Why 4.6?

Rainz · Jul 12, 2005

sawman70 said:
Hey RAINZ, don't take it so personal, is your last name General motors or something.

I'll post whatever my memory gives me to work with at the time and if I am corrected, that is cool. Read all the posts prior to spewing your stupity next time.

Your the GM hero of the hour!!!!

I love all american brands, I have no bias. I get annoyed when people are ignorant to the facts. But that's life. I never said GM wasn't in trouble, they are. I believe they can get out of it. Ford is doing alot better than GM, no question about that. Next time I'll be careful not to spew my "stupity" whatever the hell that is. By the way I drive a Ford, buddy.

02LS1 · Jul 12, 2005

sawman70 said:
No one said it wasn't. It just wasn't enough to keep the car alive. The original point of this thread was the 4.6 is too small.

Obviously by the sales numbers, it is not.

I fail to see where this logic creates an atmosphere for argument.

With all the sales and success talk...I hope you work for Ford or own FoMoCo stock.

No doubt the Mustang sells extremely well...almost too well if you're Ford (trying to keep up with demand)...but as I'm sure you already know, 6cyl's dominate the Mustang sales, not the 4.6. We'll see if Ford bumps up V8 production for 2006...but fact remains for quite a while (thru the 2005 MY), only about 30% or so of Mustangs were V8s.

cheezsnake said:
Well, they'd better have more power -- the LS1 motor has about 65 cubic inches on the Ford 4.6! That's a lot more fuel and air potential! Just think what a Ford 5.7L 3V overhead cam engine could do to the LS1 cars. At 65.2 HP/L that would be over 370HP vs. 345HP for the LS1. For years we've been trying to compare apples to oranges ... it just doesn't work.

...Does Ford make a 346ci 3v? No...but yet, you want to make a comparison? Using that same argument, it's unfair (apples to oranges) to compare a blown 4.6 (ie stock '03-'04 Cobra) to a stock N/A LS1. I've seen that said countless times on F-body boards but it's still just as stupid as the first time. GM didn't put a supercharged LS1 in F-bodies and Ford didn't put a N/A 346ci V8 in the Mustangs...deal with it.

*HP/L is almost always going to favor the smaller engine...so as Bob said, it's usually a ricer argument.

Bob Cosby · Jul 12, 2005

cheezsnake said:
I suppose, by this argument, we should be looking at something like (HP*Kg)/L. An interesting formula, but output efficiency has traditionally been measured in HP/displacement, like you mentioned. If someone had the mass numbers of the 4.6 and the LSx, it would be interesting to see these results.

Ok. Quick question for you. You have two engines choices to put in your car. Here are the quick and dirty specs - make a choice.

Engine A displaces 4L, makes 300 HP @ 5000 rpm (75 HP/L), is 30" wide, 30" tall, and 30" long. It weighs 600 lbs, fully dressed.

Engine B displaces 5L, makes 300 HP @ 5000 rpm (60 HP/L), is 26" wide, 28" tall, and 32" long. It weighs 500lbs, full dressed.

Which engine would you rather have in your car - the one with the better HP/L, or the one that you will go faster with?

the LS1 motor has about 65 cubic inches on the Ford 4.6! That's a lot more fuel and air potential! Just think what a Ford 5.7L 3V overhead cam engine could do to the LS1 cars.

I guess we won't know, and we certainly don't know. We can only speculate. And besides, a 5.7L Modular would have a stroke from here to Texas.

At 65.2 HP/L that would be over 370HP vs. 345HP for the LS1. For years we've been trying to compare apples to oranges ... it just doesn't work.

Now compare that hypothetical 370 HP 5.7 to the real world 405 HP 5.7 LS6.

No oranges needed.

And please, I'm not dogging Ford - far from it, as I have had quite a bit of success racing modulars, and even traded my 99 LS1 for a 99 DOHC Cobra. But I'm not blind - the LSx series is simply a better performance motor. The numbers don't lie.

sawman70 · Jul 12, 2005

Why some guys mistake logic for brand loyalty is beyond me.

The 4.6 is big enough because people are buying the cars. Looking at it from a business point of view, which is the ONLY way Ford looks at it, why change the motor.

If you want a bigger motor....

a) stop buying up every mustang they produce and hope they add a bigger motor and not kill the car off.

b) put one in yourself.

The funny thing about this is, the guy who started the thread bought the car with the "too small of a motor" in it.

Would I like a bigger motor, I don't know, it's worked fine for me thus far in both my cars. Now could GM had put something bigger than a straight 5 in their compact truck, or more than 185hp in their minivans to boost sales???

So, let's keep to the original question and ask all the guys who bought every GT to roll off the truck, was the 4.6 big enough??? You bought it so Ford says hell YEAH. You may not want to apply business to your passion of cars, but the bean counters at both GM and Ford will always let business control what you get.

I am sorry for all these personal attacks I have posted and how i upset those I "personally" attacked.

My god, grow up.

vacooley · Jul 13, 2005

sawman70 said:
So, let's keep to the original question and ask all the guys who bought every GT to roll off the truck, was the 4.6 big enough??? You bought it so Ford says hell YEAH. You may not want to apply business to your passion of cars, but the bean counters at both GM and Ford will always let business control what you get.

I don't know why people don't understand this simple point. Besides, the GT has never been the ultimate V8 muscle car in terms of speed. It's heritage is all about affordable performance in a relatively small package. (relative to other American makes)

The new Mustang GT with a 4.6 delivers on the Mustang GT heritage AND it seems to be a really high quality car for the money. THAT is why is will keep selling and Ford will keep the 4.6 in it.

Now... for those upcoming 'special edition' cars.... bring on the GT350, Boss, etc. They will sell well also but be more expensive. I would LOVE to see a 350HP GT350 with the NA 5.4 in it. Make it a real torque monster and let it rip.

Bob Cosby · Jul 13, 2005

Agree totally with the above.

crazykid2056 · Jul 15, 2005

The GT's really need Superchargers to keep up with stock LS1's.

S-trim is an easy mod, $5K installed and will put the 4.6 in the Trans Am territory.

351CJ · Jul 15, 2005

02LS1 said:
but as I'm sure you already know, 6cyl's dominate the Mustang sales, not the 4.6. We'll see if Ford bumps up V8 production for 2006...but fact remains for quite a while (thru the 2005 MY), only about 30% or so of Mustangs were V8s.

Since Feburary 1, 2005 the build mix for the 2005 Mustang has been 38% GTs.

The same build mix - 38% GTs - is planned for the 2006 model year.

sawman70 · Jul 15, 2005

crazykid2056 said:
The GT's really need Superchargers to keep up with stock LS1's.

S-trim is an easy mod, $5K installed and will put the 4.6 in the Trans Am territory.

They respond very well to Superchargers. I am not displeased with the cubes more than the bottom end of the block in the GT's. That is where Ford could make points with me.

Alec · Jul 15, 2005

Ah.. the ls1 in all its piston slapping, oil burning glory. Flashback 2001, I bought shiny new stripper Z28 6 speed. OH!! the fun we had for about 1,000 miles then the generals quality control kicks in.
The car starts knocking.. WTF!! "it's normal" "race engines use oil" I've heard it all. The last straw was having to replace all 6 bearings in that piss poor excuse of a rear end at 24,000. I am glad I found one with no options or the windows would have probably stuck open.

They dropped the ball on their new V8's. Yes, they are fast, but unless the quality control has changed they deserve to go out of business. I feel bad for their employees
God that was a bad car. Piston slap, try explaining what that is to some dude wanting to buy your car " No sir it's not a diesel" sheesh

crazykid2056 · Jul 16, 2005

Yeah, the LS1 sucks in realibility but while its on the road, its pretty much considered king.

jfischer · Jul 16, 2005

crazykid2056 said:
Yeah, the LS1 sucks in realibility but while its on the road, its pretty much considered king.

The LS1 is a very reliable engine. Yes, some of them have piston slap issues but in most cases it doesn't affect the performance or longevity of the engine.

I have a 2002 Z28, and I have some minor piston slap for the first 30-60 seconds after I start the car but after that it's fine. It also burns no oil whatsoever, so I consider myself OK at this point.

MSP · Jul 17, 2005

jfischer said:
I was talking about mileage efficiency

Yes, the 4.6 puts out slightly more HP per liter, but the LS1 still puts out much more power overall than the 4.6, and gets better mileage doing it.

What's really pathetic is the 4.0 V6 in the Mustang. 210 horsepower and hardly any better mileage than the 4.6 V8. I rented a brand new 2005 V6 a while back with 550 miles on the clock. Did a couple hundred mostly highway miles on it and it got <20 MPG.

Somebody always gotta take a poke at the V6 Stangs!! Your pathetic buddy!! Leave us V6'ers alone!! I was just minding my own business, reading an absolutley fabulous thread, with real interesting characters, and all of a sudden, "WHAM!!!" A left hook about how pathetic the V6 is... LOL!! Aint this a bitch!!

LOL!! Man, I think we should all just dump our sorry ass V6's!! We must all be complete idiots right jfischer? LOL!!

SVTdriver · Jul 17, 2005

MSP said:
Somebody always gotta take a poke at the V6 Stangs!! Your pathetic buddy!! Leave us V6'ers alone!! I was just minding my own business, reading an absolutley fabulous thread, with real interesting characters, and all of a sudden, "WHAM!!!" A left hook about how pathetic the V6 is... LOL!! Aint this a bitch!!

LOL!! Man, I think we should all just dump our sorry ass V6's!! We must all be complete idiots right jfischer? LOL!!

Think of it this way. At least your's does not have "normal" piston slap.

jfischer · Jul 17, 2005

MSP said:
LOL!! Man, I think we should all just dump our sorry ass V6's!! We must all be complete idiots right jfischer? LOL!!

There's nothing wrong with owning a V6 Mustang, and I never said there was. I never said you or anyone else was an idiot for owning own either.

What I did say was that the mileage the V6 gets is pathetic. This is my opinion after driving one and getting less than 20 MPG with mostly highway driving. With the auto transmission, the V6 is rated at only 1 MPG better city, and 2 MPG better highway than the 4.6 V8!

The Mustang V6 5-speed auto is rated at 19/25. My 2002 A4 Z28 with 100+ more horsepower and two more cylinders was rated at 18/25, and gets every bit of that. If a Z28 with a 5.7L V8 can get 18/25, Ford should be able to get MUCH more than 19/25 out of their 4.0L V6.

That's all I was saying about the V6...

Klay · Jul 17, 2005

jfischer said:
There's nothing wrong with owning a V6 Mustang, and I never said there was. I never said you or anyone else was an idiot for owning own either.

What I did say was that the mileage the V6 gets is pathetic. This is my opinion after driving one and getting less than 20 MPG with mostly highway driving. With the auto transmission, the V6 is rated at only 1 MPG better city, and 2 MPG better highway than the 4.6 V8!

The Mustang V6 5-speed auto is rated at 19/25. My 2002 A4 Z28 with 100+ more horsepower and two more cylinders was rated at 18/25, and gets every bit of that. If a Z28 with a 5.7L V8 can get 18/25, Ford should be able to get MUCH more than 19/25 out of their 4.0L V6.

That's all I was saying about the V6...

I agree that the V6 mustang should get better mileage and I'm confused as to why it doesn't
A girl I work with didn't get one because of the poor fuel economy it gets...

jfischer · Jul 17, 2005

I shouldn't pick on Ford alone. Ask some Mazda RX8 owners about their mileage. When I was looking into one of those a while back, reports of 14-16 MPG were not uncommon...

jasonlee0704 · Jul 18, 2005

jfischer said:
I shouldn't pick on Ford alone. Ask some Mazda RX8 owners about their mileage. When I was looking into one of those a while back, reports of 14-16 MPG were not uncommon...

Having a normal operating range of up to 8000 RPMs on the Wankel doesn't help.

There are a couple of different reasons I can think of why the V6-equipped base Mustang doesn't have significantly higher mileage ratings than the GT.

First is weight/power ratio. There's less than 150 lbs. difference between the 2 models, but the base Mustang is missing 90 peak HP and a whole lotta Area Under The Curve over a normal operating range. If you crunch the numbers (curb weight vs. HP), the base Mustang is hauling around a portly 15.4 lbs./HP, while the GT is much better at 11.2 lbs./HP. Which all means that for an "adequate, everyday" driving performance, the V6 will be working harder than a V8 with only 0.6L more displacement.

Second is capital investment. Ford only has so much money budgeted into improving the technology that goes into its cars - and given the choice between investing it to refine the high-end, bigger profit 4.6L 3V V8 or the low-end, smaller profit 2V V6, which one would you spend the money on? It wouldn't be a problem if Ford had unlimited funds to throw at engineering problems, or if Ford could pass the costs onto the consumer. But the base Mustang already starts at a smidgen less than $20K, which nixes the latter option.

Third is gearing. A large part of improving highway mileage has nothing to do with the engine but finding the right transmission/rear end ratios. To bring in an outside example, my DD, a 2002 Honda Accord V6 has an advertised highway mileage of close to 30 (I think it's 28). If I'm just cruising on an empty highway, which usually means coasting for the most part in the highest gear, yeah, I'll get about 30 MPG. But if I'm in a lot of hills, or in a lot of passing/merging situations where I'm constantly revving the engine, I'm gonna see closer to 15-20 MPG.

vacooley · Jul 18, 2005

05 Mustangs have a lot of frontal area to push through the air. Kills mileage.

It is very sad that most of the American manufacturers have such outdated V6 and 4 cylinder motors. How old is the V6 in the stang?

GT-03 · Jul 18, 2005

jasonlee0704 said:
Ford only has so much money budgeted into improving the technology that goes into its cars - and given the choice between investing it to refine the high-end, bigger profit 4.6L 3V V8 or the low-end, smaller profit 2V V6, which one would you spend the money on?

I thought Ford makes more profit on the better selling V6 Mustangs, than the Mustang GTs, no? Aren't the V6 Mustangs over 60% of total 2005 Mustang sales?

Ford invests in the Mustang GT to keep the brand image strong (which is the right thing to do!).

Why 4.6?

Rainz

New Member

02LS1

Bob Cosby

sawman70

New Member

vacooley

New Member

Bob Cosby

crazykid2056

Banned

351CJ

New Member

sawman70

New Member

Alec

New Member

crazykid2056

Banned

jfischer

New Member

MSP

SVTdriver

jfischer

New Member

Klay

New Member

jfischer

New Member

jasonlee0704

New Member

vacooley

New Member

GT-03

Member

Similar threads

Why 4.6?

New Member

New Member

New Member

Banned

New Member

New Member

New Member

Banned

New Member

MSP

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency