come with a bigger price tag.

Gearbanger 101 · Nov 29, 2008

FastDriver said:
No, I have already backed up my statements with numerous references and examples. Ask me to back up any other statements I've made and I will. First, though I am asking you to back up yours. Your reluctance to do so indicates that you can't back up your own all-encompassing statement that there is not a 302 OHV engine on the planet that can match Ford's 4.6 modular in power, mileage, drivability, and efficiency. In point of fact, it was just an opinion not based on any evidence but personal bias.

Oh come on man, you haven't backed up anything yet. You linked me to a couple of crate engines that did nothing to prove your point. The only 5.0L's on your list still came up shy of the 400hp mark and weren't even complete? Sold as short blocks, with E/Z303 cam shafts, big valve heads and carb and intake combo's for god sake?!? Please don't discredit yourself any further by claiming either one of them would run any where near the efficiently levels as the aforementioned Mod motor.

Typical anti-modular guy, always ignoring everything but the horsepower figures. Funny thing is, is that the only one of your examples you provided that bested the 400hp 4V isn't even a 302ci engine anymore. You had to throw a 347 stroker motor into the mix just to compete with the lowly little 4.6/5.0 mod motor. And since when does piss poor fuel efficiency, a reduction in drivability characteristics and dirty emissions count as a "do it all" engine package?

Like I said....I'll be waiting for you to show me a 302ci (since it wasn't made clear the first time) that bests the previously mentioned 4V mod motor in ALL categories. That's horsepower, efficiency, drivability and emissions combined!

FastDriver said:
I know what your opinion is, but I think it was due to the bottom line - money. In this case the money came in the form of manufacturing efficiency and flexibility: "The Modular engine is Ford Motor Company's current high volume overhead camshaft (OHC) V8 and V10 gasoline engine family. It gradually replaced the Windsor small-block and 385 big-block engines over several years in the mid-1990s. Contrary to popular belief, the Modular engine did not get its name from its design or sharing of certain parts among the engine family. Instead, the name was derived from a manufacturing plant protocol, "Modular", where the plant and its tooling could be changed out in a matter of hours to manufacture different versions of the engine family." from Ford Modular engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Come on, you really believe that ford cannot produce a pushrod engine with fuel mileage and emissions capabilities equivalent to what GM is producing with their pushrod engines? GM, with its LSx platforms, has arguably equaled or exceeded the stadards set by Ford with its modular platforms. You're buying into marketing hype, not reality. You seem to think that the engineers at Ford are not capable of doing the same.

Oh come on now. You're expecting everyone here to believe that Ford dropped an entire engine line up, started from scratch with a new design, retooled all of their facilities, retrained all of their workers and absorbed all of the other encompassing costs into the fray because it was going to be cheaper for them to do so?

Please, face the fact that the Windsor based OHV design just wasn't cutting it any longer.

I'm sure Ford could have produced a new line of pushrod engines back then to meet similar horsepower, fuel economy and emissions requirements that GM did, but again not without going back to the drawing board. So since they had to start from scratch anyway, then went with the Mod motor line up. It made sense. For some part, its as you stated, tooling the machinery to be versatile to each specific power plant in a matter of hours certainly did work in Fords favor, but was design itself being more a efficient set up in a smaller package that was the main driving force behind the choice.

As a matter of fact, the ONLY drawback to the current modular line up is inability to drastically increase displacement. And that wasn't a flaw of the design itself, but a decision made by higher ups at Ford to initially convert most of their vehicle line up to a front wheel drive platform. Big displacement gave way to a compact package. A mistake...most certainly, but one we've all learned to live with.

FastDriver said:
It was a twin-turbo w/ GT40X heads, a Cobra intake, stock came and 9.5 psi of boost No link for you. I don't have it on the internet, believe me or don't. If you want to make it worth my while, I'll prove it to you.

Wow....so basically what you're saying is that it took twin turbo's, aftermarket heads and intake and about 10psi to make 500hp. And you call that an accomplishment?

So what do you say to the hundreds upon hundreds of 4V, 3V and even 2V guys that are running through stock heads, intake and cams with power adders doing the same thing, or better?

A stock block 3V makes well over 400hp with the stock engine and a less efficient (than a single turbo...never mind a twin set up) blower pushing a mere 5-6psi. With a pulley swap and simple exhaust mods guys are seeing 500-550hp+ and they haven't even cracked open a valve cover yet!?! And that a run of the mill GT engine. Nothing exotic, or embellished.

FastDriver said:
Nope, not quoting the window sticker. EPA estimates. No need to poll anyone, else I would have you polling guys who have stock 5.0s in a good tune. Guys were getting better mileage with the fox 5.0s back in the day, too. Big deal. The EPA has already does the scientific testing. The fact of the matter is that subjected to the same conditions, the EPA has already shown the comparability of the two vehicles.

I guess that all depends on your definition of comparable. Generally speaking, the current 3V Mustang gets anywhere from 3-6mpg better fuel economy than a comparable 5.0L on average....also take into account the huge weight difference between the Fox and the S197 Sorry....no scientific testing to back the results. Just real world drivers, during real world conditions. Believe the EPA stats if you wish....because we all know how accurate those can be.

You can't honestly believe that stock for stock, the 5.0L is a more fuel efficient engine than the current 3V, do you? Even the 2V's got better mileage. Like I said...don't take my word for it. Ask the masses?

FastDriver said:
Don't change the subject. This was not intended to bring up the pony car wars.

Who's changing the subject? You're the one who threw brand "X" into the mix. I just explained for you why the LS cars put out the kind of mileage and performance they did. Its not my fault that the answer doesn't help your point. Hey, if you don't like the solution, then you shouldn't have asked the question.

FastDriver said:
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.

I don't see what's so hard to believe. The current 3V's are putting down anywhere from 260-270hp at the wheels. The 2010's are adding another 15hp to the mix. The LS1's put out on average about 270-280hp at the wheels. Yes, there is the odd example that will dyno a little higher, but for the most part they're within about 10-15hp of one and other. I wouldn't consider that a drastic difference by comparison. Especially considering there's approx 65ci separating the two engines?

FastDriver said:
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.

Overrating is certainly one opinion, but I believe I've given very compelling examples to state my case. Either way, my point was more to disprove the mindset that the mod motors are considered a waste of space to many pushrod enthusiasts and that a lot of their arguments stating as much have no real bearing on any realistic scale. I too am fond of the early OVH Windsor’s. And as far as building the cheapest performing, hardest hitting package, I still feel they’re where its at for your average enthusiast….but at the same time I’m not about to ignore what the OHC models have done for the car.

FastDriver said:
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. Which line-up?

What exactly do you think I’m getting away with???

Lets take the 5.0L DOHC "Cammer" for example.

With advancements in variable cam timing, intake runner design, combustion chamber and over all head design, more controllable parameters available for ECU tuning and tighter over all engine tolerances, I don't think there's any question as to which is the more efficient or more to the point "precise" over all package between the factory offering for the Modular Engine(s) described below and the early OHV Windsor’s.

As such, cam profiles are able to remain relatively sedate (in comparison the the many aftermarket grinds that would be required in order to propel a N/A 302 Windsor into the same horsepower territory as aforementioned modular), as are over all intake and exhaust runner volume and diameter. This allows for stock like road manner, drivability as well as fuel economy. Not something that has been made possible with a 302ci Windsor making similar power numbers.

The current 5.0L Cammer, as well as an early version of said engine previously released during the late-'90's in the FR500 Mustang. 5.0L DOCH V8, 415hp/365lbs ft of torque with perfect idle, drivability and fuel economy in the mid-20's all while meeting emissions certainly isn't anything to shake a stick at. Another fine example would be last years Parnelli Jones edition from Saleen. A 3V 302cid Modular with 400hp/390lbs/tq while still knocking down 17mpg city and 26mpg highway.

Sure, I've seen 302 OHV Windsor’s make that kind of power (never have I denied that)....and I've also seen them knock down that kind of drivability and fuel economy while passing emissions....just all with the same car! Feel free to prove me wrong.

If emissions, drivability and a smooth idle aren't all that important to you (even though that was the basis of my original debate with you) companies like SHM has crate versions of the engine in N/A carbureted form in 300hp, 345hp and 400hp trim....all for much, much less than what Ford wants for "The Cammer" Hell, they even build a N/A 2V 4.6L making 400hp, which was previously unheard of. Move up to the 5.4L and power levels into the 500hp N/A are the norm for builders like Al Papitto at Boss 330 Racing.

FastDriver said:
BTW, Saleen had a blown Windsor back in the early 90's making 500 hp with a warranty and excellent drivability. That was more than a decade before ford did the same thing with the GT500s.

Yup...and it sported a 351W (not a 302) and it got all of about 15mpg if I remember correctly as well. If you want to compare apples and potatoes, that’s fine, but throwing a big inch Windsor with a blower into the mix kinda takes away from our original N/A discussion, doesn't it?

Do you really wanna match up a 302W against a 281ci or302ci Mod Motor when power adders are involved....really? That's fine...I'll play. So a 500hp (actually 480hp) blown 5.8L 351W back in the early 90's, huh. What does that say for cars like the new Roush P51A putting out 510hp with a blown 4.6L....or other Saleen models like the H302 SC putting out 580hp,the S302 Extreme putting out 620hp or better still the upcoming 25th anniversary model ringing out 720hp. All of which are powered by 5.0L mod motors.

And these are all factory offerings. We haven't even gotten into what aftermarket blower kits are doing for the modular line up.

What else ya go?

martyd said:
Not trying to get into the middle but I just last saturday bought a bone stock 89 LX 5 speed. I had to drive it around 4 hours to get back to where I am staying now. All interstate driving but over a semi major mountain range climbing from around 3500ft elevation to 6000ft elevation then back down to 4000ft elevation. I was not to easy on the car, running it up to over 100mph a few times, dropping a gear and doing 65mph to 90mph pulls more than a few times and I ended up averageing 29mpg.

This is a 20 year old bone stock car right down to the air box and exhaust.

I'm sorry, but I find that very hard to believe. I've seen guys babying their 5.0L's, quick shifting, drafting on the highway and keeping it purposely in the 55-65mph range not crack over 27mpg.....and you say you averaged 29mpg with a mix of highway and aggressive driving??? I'm not calling you a liar, but I think you may have made an error in your calculations?

Even my old LX 5.0L tuned conservatively with mild port jobs to the heads and intake, with full intake and exhaust mods and a conservative 3.55:1 gearing only ever pulled 26mpg on its best day. I probably averaged about 21mpg with regular driving and somewhere in the high teens getting into it.

FastDriver · Nov 29, 2008

Gearbanger 101 said:
Oh come on man, you haven't backed up anything yet. You linked me to a couple of crate engines that did nothing to prove your point.

Except for the fact that they show that Ford does not produce an n/a motor with similar power levels even with its aftermarket performance division.

Typical anti-modular guy, always ignoring everything but the horsepower figures.

It's very difficult to compare emissions and efficiency with cars that are 15 y/o to new cars. Besides that point, I would rather compare something less subjective.

Funny thing is, is that the only one of your examples you provided that bested the 400hp 4V isn't even a 302ci engine anymore.

The 302 made 390 hp - 70 more than Ford's comparable 281. The 347 is an example of something you can compare with the increased displacement 5.0 cammer - it makes 50 more hp and costs $20k less.

You had to throw a 347 stroker motor into the mix just to compete with the lowly little 4.6/5.0 mod motor.

hahaha!!! the lowly $30k 5.0 mod motor... yeah... Why would I dare be so bold as to compare an engine that is 1/3 the cost with a motor that is the state of automotive art! hahaha... I'll take my $20k extra dollars laughing all the way to the bank.

Like I said....I'll be waiting for you to show me a 302ci (since it wasn't made clear the first time) that bests the previously mentioned 4V mod motor in ALL categories. That's horsepower, efficiency, drivability and emissions combined!

Your statement, so it's my challenge for you to back it up. I'm not going to waste my time trying to disprove any idiotic statement you can come up with. That would be a futile waste of time. In this case, it is impossible for you to back it up, which is why I called you out on it. Perhaps in the future you'll refrain from making broad ridiculous assertions.

Oh come on now. You're expecting everyone here to believe that Ford dropped an entire engine line up, started from scratch with a new design, retooled all of their facilities, retrained all of their workers and absorbed all of the other encompassing costs into the fray because it was going to be cheaper for them to do so?

Absolutely. Ford is a BUSINESS!!! Businesses exist to make money. This decision was entirely about the bottom dollar. Ford new that the initial investment would pay for itself in manufacturing costs in the long run.

Wow....so basically what you're saying is that it took twin turbo's, aftermarket heads and intake and about 10psi to make 500hp. And you call that an accomplishment?

No, I call that refuting your statement about drivability. Don't think for a second that 500hp was all I could wring out of that combo. It was all I chose to wring out of it.

So what do you say to the hundreds upon hundreds of 4V, 3V and even 2V guys that are running through stock heads, intake and cams with power adders doing the same thing, or better?

I would say bring it... I've got a turbo 302 based setup for them

I guess that all depends on your definition of comparable. Generally speaking, the current 3V Mustang gets anywhere from 3-6mpg better fuel economy than a comparable 5.0L on average....

Source?! of course not! Why am I even asking you for any evidence to back up your claims!

Believe the EPA stats if you wish....

At least EPA stats are a reliable source of information. Cars are all tested the same way.... It's called the scientific method. In comparisons, it's your friend.

Who's changing the subject?

You are! Go read the first page in this thread again. Plus, this subject was never about comparing sales numbers.

You're the one who threw brand "X" into the mix.

Um, no! I was just the first person in this thread that you chose not to ignore about it.

I just explained for you why the LS cars put out the kind of mileage and performance they did. Its not my fault that the answer doesn't help your point. Hey, if you don't like the solution, then you shouldn't have asked the question.

And what have you to say about the truck brand where GM again leads the fuel efficiency war? Sorry, but your points still don't change the fact that the LSx line-up has outperformed the modular design in all comparable vehicles in all of those categories you hold sacred save emissions (I have no idea how they compare in that regard, but I'm sure this is the most important category to you if the modular comes out ahead here, but that's doubtful considering the compression ratios and weight differences)

I don't see what's so hard to believe. The current 3V's are putting down anywhere from 260-270hp at the wheels. The 2010's are adding another 15hp to the mix. The LS1's put out on average about 270-280hp at the wheels.

You really don't know a thing about LS1s do you?

Yes, there is the odd example that will dyno a little higher

Quite the opposite! It is the odd example that will actually dyno in the range you specified, and those odd example can be fixed with a tune-up. These types of statements from you is exactly why I ask you to back them up with evidence. You have clearly never exposed yourself to the actual LS1 dyno numbers and are again fabricating "facts." Oh and by the way, the LS1 is just the tip of the iceburg, and it's already a design that has been out of production for 5 years in GM sports cars! It outperforms the 4.6 hands down, and you haven't even reached the LS6 or the LS2, 3, 7, or 9.

Overrating is certainly one opinion, but I believe I've given very compelling examples to state my case.

No examples to speak of.

Either way, my point was more to disprove the mindset that the mod motors are considered a waste of space to many pushrod enthusiasts

a straw-man argument. (that's where you argue the opposite side for them and then tear down your own fabricated opposing argument).

Lets take the 5.0L DOHC "Cammer" for example.

Click to expand...

Didn't I already do that ??? Increased displacement motor vs. increased displacement motor. Let's put your 5.0 agains a 347, and your 4.6 against a 302...

As such, cam profiles are able to remain relatively sedate (in comparison the the many aftermarket grinds that would be required in order to propel a N/A 302 Windsor into the same horsepower territory.

Click to expand...

Absurd statement! It's called a cammer for a reason.

The current 5.0L Cammer, as well as an early version of said engine previously released during the late-'90's in the FR500 Mustang. 5.0L DOCH V8, 415hp/365lbs ft of torque with perfect idle, drivability and fuel economy in the mid-20's all while meeting emissions certainly isn't anything to shake a stick at.

Click to expand...

Was the FR500 street legal?

I'll get back to you on the rest. That's all the time I have for now.

Chris

FastDriver · Nov 29, 2008

Gearbanger 101 said:
:\As such, cam profiles are able to remain relatively sedate (in comparison the the many aftermarket grinds that would be required in order to propel a N/A 302 Windsor into the same horsepower territory as aforementioned modular) [blah blah blah] Not something that has been made possible with a 302ci Windsor making similar power numbers.

Well, gee... You're wrong again: Ford 302 V8 Engine Buildup- Car Craft Magazine Stock cam, off the shelf parts. 405 hp/ 380 lb-ft of torque from an n/a 302, documented. If you refrained from making all or nothing statements like, "not possible," you wouldn't look so bad.

The current 5.0L Cammer, as well as an early version of said engine previously released during the late-'90's in the FR500 Mustang. 5.0L DOCH V8, 415hp/365lbs ft of torque with perfect idle, drivability and fuel economy in the mid-20's all while meeting emissions certainly isn't anything to shake a stick at. Another fine example would be last years Parnelli Jones edition from Saleen. A 3V 302cid Modular with 400hp/390lbs/tq while still knocking down 17mpg city and 26mpg highway.

Great, two representations of stroked 4.6-based SBFs. Again, to these I will continue to compare the stroked 302-based engines.

Sure, I've seen 302 OHV Windsor’s make that kind of power (never have I denied that)....and I've also seen them knock down that kind of drivability and fuel economy while passing emissions....just all with the same car! Feel free to prove me wrong.

About drivability, which is subjective, how could I prove anything? passing emissions, similar fuel economy, and the same or more power is easy, though. When I show you the documented evidence you just shirk it off and say, well that's not what all the masses think. You won't listen.

If emissions, drivability and a smooth idle aren't all that important to you (even though that was the basis of my original debate with you) companies like SHM has crate versions of the engine in N/A carbureted form in 300hp, 345hp and 400hp trim....all for much, much less than what Ford wants for "The Cammer" Hell, they even build a N/A 2V 4.6L making 400hp, which was previously unheard of. Move up to the 5.4L and power levels into the 500hp N/A are the norm for builders like Al Papitto at Boss 330 Racing.

Nice motors, but I'm sure there are much much more stout versions of the modular 5.0s out there. Still, given your lax constraints described in the first sentence of this quote, here's an example of a 751hp 302-based carbed n/a SBF: 750HP 347ci 205cc I'll send you my favorite penny if you can provide me an article documenting a 4.6-based modular that makes more power n/a than that. Interestingly, this particular engine wasn't even done making power, they just didn't want to rev it any higher!

Yup...and it sported a 351W (not a 302) and it got all of about 15mpg if I remember correctly as well.

Nope, you're off again. I know that if I ask you to back up that figure, you'd just blow it off. Since this one is easy, I'll disprove it outright. It was rated at 14 city/26 highway back in the day. The new EPA estimate can be found here: Find a Car

Again, if you would bother taking half a minute to research your facts before spouting them off in a public forum and continually embarrassing yourself, you would save a lot of face.

If you want to compare apples and potatoes, that’s fine, but throwing a big inch Windsor with a blower into the mix kinda takes away from our original N/A discussion, doesn't it?

Nah, it's an appropriate comparison for a "big-inch" blown modular, like the one in the GT500. A 351 really isn't a big inch windsor to most, though. That would be a 408 or 427.

So a 500hp (actually 480hp) blown 5.8L 351W back in the early 90's, huh. What does that say for cars like the new Roush P51A putting out 510hp with a blown 4.6L....or other Saleen models like the H302 SC putting out 580hp,the S302 Extreme putting out 620hp or better still the upcoming 25th anniversary model ringing out 720hp. All of which are powered by 5.0L mod motors.

Ah, now this is going to be fun.... Although, the problem here is that they stopped the production of blown windsors a long time ago. So, I'll have to resort to the aftermarket to make comparisons. I've got a 1200hp turbo and a 302-based engine that will produce exactly what the turbo can throw out, and it does it with sub 230* .050 cam specs (I don't want to get specific since it is a custom) and it has an LSA of 114*. Pretty tame, and definitely cheaper than those cars.

Even my old LX 5.0L tuned conservatively with mild port jobs to the heads and intake, with full intake and exhaust mods and a conservative 3.55:1 gearing only ever pulled 26mpg on its best day.

2.73s and 3.55s are like night and day. Essentially, that's the same as comparing the .50:1 6th gear in a corvette to the .675 5th gear in a mustang GT.

Gearbanger 101 · Nov 29, 2008

All this quoting is become tiresome, but whatever.

FastDriver said:
Except for the fact that they show that Ford does not produce an n/a motor with similar power levels even with its aftermarket performance division.

Take another looks....the N/A Ford 4.6/5.0L Mod motors I used in my examples bested all of the 5.0L's you used in yours. Is the 340hp, 360hp, 390hp 302W vs. 400hp DOCH 302 Modular discussion so far back now that you forgot the end results? Forgive me if math is different where you come, but 400hp seems a higher figure to me than any of the others you presented? The Modular was the clear winner on that one. You also seem to forget that you needed to throw a 347 stroker into the mix in order to gain the advantage. Doesn't say much for your example of the 302W being "king of the small displacement battles" when you can't do it with the stock configuration in order to pull off the victory, does it?

FastDriver said:
It's very difficult to compare emissions and efficiency with cars that are 15 y/o to new cars. Besides that point, I would rather compare something less subjective.

I see, so since you can't find any example to prove your point, you want to change the rules. I expected as much.

FastDriver said:
The 302 made 390 hp - 70 more than Ford's comparable 281. The 347 is an example of something you can compare with the increased displacement 5.0 cammer - it makes 50 more hp and costs $20k less. hahaha!!! the lowly $30k 5.0 mod motor... yeah... Why would I dare be so bold as to compare an engine that is 1/3 the cost with a motor that is the state of automotive art! hahaha... I'll take my $20k extra dollars laughing all the way to the bank.

FastDriver said:

You've got the horsepower blinders on again. Still forgetting that not only does the 4V best the 302 in horsepower numbers, but in every other category as well. I never contested the fact that the 302 could make as much, or even slightly more horsepower by comparison than a comparable small displacement mod motor, but when the attempt is made, everything else (fuel efficency, smooth idle, drivability, emmisions) goes out the window. I quoted the 4.6L and 5.0L DOCH engines, because they've both been a staple in production Mustangs. I don't recal ever that a 347ci stroked 302 was ever placed between the towers of a production Mustang, but feel free to quote me a source if you'd like.

As for the price of the Cammer engine is concerned….I’m not sure why you insist that the full race version of the engine is the only one available. I too am baffled at Fords asking price for said engine, but Ford Racing also offers a street version of the engine capable of 400+hp for less than half that price. Ford Racing Performance Parts [M-6007-T50EA*]

Not to mention numerous Modular Specific engine builders releasing their own versions/variations of the engine for anywhere from $2,000-$6,000 less than that. It’s not for everyone, but still a valid example for our comparative purposes none the less?

FastDriver said:

Your statement, so it's my challenge for you to back it up. I'm not going to waste my time trying to disprove any idiotic statement you can come up with. That would be a futile waste of time. In this case, it is impossible for you to back it up, which is why I called you out on it. Perhaps in the future you'll refrain from making broad ridiculous assertions.

Click to expand...

I see a lot of back pedaling here, but no examples. I've provided mine. If you can't produce any, that's fine....but at least have the decency to admit you're wrong.

FastDriver said:

Absolutely. Ford is a BUSINESS!!! Businesses exist to make money. This decision was entirely about the bottom dollar. Ford new that the initial investment would pay for itself in manufacturing costs in the long run.

Click to expand...

Continue to believe that if you wish. The results speak for themselves. Ford moved forward with all aspects of the car, not backwards. If you wish to believe their long reason for producing the Modular line up was to cut corners and save money, then go right ahead, but a factory best 225hp (or 245hp Cobra if you prefer) mid-14 second 3,200lb-3,400lb 5.0L Mustang from '87-'95 vs. a 300hp mid-13 second 3,500lb-3,700lb 4.6L Mustang in 2005 that's a better car from every, single aspect tells me a different story.

FastDriver said:

No, I call that refuting your statement about drivability. Don't think for a second that 500hp was all I could wring out of that combo. It was all I chose to wring out of it.

Click to expand...

What statement was that? My drivability example was with a N/A 302Wmaking 400hp. You're the one that needed to throw a Twin Turbo engine with aftermarket heads and intake into the mix.

FastDriver said:

I would say bring it... I've got a turbo 302 based setup for them

Click to expand...

Ahh, misdirection at its finest. And my dad can beat up your dad. What's your point?

FastDriver said:

Source?! of course not! Why am I even asking you for any evidence to back up your claims! At least EPA stats are a reliable source of information. Cars are all tested the same way.... It's called the scientific method. In comparisons, it's your friend.

Click to expand...

Hey, I'm the one offered for you to poll the masses and confirm their real world numbers. You were the one who was afraid to hear the answer. Keep on quoting those EPA and magazine stats all you'd like. I mean...it was accurate representation like that that proved the WRX STi quicker than the '03 Cobra in the quarter mile, right? The fact of the matter is, is that the '05 guys are knocking down better mileage on average than the Fox guys. There's no magic, or trickery behind it. They're real world comparisons. Deny it if you wish, but while you're coasting into the pumps on fumes, Joe Schmo in his 3V is buying a happy meal for his kids with the money he saved and is still running around with a 1/4 tank of gas in his tank.

FastDriver said:

You are! Go read the first page in this thread again. Plus, this subject was never about comparing sales numbers.

Click to expand...

Nor was it about comparing a Mustang to an F-Body or a 4.6L to an LS1, but that didn't stop you from using them to suit your examples. Look, if you want to compare aspects of the two cars, then that's fine....but it doesn't mean you can just pick and choose the facts you want to use and the ones you want to hide just because it best suit your argument.

Anyway....blah blah blah to the rest of your LS1 argument. I interests me not. If I wanted to get in depth about an old GM engine, I would have joined an LS1 forum.

FastDriver said:

No examples to speak of.

Click to expand...

Its right there in black and white in my previous responses. Sound out the words out loud when you read it over again if it helps.

FastDriver said:

a straw-man argument. (that's where you argue the opposite side for them and then tear down your own fabricated opposing argument).

Click to expand...

And yet here we are into the 2009 model year. The 302W dead and gone, not to be seen in a Ford product now for over 11-years and the Mod Motor still going strong and getting better and better as time progresses. So much for the "straw-man argument".

FastDriver said:

Didn't I already do that ??? Increased displacement motor vs. increased displacement motor. Let's put your 5.0 against a 347, and your 4.6 against a 302...

Click to expand...

FastDriver said:

Absurd statement! It's called a cammer for a reason.

Click to expand...

Why...because it's got a fancy nickname?

It was a moniker given to the engine for marketing purposes, not because it possessed a set of wild, untamable street cams only reserved for the most flat out race cars. Top end charge is increased dramatically, but low end torque, idle, drivability and economy all remain quite reasonable (as proven with the Parnelli Jones edition). Otherwise it’s the same beast found in the '99 FR500, the '05 FR500C, Mustang GTR the Parnelli Jones Mustang, Steeda Q525 and a handful more that aren't coming to mind right now.

FastDriver said:

Was the FR500 street legal?

Click to expand...

Yes, I believe so. As is the Parnelli Jones edition, and Steeda Q525

FastDriver said:

Well, gee... You're wrong again: Ford 302 V8 Engine Buildup- Car Craft Magazine Stock cam, off the shelf parts. 405 hp/ 380 lb-ft of torque from an n/a 302, documented. If you refrained from making all or nothing statements like, "not possible," you wouldn't look so bad.

Click to expand...

Nice little package. Horsepower figures were taken on SuperFlow 901 engine dyno without accessories....Kind of favors the numbers a little (about 20%) in comparison to the SAE ratings in my examples though. But nice set up none the less.

FastDriver said:

Great, two representations of stroked 4.6-based SBFs. Again, to these I will continue to compare the stroked 302-based engines.

Click to expand...

I compared factory offerings to factory offerings. If it were only an engine you could buy out of the catalogue, your argument might have some merit. But since it was and is currently available in Factory built cars, with full warranty and EPA ratings, I really don't see a problem? Not only that, but I compared 302 to 302. I mean....how much more fair would you like the comparison to be?

FastDriver said:

About drivability, which is subjective, how could I prove anything? passing emissions, similar fuel economy, and the same or more power is easy, though. When I show you the documented evidence you just shirk it off and say, well that's not what all the masses think. You won't listen.

Click to expand...

You want specifics....simple....show me a N/A 302ci engine that makes 400hp SAE while retaining decent low end torque and a smooth, linear power, knocks down 27mpg in a near 3,600lb car and passes the same standard emissions testing the factory Parnelli Jones Mustang does.

Find me an example like that and I'll consider your point proven.

FastDriver said:

Nice motors, but I'm sure there are much much more stout versions of the 5.0s out there. Still, given your lax constraints described in the first sentence of this quote, here's an example of a 751hp 302-based carbed n/a SBF: 750HP 347ci 205cc

Click to expand...

What a surprise...another stroked engine (357cid) on an engine dyno with no accessories and an open exhaust. Still waiting for you to do it with a 302?

FastDriver said:

Nope, you're off again. I know that if I ask you to back up that figure, you'd just blow it off. Since this one is easy, I'll disprove it outright. It was rated at 14 city/26 highway back in the day. The new EPA estimate can be found here: Find a Car

Again, if you would bother taking half a minute to research your facts before spouting them off in a public forum and continually embarrassing yourself, you would save a lot of face.

Click to expand...

That’s funny....twice now you've pointed me to this amazing example of automotive excellence, but neither time have you specified the year, model number, or engine configuration of said car. And save what face??? Does this car actually exist? Please...link me to it....tell me about this wonderful marvel of automotive technology that I may research and determine it for myself.

I mean....I used to have a pink unicorn that ate blueberries and **** rainbows and got 50-oats to the gallon, but it's up to you to find it and disprove its existence! Until then, it must be true and you must be ignorant!

FastDriver said:

Nah, it's an appropriate comparison for a big-inch blown modular, like the one in the GT500.

Click to expand...

I guess it might be if I actually threw the GT500 into the mix, but this far I've been able to beat up on all of your comparisons with the lowly little 4.6L/5.0L Modular examples.

FastDriver said:

Ah, now this is going to be fun.... Although, the problem here is that they stopped the production of blown Windsor’s a long time ago. So, I'll have to resort to the aftermarket to make comparisons. I've got a 1200hp turbo and a 302-based engine that will produce exactly what the turbo can throw out, and it does it with sub 230* .050 cam specs (I don't want to get specific since it is a custom) and it has an LSA of 114*. Pretty tame... How many 1200 hp GT500s exist right now?

Click to expand...

Ahh...so again you're not comparing built engines (that you don't wish to get specific on.....guess I'll just have to take your word on that one too, huh? ), with aftermarket heads, intakes and cams, internal components, etc to factory Modular Ford offerings. Do you ever get tired of hearing yourself speak?

How about 1,200hp Twin Turbo Cobra's (HP Performance over the counter kit)....you know...the kinds still sporting their completely stock, untouched 4.6L DOHC long block engines. Matching your horsepower example, without cracking a valve cover all while doing it with a mere 281ci.

Not so fun anymore is it?

FastDriver said:

2.73s and 3.55s are like night and day. Essentially, that's the same as comparing the .50:1 6th gear in a corvette to the .675 5th gear in a mustang GT.

Click to expand...

I guess I forgot to mention that I actually started with 2.73 and my mileage actually went up when I went to the 3.55's, huh? In town I picked up another 1-2mpg and my highway mileage remained about the same.

Click to expand...

anticubicle · Nov 30, 2008

WTB some of the spare time you guys seem to have...

Gearbanger 101 · Nov 30, 2008

I better not hear anyone say that us Mods don't get involved.

fox1x · Nov 30, 2008

I better not hear anyone say that us Mods don't get involved.

You mods never get involved.... he he

martyd · Nov 30, 2008

Gearbanger 101 said:
I'm sorry, but I find that very hard to believe. I've seen guys babying their 5.0L's, quick shifting, drafting on the highway and keeping it purposely in the 55-65mph range not crack over 27mpg.....and you say you averaged 29mpg with a mix of highway and aggressive driving??? I'm not calling you a liar, but I think you may have made an error in your calculations?

Even my old LX 5.0L tuned conservatively with mild port jobs to the heads and intake, with full intake and exhaust mods and a conservative 3.55:1 gearing only ever pulled 26mpg on its best day. I probably averaged about 21mpg with regular driving and somewhere in the high teens getting into it.

I filled up while leaving Utah and reset my trip odometer, got here to my destination and filled up again. The car used 8.566 and went 251 miles

251 miles divided bt 8.566 gallons is 29.301 miles per gallon. Am I wrong?

FastDriver · Nov 30, 2008

Gearbanger 101 said:
All this quoting is become tiresome, but whatever.

Agreed... Only going to make a couple of points because we're chasing our tails around in circles.

As for the price of the Cammer engine is concerned….I’m not sure why you insist that the full race version of the engine is the only one available. I too am baffled at Fords asking price for said engine, but Ford Racing also offers a street version of the engine capable of 400+hp for less than half that price.

That's a good point. Unfortunately, that means that the stroked modular is still more expensive than the stroked windsor.

Gearbanger 101 on whether or not the FR500 is street-legal said:
Yes, I believe so. As is the Parnelli Jones edition, and Steeda Q525

Well, again you should do some research before posting BS:

Extreme Ford Mustang FR500C to Hit Market in August
http://multimedia.foxsports.com/m/video/21003325/barrett_jackson_05_mustang_fr500c.htm
Ford set to sell $125,000 racing Mustang - Autoblog

It's a sweet car though, and I'd drive it on the street

I compared factory offerings to factory offerings.

The 347 is a factory offering, and it comes with a warranty

Not only that, but I compared 302 to 302.

That's because the 4.6 doesn't compare favorably against the 302W. And, come on, how many people own factory stock mustangs with a 5.0 cammer in it? Get real man. There's a much higher number and percentage of individuals with a factory produced 347 in their mustang than a 5.0 cammer.

That’s funny....twice now you've pointed me to this amazing example of automotive excellence, but neither time have you specified the year, model number, or engine configuration of said car.

1995 Saleen S351 5.8L makes 13/24. You said it only got 15mpg. Research is your friend

I mean....I used to have a pink unicorn that ate blueberries and **** rainbows and got 50-oats to the gallon, but it's up to you to find it and disprove its existence!

This story sounds reminescent of your proclaimation that no Windsor engine on the planet compares favorably with any modular in every category you mentioned earlier. Now, I have to disprove that and the fact that unicorns do not exist? Okay

I guess it might be if I actually threw the GT500 into the mix, but this far I've been able to beat up on all of your comparisons with the lowly little 4.6L/5.0L Modular examples.

No, you just ignored the 347. No 5.0 cammer is outpowering that engine, and when you show me an aftermarket one that comes close, I've got a few aftermarket 347s ready for them.

How about 1,200hp Twin Turbo Cobra's (HP Performance over the counter kit)....you know...the kinds still sporting their completely stock, untouched 4.6L DOHC long block engines. Matching your horsepower example, without cracking a valve cover all while doing it with a mere 281ci.

Ok, admitedly asking for a 1200hp GT500 was a mistake. I removed that comment. They're out there. All it really takes is a big enough turbo and a stout enough bottom end and the willingness to rev the piss out of it.

I guess I forgot to mention that I actually started with 2.73 and my mileage actually went up when I went to the 3.55's, huh? In town I picked up another 1-2mpg and my highway mileage remained about the same.

That's ridiculous. You didn't lose mileage by switching from 2.73s to 3.55s. I have to question your measurements and the process you used. That's like saying I lost fuel mileage by switching from 5th to 6th gear. That's not going to happen unless you are bogging the motor, and I'm not even sure it would happen then.

Anyway, man. I know I'm not going to convince you of anything, and you probably feel the same way about me. I just felt the need to come in and rep the windsors. It's been fun, as usual. Let's do it again some time! Modulars are cool too (especially the ones with forged factory lower ends.

Chris

bigcat · Dec 1, 2008

what was the topic of this thread again??? i forgot about 20 posts ago. i would close it, but the two of you would still be able to post in it. lets move on, or take it to PMs please.

Gearbanger 101 · Dec 1, 2008

FastDriver said:
Anyway, man. I know I'm not going to convince you of anything, and you probably feel the same way about me. I just felt the need to come in and rep the windsors. It's been fun, as usual. Let's do it again some time! Modulars are cool too (especially the ones with forged factory lower ends.

Chris

bigcat said:
lets move on, or take it to PMs please.

That's fair....I'm too tired to keep this up anyway.

afterburn · Dec 1, 2008

martyd said:
Because the thread is talking about the "lack" of power from a stock Mustang GT. If you will read the first couple of pages it is about the 315hp rating vs the challenger and camaro 400+hp taings. Where did this come down to a modded vs modded thread? When people went off topic and this was not even a Ford vs xx company it was Ford vs Ford.

I did read the first couple of pages, and as several people pointed out, this is about more than just power ratings. As implied by the thread's subject and first few pages, this thread is also about the decision to purchase a 315HP car vs. a 400+ HP car. For me, however, the HP rating has little to do with it. The 'modability' and displacement are what is important to me, in terms of buying a car.

I think that my concerns are completely relevant to the dicussion and to the decision on whether or not to purchase a 2010+ Mustang. If you can't understand that, then I'm sorry. I really am. I just see too many people focus on one specific aspect of an argument, and discard other aspects as being irrelevant when they really just need to broaden their perspective a little bit. I'm frustrated, but I mean this in the nicest way possible.

But I dont know how you say that displacement dont matter when you are going to supercharge something. How does it not matter?

I said exactly the opposite--which is my entire point!

GT-347 · Dec 4, 2008

v8only said:
I'm sorry if I offended anyone who owns a late model modular motor.

The bottom line is ford has hit the end of the line with these modular motors. They've hit a brick wall and can no longer wring any n/a benefits from the modular motor.

The Modular motor in 2011 will have a huge HP increase and will also have a six speed trans. It has not hit a brick wall, it just looks that way because Ford moves slower than any of us like.

v8only · Dec 4, 2008

that's quite a relief

a lot of truck shootouts for the 2010 trucks are happening now, and while the new f150 is usually on top, it's being made fun of big time for the sad power output. It's a full second or more slower in the quarter, and lags behind on all towing and driving compared to every full size on the market.

a better v8 drivetrain across the board will cement ford's superiority

Gregor111 · Dec 5, 2008

FastDriver said:
Fuel economy - 2007 Mustang GT = 16/20, 1993 Mustang GT - 15/22 Ford sure has come a long way!

Chris

I am sure you are aware that the EPA changed the way mileage is calculated about two years ago. I think showroom stock GT's driven at 65 mph are getting about 25 on the highway.

Greg

xtweakerx · Dec 5, 2008

BUY YOUR MUSTANGS NOW.

FORD WILL CLOSE SOON ENUFF AND THEIR WILL BE NO MORE MUSTANGS BUILT MARK MY WORDS.

: >

Does Ford think we're Stupid? 315 horse? what the hell!

New Member

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet

New Member

New Member

Straight Outta Locash

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet

Straight Outta Locash

New Member

Straight Outta Locash

New Member

New Member

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet

start with the upper hole, and if more traction is

Straight Outta Locash

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency