There aren't many things to like about a 4.6 ( especially a 2v 4.6)
- Thread starter CarMichael Angelo
- Start date
nothing like picking a foxbody that you want to look like a old mustang with the engine of a newer mustang. And still the same old driver .. 
zinsavage123
New Member
- Apr 1, 2009
- 8
- 0
- 1
not to be a dick here but unless you got a gt500 or cobra even the good ol' 5.0/pushrod stock isnt that impressive and a 4.6 pi will kill it stock for stock. In the end any stang can be made fast both motors have huge aftermarket so it really dont matter IMO
Not to be a bigger Dick, but I'm having trouble understanding what having a GT 500, or Cobra has to do w/ your point?
zinsavage123
New Member
- Apr 1, 2009
- 8
- 0
- 1
saying in stock form that the gt500,mach1 and cobra make the old 5.0 and 4.6's both look bad my point is alot bash the 4.6 PI but it destroys the 5.0 in stock form and their is always a debate about 5.0 and 4.6 which is better im sayin it dont matter they both have huge aftermarket ya know. boosted or sprayed either are gonna be fast. alot of people always bash the 4.6
zinsavage123
New Member
- Apr 1, 2009
- 8
- 0
- 1
really didnt have to do with anything I was saying just for the hell of it to settle the debate those 
on both lol
on both lol
Hell no a stock 5.0 isn't impressive, it's an F'n turd. But you can do so much more with it for so much less money than a 4.6, not to mention the 0.4L displacement difference.
But this argument has raged on many times before around here and I'm not going to muddy up Mike's thread any more than I already have! Mike's goals are not to light the performance world on fire with his build and that is 110% OK. His stuff looks killer and is definitely more unique than 99.999% of the stuff I've ever seen, so far be it from me to bust his balls for running a 4.6!
zinsavage123
New Member
- Apr 1, 2009
- 8
- 0
- 1
right thats all I was saying both motors have a ton of potential, dont know why so many argue bout this still to this day though??
Sigh.
The original point wasn't intended to bash a 2v 4.6 other than it's obvious design characteristics. As a matter of fact, ALL I was saying was "look at my heater hoses"!I'm not saying it's better than or worse than,.....anything.
As my pal Foghorn Leghorn says: "I say, I say, It was a joke son!"
Because the 4.6 remains to be one of the smallest displacement, biggest dimensionally, highly overcomplicated, and expensive to modify engines that Ford has ever put between the strut towers of a Mustang. It has its merits, but it just doesn't have the versatility or the hot-rodability that the good old pushrod stuff has.
Displacement is it's biggest problem (and my biggest beef with it). 4.6L is just too small for any sort of serious N/A use, and Ford confirmed that when they ditched it and released the new 5.0L Coyote. And as if to add insult to injury, you can really only stroke a 4.6 out to 5.1ish L.
Crap, I said I was done muddying up Mike's thread...
Three50won
10 Year Member
- Jul 11, 2010
- 1,135
- 64
- 69
Um, I gotta say...I first fell in love with muscle cars from looking at and driving a 93 Mustang GT. It was red on the outside, black on the inside, had a manual. and the car was bone stock and cleaner than any car I ever seen in my life. I loved the way it sounded. The 2nd time I fell in love with Mustangs was with an 04 Mach 1...talk about BADASS!! But like zinsavage123 said, our cars stock (with exception of the GT-500, Cobra, Mach 1, and the 2011 and up) are not that impressive. Our strength lies in the massive aftermarket at our disposal. Fact is, when you come upon any Mustang on the road, there could be anything under that hood. We can do anything to our cars...more than any other car on the planet.
Back on subject, still to this day I don't know why our 2V SOHC GTs need soo much room under the intake (like madmike1157 said). Perhaps it has to do with the design of the engine. Perhaps it's just a byproduct of it's configuration...darned if I know. At least you'll have somewhere to sleep if you ever find yourself homeless...hahaha!!
Back on subject, still to this day I don't know why our 2V SOHC GTs need soo much room under the intake (like madmike1157 said). Perhaps it has to do with the design of the engine. Perhaps it's just a byproduct of it's configuration...darned if I know. At least you'll have somewhere to sleep if you ever find yourself homeless...hahaha!!
Hell I couldn't have said it any better anyway. Besides, if you read some of the other recent threads, with this car at least, I'm getting used to mud.
I will add that the heads are the killer when it comes to the budget for modifications. There is only one company making an aftermarket replacement head for this engine. Everything else is a ported stock head. They start at $2200.00, then add cams; 600.00 for little stage 1 cams due to P to V issues; Then another 350.00( minimum) for a Cloyes timing chain set w/ new guides and tensioners. THAT is over 3 grand for what is commonly available for a 5.0, starting at about half of that.
Three50won
10 Year Member
- Jul 11, 2010
- 1,135
- 64
- 69
And 5.1 ish is pushing the limit on bore and stroke. I remember a few years ago there were companies that had to re-call and stop selling their stroker kits because they were just too impractical for use. People were buying them and suffering engine failure. And the hp/tq gains are not really worth the $2000 you'll spend for the kit IMO...
The stock intake needs all that room for runner length in order to keep the overall height low, so it would all fit under the hood.
- Dec 19, 2010
- 5,721
- 4,244
- 224
I think that huge valley is meant for the intercooler ford left out until the 03 termis came along. I own a 5.4 3 valve truck, *yawn* and have driven and ridden in many 4.6 cars, *yawn* and all I can say is they need to be force fed. It's the only practical way to make up for lack of cubes. Boost it and be done.
If I ever get a 'stang with a mod motor in it, it'll have a whipple sittin on it...
If I ever get a 'stang with a mod motor in it, it'll have a whipple sittin on it...
zinsavage123
New Member
- Apr 1, 2009
- 8
- 0
- 1
boost or spray seems like the best options for a 4.6 imo like said head+cam packages are very expensive for em i'll give u that
Three50won
10 Year Member
- Jul 11, 2010
- 1,135
- 64
- 69
Factor in that shops will charge about $900 (almost the cost of an entire engine install) to do the job. It's only worthwhile if you're doing your own labor...
What I chose to sink into it and what I could have put into it are two different things. The engine was built to handle well over 650hp. The blower I ended up going with barely put out a little more than half of that. With a more capable blower, it would have been an easy 500-600hp capable engine....and that's through factory heads!
The car was a fully loaded, full weight Mercury Cougar XR7 with working A/C and all the bells and whistles. I ran mid-12's with 3.27’s, through an IRS rear end and power sucking 4R70W and a curb weight of nearly 4,100lbs with driver. It was also making 360lbs/ft of torque at 1,800RPM.
Little more than cleaned up PI heads and 9psi through a teeny tiny 90ci 3rd Gen Eaton supercharger. Stock block, stock cams, stock displacement. The engine would have propelled a Mustang easily into the 11's just the way it sat and still knocked off mid/high 20's on the highway.
I wouldn’t havea hope in hell of running those times, or making that kind of power with a 5.0L OHV with little more than cleaned up E7TE’s and an equivalent amound of airflow being pumped into it...and the Mustang weights almost 800lbs less.
To discount the 2V 4.6L because they didn't make a lot of power in stock trim is silly. Especially since the ones giving them the thumbs down, are the same ones who continue to drool all over the 5.0L OHV. The same 5.0L OHV that made a full 35hp less than the 4.6L they're thumbing their noses at.
Similar threads
