Modular Q

White96281gt · Mar 12, 2006

4 bolt mains!

Gearbanger 101 · Mar 12, 2006

40oz said:
BTW, your stock cams don't "stop making power," they make more power at 6000 rpms than they do at the rpm the next gear puts you at. You'd have to be making less than 200 lb-ft. at 6000 rpms before you could say the stock cams "die" at that rpm. Things like porting and more agressive cams will make more power at higher rpms, so you are just throwing away power by not bumping your rev limiter up. Remember, the longer you can stay in a lower gear, the longer you benefit from the greater torque multiplier of that gear. You make more power at the wheels at 6000 rpms in second than at any time in third. So the longer you stay in second, the quicker you get down the track. And how many 4V N/A Cobras have been staying in gear to 7000 rpms for years and years with no failures while running the same "crap" rods?

I'm not posting just to argue, I just haven't seen any rational reason why people claim revving past the stock limiter is "bad" for the stock bottom. And I am about to shell out for cams and a tuner this spring, so the topic is relevant to me. I don't want to make decisions based on superstition and mysticism :/

I have here, just one of many dyno graphs of a stock PI headed Mustang and you'll note that power starts to normalize at about 4,750rpm and begins to drop off at about 5,300rpm where it continues to do so all the way to 6,000rpm. I don't know who told you how to race, but if you insist on running all of your shifts to red line, I'd love to see your time slips. Driving like that would most certainly guarantee you a loss against an equal car in the opposing lane with an opponent that knows how to drag race behind the wheel. You should be shifting no higher than about 200-300rpm beyond maximum horsepower peek with every shift. Any more than that is just a waste of time and effort. Even if you don't consider it "bad" for the engine, then at the very least consider it "bad" for your track times!

Now, with that being said, I at no time stated that there wasn’t more horsepower to be had by bumping up ones rev limit after additional cam, intake and exhaust modifications are present. But either way, if one was to continuously run a stock non forged 2V to 7,000rpm, over time it is a guarantee that it’s going to take its toll. The stock bottom end just wasn’t built for it. Hell, take a look at the amount of early 4V Cobra’s that have since their inception experience bottom end failure in the form of a spun lower bearing due to just that…and they’re running a better crank to start with! Ford Finally got it right in ’03 when they decided to forge the entire bottom end. It’s just too bad that the car that ended up with these wonderful internal components only had a 2-year-run.

01Steeda · Mar 12, 2006

His point though is that if you look at your graph, at 6000 rpm your still making more HP than you are if you shift and drop to about 4000 where you are under 200. then if you run the rpm up more you drop back into the power range higher and right in the power. I know I gained MPH when i started shifting around 6500. I also missed a shift and nailed 8400 lol.

I do agree with your statement on the cams,.. which is the entire basis of all this talk. His question was if he got cams should he run it close to 7000 with the upgraded springs.

40oz · Mar 12, 2006

^^^ exactly.

As for time slips, my best time was driving my 99 GT, which was a stock 5 speed coupe, with bald all-season radials, and ran 14.257@97.71, on a 2.2 60'. I haven't been since, and that was only my 3rd time ever running at a strip, so I'm sure the car had more in it with a better driver. But I got that slip shifting at 6000 rpms, anything less resulted in a slower time. Your Cougar has an auto, so you can't really experiement with this like I can. Trust me, shifting early costs you time.

White96281gt · Mar 12, 2006

TGJ said:
Stroker's are not the way to go, the only way to get more displacement with a Modular is Bore. Every car I have seen go with a stroker has not made the same power as a car with stock displacement and same mods. Stroker's are even more RPM limited than the stock displacement.

So I guess the $15k 302 mod FRPP is selling is crap?

Gearbanger 101 · Mar 12, 2006

40oz said:
Your Cougar has an auto, so you can't really experiement with this like I can. Trust me, shifting early costs you time.

Exactly how old do you think I am ? My Cougar wasn't my first car ya know. I've been driving 5-speeds and Auto's alike for nearly the last 15-years.....and my last car right before this one just happened to be a 5-speed V8 Mustang. Trust me when I tell you, that over revving your horsepower peek by any extreme margin like that is what's going to cost you time…..every bit as much as short shifting will.

40oz · Mar 12, 2006

Gearbanger 101 said:
Exactly how old do you think I am ? My Cougar wasn't my first car ya know. I've been driving 5-speeds and Auto's alike for nearly the last 15-years.....and my last car right before this one just happened to be a 5-speed V8 Mustang. Trust me when I tell you, that over revving your horsepower peek by any extreme margin like that is what's going to cost you time…..every bit as much as short shifting will.

Heh, I meant nothing by it I tried a number of things a the track, and winding out each gear as far as possible was much faster than shifting early. 6000 rpms is probably as far as you want to go on a stock engine, but once I move the peak numbers up the rpm range, I'll want to shift higher than 6000 rpms. I'll use a dyno chart to tell me when, but I can tell from other people's charts that 6000 rpms is too low.

01Steeda · Mar 12, 2006

White96281gt said:
So I guess the $15k 302 mod FRPP is selling is crap?

That engine has more bore not stroke

In 2005, Ford Racing Performance Parts introduced a 5.0 L crate engine for use in motor racing and home-made performance cars, officially called M-6007-T50EA, but more widely known as "Cammer". Because the latest Mustang has only 3-valve heads, FRPP developed the Cammer from the previous generation's DOHC 32-valve engine. The engine received further modifications in the harness, electronic engine managenement, magnesium intake manifolds, an alloy/aluminum block, race-prepped cylinder heads and camshafts and increased compression ratio, but the biggest difference is a 3.700" bore (3.552" is stock for modulars) achieved by resleeving the block

Source reference

White96281gt · Mar 12, 2006

You are absolutely correct! It also says it is a variant of the 4.6L 4V with a special block designed just for the 5.0 program with high strength rods and 11:1 compression blah blah blah. The point is they again didn't use the 2V block design to build a HiPo engine. The 2V was never intended to run constant high RPMs. If you want to throw enough money at it to make it reliable under those conditions, you could probably start with a better foundation is my point and go even further later and not be concerned about the bottom end.

TGJ · Mar 12, 2006

You really need to do some research to make the comments you do. I would have no issue pushing a stock bottom end of a 2V to 6500 RPM and do it consistently without breaking. I wouldn't do it with the stock valve train in the heads or the stock Torque Converter for Autos though. With Forged Pistons and Forged Rods and the stock crank, I wouldn't have issues pushing 7500+ RPM's. Now the question is, will the upgraded valve train of the heads handle that RPM? Many have done this many times successfully.

White96281gt, you are wanting to put a 4V mark VIII motor in your car. You do know that the Mark VIII motor has the same crank as the 2V car. You know it has the same pistons, but different dish than a 2V car. There is some debate on whether it has the same rods as a 2V car. Some say they are exactly the same, other say they Mark VIII's is marginly better. You do know that the only difference in a Mark VIII block and the cast 2V block is that it is aluminum and if you wanted to run 2V heads on it, you need to drill a coolant passage. That is the only mod required to convert a Mark VIII block to run 2V heads. The Mark VIII had the rev limiter set at 6500 RPM and this was due to the stock Torque Converter.

How do I know that? I have a 2V 5.0L Big-Bore going into my TBird, the block used was from a 97 Lincoln Mark VIII.

01Steeda · Mar 13, 2006

White96281gt said:
You are absolutely correct! It also says it is a variant of the 4.6L 4V with a special block designed just for the 5.0 program with high strength rods and 11:1 compression blah blah blah. The point is they again didn't use the 2V block design to build a HiPo engine. The 2V was never intended to run constant high RPMs. If you want to throw enough money at it to make it reliable under those conditions, you could probably start with a better foundation is my point and go even further later and not be concerned about the bottom end.

Your jumping all over the place. my reference to that engine wasjust in response to the fact that strokers are not all they are cracked up to be. the fact about revving a 2v to 6500 and beyond is that no it isnt the best thing to do.. it can be done. of course a built bottom end is better suited for it, you would have to be a moron to think it isnt. I have sent my stock 2v to 6500 hundreds of times before the mishift bit me.

reddrgn01gt · Mar 13, 2006

White96281gt said:
So I guess the $15k 302 mod FRPP is selling is crap?

I don't think comparing a 15k race piece with a stroked 2v is a great comparison.

Bore is definitely the way to go my friend. Our cars have enough stroke as it is. If you are going forced induction it may be worth looking at but many people have had problems with their stroker motors.

White96281gt · Mar 13, 2006

Hey, if you guys want to crank 6500-7000 RPM on you 2V block go ahead it's your dime. Every time I hear of a 4.6 croaking it is a spun bearing. Sure the valvetrian isn't good for those kind of RPMs. It doesn't need to be because Ford didn't build any of it to turn those RPMs. It amazes me how you guys think you got it over on the big guys that have been doing it for years and for a living. Ford put 4 bolt mains in the 4V for a reason not just to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy. Bottom line is you can do it. The probability of a failure increases greatly. If you want to spend the $ to make it last you might as well use the 4 bolt 4V block.
Heck I figure all those guys runing FRPP stroked 351s and 460s in their Mustangs are stupid. I mean the physics applied to those motors don't apply to 4.6 mod motors. Gee I guess Ford shouldn't have made the 5.4 (same bore as the 4.6 with a longer stroke). They should have just bored the 4.6supercharged Cobra motor to 5.0 and put that in the Ford GT and the upcoming GT500. Maybe you should stop by Ford corporate headquarters and set them straight because they obviously have it all wrong. More cubes is NOT better.
As far as wanting to put a Mark motor in my GT I never said I wanted to. I asked if any one had done it or thought about it. Just a matter of conversation. When my 4.6 dies I don't know what will go in next. I have a 302 a 390 and a 429 in the garage looking for a ride. But maybe I should go for a 2.3. Smaller is better. Right?

billfisher · Mar 13, 2006

modular has to do with the factory tooling compatability with engine family changes during a production run. they can change to different engines without changing tooling. common tooling.

billfisher · Mar 13, 2006

better listen !!!!!!

Gearbanger 101 said:
Exactly how old do you think I am ? My Cougar wasn't my first car ya know. I've been driving 5-speeds and Auto's alike for nearly the last 15-years.....and my last car right before this one just happened to be a 5-speed V8 Mustang. Trust me when I tell you, that over revving your horsepower peek by any extreme margin like that is what's going to cost you time…..every bit as much as short shifting will.

better listen to him...

if your combos HP drop dramatically after peak(most do) you can shift at a point where your engine makes 50 hp less than max. i have found the best E.T for me is when it shifts into a fat part of the torque curve, but loses the least amount of pull before shifting. common sense right? some cars will like 5500 other will like more or less because every engine, even stock is different.

TGJ · Mar 13, 2006

White96281gt said:
Hey, if you guys want to crank 6500-7000 RPM on you 2V block go ahead it's your dime. Every time I hear of a 4.6 croaking it is a spun bearing. Sure the valvetrian isn't good for those kind of RPMs. It doesn't need to be because Ford didn't build any of it to turn those RPMs. It amazes me how you guys think you got it over on the big guys that have been doing it for years and for a living. Ford put 4 bolt mains in the 4V for a reason not just to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy. Bottom line is you can do it. The probability of a failure increases greatly. If you want to spend the $ to make it last you might as well use the 4 bolt 4V block.
Heck I figure all those guys runing FRPP stroked 351s and 460s in their Mustangs are stupid. I mean the physics applied to those motors don't apply to 4.6 mod motors. Gee I guess Ford shouldn't have made the 5.4 (same bore as the 4.6 with a longer stroke). They should have just bored the 4.6supercharged Cobra motor to 5.0 and put that in the Ford GT and the upcoming GT500. Maybe you should stop by Ford corporate headquarters and set them straight because they obviously have it all wrong. More cubes is NOT better.
As far as wanting to put a Mark motor in my GT I never said I wanted to. I asked if any one had done it or thought about it. Just a matter of conversation. When my 4.6 dies I don't know what will go in next. I have a 302 a 390 and a 429 in the garage looking for a ride. But maybe I should go for a 2.3. Smaller is better. Right?

You have a lot to learn. What is the difference between a 96+ Mark VIII block and a 96+ 2V block? Do you know, I doubt it with this post of yours.

A little bit more info on the modular motors regarding Bore and Stroke!

From a Ford Engineer during a Big-Bore VS Stroker debate!

Mike, you have no idea how happy I am to have someone else reputable say this. I have known for many, many years that an engine is an air pump. More stroke, with the same induciton parts, is less power due to more friction, it has more mid range torque, but less power.

I have watched the "stroker" craze happen on these motors, tuned quite a few, and had to explain to customers that more stroke is less power. Some believe me, some don't, I don't care, it's about physics. So many people are sold a bill of goods by stroker kit manufacturers (I'm not taking any cheap shots, just making comment) on how much more power they will make, and the answer is less. Yeah, maybe they put better heads and cams in the motor to make better than stock numbers, but those same parts in a shorter stroke motor would make more power, but less torque.

I'm not saying that stroker kits are bad (although I agree with Mike on the bore needing to be maximized first), they do gain torque, and a street car probably feels better at the traffic light with a longer stroke. But, you will lose power on the top end with a longer stroke. There was a thread a few months back about what it would take take some high RWHP 2V, and everyone said a stroker motor. I almost posted and called them all idiots that just pass on mis-information they hear on the internet, but I think Ken talked me out of it...

Have you ever looked at the Bore-Stroke ratio on the pushrod Fords? Then look at the Bore-Stroke ratio on the modular motor?

Here is some of that info for you:

4.6L V8 Modular
Bore 3.552"
Stroke 3.5433"

5.4L V8 Modular
Bore 3.552"
Stroke 4.165"

5.0L V8 Pushrod
Bore 4"
Stroke 3"

5.8L( 351 ) Pushrod
Bore 4"
Stroke 3.5"

429CI V8 Pushrod
Bore 4.36"
Stroke 3.59"

460CI V8 Pushrod
Bore 4.36"
Stroke 3.85"

347CI 5.0L Pushrod Stroker
Bore 4"
Stroke 3.4"

A 4.6L modular in stock trim already has more stroke than a stock 5.8L Pushrod motor and no where near the Bore potential. Show me any other Ford stroker motor that has anywhere near the same Bore-Stroke ratio as what a modular has.

You are ****ing clueless. It is morons like you, that I hate Stangnet. Try to show you how wrong you are but...nevermind, you are hopeless.

White96281gt · Mar 14, 2006

FORD ENGINEER??? You mean Jerry? The guy that goes by SCTGUY on Modular Depot Forums? The one listed as a "AUTHORIZED ADVERTISER"?
I saw his post also. in the same thread was this data.

Livernois 5.0 Big Bore VT Engines 5.0 Stroker

RPM HP/TQ LIV HP/TQ VT GAIN/LOSS

3500 222.8/334.3 220.2/330.4 -2.6/-3.9
3600 226.7/330.7 235.0/342.8 8.3/12.1
3700 231.6/328.8 248.8/353.1 17.2/24.3
3800 247.5/342.1 267.7/369.9 20.2/27.8
3900 255.6/344.2 283.0/381.1 27.4/36.9
4000 262.7/344.9 293.1/384.8 30.4/39.9
4100 265.7/340.3 300.5/384.9 34.8/44.6
4200 276.3/345.5 304.3/380.6 28.0/35.1
4300 285.1/348.2 312.1/381.2 27.0/33.0
4400 291.7/348.2 319.6/381.5 27.9/33.3
4500 296.2/345.7 323.2/377.2 27.0/31.5
4600 304.2/347.3 331.3/378.2 27.1/30.9
4700 309.9/346.3 334.8/374.1 24.9/27.8
4800 315.1/344.8 343.6/376.0 28.5/31.2
4900 317.4/340.2 346.5/371.4 29.1/31.2
5000 322.1/338.3 359.7/377.8 37.6/39.5
5100 327.0/336.8 367.7/378.6 40.7/41.8
5200 330.6/333.9 365.6/369.3 35.0/35.4
5300 331.9/328.9 372.3/368.9 40.4/40.0
5400 330.9/321.8 375.9/365.6 45.0/43.8
5500 329.5/314.6 371.7/354.9 42.2/40.3
5600 328.3/307.9 368.1/345.2 39.8/37.3
5700 329.3/303.4 363.8/335.2 34.5/31.8
5800 327.2/296.3 363.3/329.0 36.1/32.7
5900 321.4/286.1 361.9/322.1 40.5/36.0
6000 314.0/274.9 359.7/314.9 38.3/40.0

Note from Jim at VT Engines,

Also note, that we did NOT tune that engine in the 5.0 article. We added stock heads/cams onto a higher compression bottom end without retuning what so ever. All we did was pull the handle. Same thing with the head/cam swap, bolted them on and pulled the lever. I'm sure if tuning was done at all, the #'s would've been more impressive.

These comparisons are right out of 5.0 magazine. The VT engine had an Accufab single blade TB, flat top pistons, and their stage 2 cams. The Livernois had 17cc pistons, their own ported heads and their stage 1 cams.

Also lets make it clear! You have to come up with a Aluminum block to do the "BIG BORE". It has to be over bored and sleeved. According to the other data in that thread if you don't go with high flow heads cams etc. ie. otherwise stock, you only get 29 rwhp and 43 rwtq. The stroker doesn't like stock top ends either it dies at 4250 RPM. So if you have to do heads, cams and intake to yield ultimate results the stroker is a very viable alternative.
You can be belligerent as much as you like but you never addressed the factory strokers. Hell the 5.0 is a factory stroker, the 460 and the FE series are strokers. The FE started at 3.5" stroke in the 352 and went up to 3.980" in the 428. The 427 has a stroke of 3.780" and we all know what a dog it is. The 429 is 3.590" and its big stroker brother the 460 is 3.850". I don't see guys that are racing these destroking them. Hell they are stroking them to make them bigger. You better educate them!!! Hurry!!! Go tell them what f***ing morons they are.
You have to understand, everyone is going to have a different way of getting there. You are one of those guys with tunnel vision that thinks his way is the only way. If we all took your attitude everything would stagnate. Open minds yield advancement. The modular line is young.
My origional point was that If you want to Run continual high RPMs with a 2V you should build the bottom end to accomadate that. Or use a 4V 4 bolt block that has a much stronger bottom. It is only in the interest of durability.
The other alternative is a stroker. since everyone is already talking better breathing top ends I see this as a good alternative to winding 6500-7000 RPM.
By the way did anyone notice that the Big Bore and stroker started going downhill after as early as 5300 RPM???

40oz · Mar 14, 2006

White96281gt said:
By the way did anyone notice that the Big Bore and stroker started going downhill after as early as 5300 RPM???

you do realize the shape of the curve after peak is much flatter than before, and even though we can't see past 6000 rpms, it would be hugely presumptious to assume it rapidly falls of right at 6001 rpms. I'd rather spend my time with the engine in the highest range of power than shift halfway through it, but then, that's just me. The HP numbers going down gradually after peak is kind of expected - that's mandatory for something called a "peak." But decreasing hp numbers doesn't mean you are slowing down any more than decreasing torque numbers mean that. All it means is the rate of acceleration has decreased, but you are still accelerating.

Area under the curve doesn't mean anything unless you actually drive there.

TGJ · Mar 14, 2006

White96281gt said:
FORD ENGINEER??? You mean Jerry? The guy that goes by SCTGUY on Modular Depot Forums? The one listed as a "AUTHORIZED ADVERTISER"?
I saw his post also. in the same thread was this data.

Livernois 5.0 Big Bore VT Engines 5.0 Stroker

RPM HP/TQ LIV HP/TQ VT GAIN/LOSS

3500 222.8/334.3 220.2/330.4 -2.6/-3.9
3600 226.7/330.7 235.0/342.8 8.3/12.1
3700 231.6/328.8 248.8/353.1 17.2/24.3
3800 247.5/342.1 267.7/369.9 20.2/27.8
3900 255.6/344.2 283.0/381.1 27.4/36.9
4000 262.7/344.9 293.1/384.8 30.4/39.9
4100 265.7/340.3 300.5/384.9 34.8/44.6
4200 276.3/345.5 304.3/380.6 28.0/35.1
4300 285.1/348.2 312.1/381.2 27.0/33.0
4400 291.7/348.2 319.6/381.5 27.9/33.3
4500 296.2/345.7 323.2/377.2 27.0/31.5
4600 304.2/347.3 331.3/378.2 27.1/30.9
4700 309.9/346.3 334.8/374.1 24.9/27.8
4800 315.1/344.8 343.6/376.0 28.5/31.2
4900 317.4/340.2 346.5/371.4 29.1/31.2
5000 322.1/338.3 359.7/377.8 37.6/39.5
5100 327.0/336.8 367.7/378.6 40.7/41.8
5200 330.6/333.9 365.6/369.3 35.0/35.4
5300 331.9/328.9 372.3/368.9 40.4/40.0
5400 330.9/321.8 375.9/365.6 45.0/43.8
5500 329.5/314.6 371.7/354.9 42.2/40.3
5600 328.3/307.9 368.1/345.2 39.8/37.3
5700 329.3/303.4 363.8/335.2 34.5/31.8
5800 327.2/296.3 363.3/329.0 36.1/32.7
5900 321.4/286.1 361.9/322.1 40.5/36.0
6000 314.0/274.9 359.7/314.9 38.3/40.0

Note from Jim at VT Engines,

Also note, that we did NOT tune that engine in the 5.0 article. We added stock heads/cams onto a higher compression bottom end without retuning what so ever. All we did was pull the handle. Same thing with the head/cam swap, bolted them on and pulled the lever. I'm sure if tuning was done at all, the #'s would've been more impressive.

These comparisons are right out of 5.0 magazine. The VT engine had an Accufab single blade TB, flat top pistons, and their stage 2 cams. The Livernois had 17cc pistons, their own ported heads and their stage 1 cams.

Also lets make it clear! You have to come up with a Aluminum block to do the "BIG BORE". It has to be over bored and sleeved. According to the other data in that thread if you don't go with high flow heads cams etc. ie. otherwise stock, you only get 29 rwhp and 43 rwtq. The stroker doesn't like stock top ends either it dies at 4250 RPM. So if you have to do heads, cams and intake to yield ultimate results the stroker is a very viable alternative.
You can be belligerent as much as you like but you never addressed the factory strokers. Hell the 5.0 is a factory stroker, the 460 and the FE series are strokers. The FE started at 3.5" stroke in the 352 and went up to 3.980" in the 428. The 427 has a stroke of 3.780" and we all know what a dog it is. The 429 is 3.590" and its big stroker brother the 460 is 3.850". I don't see guys that are racing these destroking them. Hell they are stroking them to make them bigger. You better educate them!!! Hurry!!! Go tell them what f***ing morons they are.
You have to understand, everyone is going to have a different way of getting there. You are one of those guys with tunnel vision that thinks his way is the only way. If we all took your attitude everything would stagnate. Open minds yield advancement. The modular line is young.
My origional point was that If you want to Run continual high RPMs with a 2V you should build the bottom end to accomadate that. Or use a 4V 4 bolt block that has a much stronger bottom. It is only in the interest of durability.
The other alternative is a stroker. since everyone is already talking better breathing top ends I see this as a good alternative to winding 6500-7000 RPM.
By the way did anyone notice that the Big Bore and stroker started going downhill after as early as 5300 RPM???

Nice comparison on the Big-Bore and Stroker! I guess these don't count: compression ratio differences, cam differences, intake differences.

Here is the thread on ModularDepot that White96gt281 referred to.

http://forums.modulardepot.com/showthread.php?threadid=18653&highlight=Big+Bore+Stroker

I suggest everyone else to take a read and base your own judgement!

Now, talking about a Pushrod V8 Ford and comparing it to the Modulars is retarded. You are missing the fact that the MINIMUM BORE is 4" on the OHV motors. The MAXIMUM BORE on the Modular V8's that I know of is 3.7". What about the Bore/Stroke ratio? You ignored this last time, perhaps you will take a look this time.

4.6L V8 Modular
Bore( 50% ) VS Stroke( 50% )

5.4L V8 Modular
Bore( 46% ) VS Stroke( 54% )

5.0L V8 Pushrod
Bore( 57% ) VS Stroke( 43% )

5.8L( 351 ) Pushrod
Bore( 53% ) VS Stroke( 47% )

429CI V8 Pushrod
Bore( 55% ) VS Stroke( 45% )

460CI V8 Pushrod
Bore( 53% ) VS Stroke( 47% )

347CI 5.0L Pushrod Stroker
Bore 4( 54% ) VS Stoke( 46% )

Now if you look real hard, you will see that the modular motor are evenly biased or biased on the Stroke side. All of the pushrod motors are biased to the Bore side and even when you stroke them, they are STILL biased to the Bore side. You stroke a modular, you are adding to the already stroke biased motor. So your comparison to Pushrod motors is not apples to apples.

I never said those that added stroke to a pushrod motor would not see a gain or that they are retarded. It is different for them as I pointed out above. The OHV people will see gains by adding stroke because they are already biased on the Bore side. A key point you have failed to mention.

Bore has always been the way to produce more HP. There are many that don’t believe a performance motor can have less than 4” of Bore. Could be the reason why the older 5.0 is easier to make HP with compared to the modular.

You keep talking about the strength of the 4V short-block compared to the 2V short-block and how the 4V can handle more RPMs. You keep going on about 4 bolt mains, hmmm, what if I told you that the modular motors are either cross-bolted two bolt mains( Iron blocks ) or cross-bolted four bolt mains( aluminium blocks ). This is not dependent on the heads used. Cast 4V block is a cross-bolted 2 bolt main, Aluminium 2V block is a cross-bolted 4 bolt main.

I really don’t care what people do with their money and car. They are free to do whatever they want. I really don't care what you White86gt281 have to say or think, you have been wrong on just about everything you have posted in this thread. I am through arguing with you.

01Steeda · Mar 14, 2006

Yeah I gave up on him about 14 post ago lol.

Modular Q

New Member

Straight Outta Locash

New Member

Member

New Member

Straight Outta Locash

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency