Thoughts And Opinions On The M-6007-x302 Crate Engine

O

oldfox

Member
Feb 19, 2009
234
6
18
#1
I have been looking at the M-6007-X302 crate engine and it would be hard to build a daily driver / street warrior engine for that price. With the aluminum heads and all stuff inside for $3650 I don't see how I could build an engine for that. I'm going to be doing a little boosting and I know that Ford says that boosting will void the 1 year warranty. But if you look at the specifications on this engine it looks ideal to do some mild boosting 8 to 10 lb max
Anyone running one of these engines? Or boosting one?
How about some input on this?

Like I'm going to tell Ford I'm running a supercharger. (you bet)
 
#3
Don't have one, but it's a solid engine. Don't believe it makes the 340hp Ford claims though. I've seen cars running them dyno around 240-250rwhp. The GT40X castings are quality heads, but you’re not going to set the world on fire with them. They’re a big improvement over stock E7TE heads, but won’t make near the power a set of Trick Flows, or AFR’s will. That being said, a power adder is going to make power no matter what.

If your engine is toast, then the crate is what you'll want. Otherwise, just look around for a used set of X heads and a Cobra/GT40/Explorer intake and bolt them to your existing short block.

Wow....just realized this thread was over a year old? :shrug:
 
#4
Done right with a good intake, 24lb injectors 65mm Tb and all the supporting parts, the gt40x crate engine will make pretty close to 300rwhp.
My buddy installs them all the time.

Me personally i like them, runs like stock, just quite a bit faster and has a warranty.

Gear, not sure where you have seen 240rwhp out of an x engine, but i assure you, someone screwed up on it.
The 340 crank rating is pretty accurate, and i've personally seen an e cam, x head, gt40 tubular intake setup at 316rwhp with only a valve job.

Omar evidently had the same question (that for some reason wasn't answered a long time ago, can't knock the guy for doing a search.
 
#6
#7
GT40X heads, mac shorties, Cobra intake, comp cam, mac shorties, roller rockers, engine bay conical filter, 65mm TB, 75 mm bullet Pro-M MAF, flowmaster 40 series mufflers, underdrive pullies, and maybe a part or two I've forgotten made 270rwhp on a 248C dynoject for me. Pretty close to the same motor, but I think 340's a bit high, too, honestly. I would question is that's with accessories through pipes and all? Not sure how they rate those motors.
 
#8
2000xp8 said:
Who knows what went wrong there, but guys get 265rwhp out of p heads with the same parts, so....
You also have to question a guy that pays for a dyno run to see hp knowing his trans is screwed up.
Click to expand...
Hey man, don't get me wrong. I'm all for wishful thinking. I've got a set of the GT40X head sitting under my bed right now ready to bolt onto my new engine whenever I get around to it.

It's a well known fact that Ford likes to "inflate" their hosepower figures though. They seem to have an odd ball way of measuring power output than anyone else? (Remember the 20hp difference between the '92 and '93 Mustang 5.0L with no other changes made to the vehicle)

Look at it this way. The '93 Cobra was rated at what...235hp. The only difference between those two engines is the cam and heads. Now...there's no doubt that the GT40X heads and E-cam are a step up from from the iron GT40 castings and glorified T-Bird cam used in the '93 Cobra....but not to the tune over 100+ horsepower.

Real world....the M-6007-X302 crate engine with your average EFI set up is seeing close to 300hp at the crank, than at the wheels.
 
#9
http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=11752

Engine power rating based on long tube headers, Edelbrock RPM Air Gap ® 7521 intake manifold w/ 650 Holley carb and Premium Unleaded pump gas
Click to expand...

So a pretty well tuned good carb and intake, and long tube open headers. Doesn't say anything about the accessories, either. Yep, I'd say that's why it's rated so high. I don't see a 9:1 compression x headed motor making 300 at the wheels, either. Based on my personal experiences, though not with the exact crate motor, and after the rest of the stuff I just found, I really don't believe that.

However, it would be a decent place to start for a blown/turbod motor. Forged pistons and connecting rods. Should be good for the standard 500rwhp at 12 ish psi.
 
#10
Gearbanger 101 said:
Hey man, don't get me wrong. I'm all for wishful thinking. I've got a set of the GT40X head sitting under my bed right now ready to bolt onto my new engine whenever I get around to it.

It's a well known fact that Ford likes to "inflate" their hosepower figures though.

Look at it this way. The '93 Cobra was rated at what...235hp. The only difference between those two engines is the cam and heads. Now...there's no doubt that the GT40X heads and E-cam are a step up from from the iron GT40 castings and glorified T-Bird cam used in the '93 Cobra....but not to the tune over 100+ horsepower.

Real world....the M-6007-X302 crate engine with your average EFI set up is seeing close to 300hp at the crank, than at the wheels.
Click to expand...
the '93 Cobra was underrated
 
#12
Nope, I'm with you on this one. Just think that the '93 cobra rating isn't a good argument.

Scroll back up if you didn't catch my edited post.

According to your last link, one guy says, "when ford rates the motors the rate them with no front dress, a carb, short runner intake, and long tube headers"
 
#13
I have built 93 Cobra's to 300 WHP with only the following done: Hand port the stock heads, hand port the stock lower intake, Extrude hone the stock upper intake, change camshaft, install shorty headers, high flow cat-X-pipe and cat back exhaust, and of course upgrade the valve springs for the new cam. Also a "cold air" intake was installed. That's it. No "chip" or ECU tune was performed. Simple this puts the engine at around 350 ish at the crank.
 
#14
That's an impressive accomplishment. The most competitive factory stock guys all did that and probably still do. Hand porting, extrude honing, and intake porting is cheap if you have the skill to do it yourself. Not so much if you pay to have it done.

Most guys that have been around know that GT40s, Xs, Ys, Ps, etc... CAN make 300 at the wheels with porting and higher compression. You did a lot to get there, and then you're right at or a little above the number from Ford like you said. So, I think that also supports the idea that 340 from this crate motor is high for the average guy that puts it in his EFI car. But sure, with the right parts, it'd be close.
 
#15
#16
FordRacing302 said:
I like how he was completely satisfied with the crate motor, and then cried when it got dynoed...Im sorry, but seat of the pants feel is worth way more than numbers.
Click to expand...

Right. So long as you don't try your new crate motor out on someone you "feel" you should be faster than. 240 is kinda embarrassing, bro. I mean, swap on a couple hundred in bolt-ons to your stock motor and you're already there.
 
#17
340hp x .15= 51
340-51=289

289rwhp really isn't that unreasonable, especially since you can get in the 270's with y's, which x's are better than.

Overrated for the average user, maybe a little, but not by enough to make a fuss out of.
As for ford overrating everything else, stock foxes get 190-200rwhp, with the 15% drivetrain loss, that's accurate, the 93 cobra is surely underrated, and i'm pretty sure you can say the same about the explorer engine.
 
#18
2000xp8 said:
340hp x .15= 51
340-51=289

289rwhp really isn't that unreasonable, especially since you can get in the 270's with y's, which x's are better than.

Overrated for the average user, maybe a little, but not by enough to make a fuss out of.
As for ford overrating everything else, stock foxes get 190-200rwhp, with the 15% drivetrain loss, that's accurate, the 93 cobra is surely underrated, and i'm pretty sure you can say the same about the explorer engine.
Click to expand...

And the '03 Cobra.
 
#19
The car companies are infamous for rating their crate engines using the old "gross" standard and not the "net" standard that's been in use for installed engines since the early 70's. The "gross" standard specifies cooler, denser air, and a bare minimum of accessories and intake/exhaust tracts. e.g. no underhood intake tract, and open headers. The more conservative, realistic "net" standard calls for warmer ambient air, full accessory dress as installed in the car, and full intake and full exhaust as installed in the car. Rule of thumb is take 10-15% off a gross number to arrive at net. That means their 340 hp is realistically more like 290-305 at the flywheel, or 245-260 at the wheels.
 
#20
FordRacing302 said:
I like how he was completely satisfied with the crate motor, and then cried when it got dynoed...Im sorry, but seat of the pants feel is worth way more than numbers.
Click to expand...
I agree from a satisfaction standpoint...but then you're not paying for satisfaction. Heck...if I'd never been in any Mustang faster than a stock 225hp powered 5.0, I'd be satisfied with the performance the crate engine offered too...until I strapped it to the dyno, or worse yet came accrues someone driving a mustang that actually made a legitimate 340hp. I'm paying for horsepower, not satisfaction. I can understand the frustration. If you're charging me for a 340hp crate engine, you'd damn well better provide me with one.

Again…not shunning the crate engine itself. It is a decent engine. I’ve never heard anyone complain about its quality, or components. They just should rate it more realistically around the 300hp figure, just like they did when the sold the individual GT40 top end packages back in the mid-90’s. I think the GT40 Aluminum top end package for the SN95 was rated at 295hp when if first came out if memory serves? Althought that could have been with the old Y castings, I can't remember exactly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Ongoing Battle With Hydraulic Lifters
Replies
7
Views
313
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Noobz347
Noobz347
Y
Engine 1994 Ford Mustang Gt Rod Knock/Stuck Lifter
Replies
2
Views
277
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
AeroCoupe
AeroCoupe
WhiteCobra95
SN95 Desktop 363 Engine Combination - Looking for input
Replies
11
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Habu135
Habu135
sav22rem22
Engine on3 Conversion to draw through MAF?
Replies
2
Views
274
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
sav22rem22
sav22rem22
R
What's it Worth? 1997 Cobra, a ton of mods and restoration
Replies
2
Views
193
What is it Worth?!?!?
riored97snake
R
Top Bottom
Back
Forums
Menu