Jump to content
atlanticblue98

deeper into the 13's

Recommended Posts

Yep exactly, im talking low end grunt, theres a big difference when you're making 300 ft lb at 2k rpms vs making it at 4k rpms.

Im not going to bother proving my claim cause its pretty much common knowledge at this point.

If you have ever driven a pushrod 5.0 and a 4.6 mustang you know exactly what im talking about.

one thing I will say though, compression changes things. a high compression 2v can make an amazing amount of low end torque..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My best 60' time on all of the cars I have had was my 91 fox. I cut a 1.87 60' on snow tires at 18psi. All it had was junkyard mods. I have done a ton and I mean a TON of mods on every modular I have had and the lowest 60' time I had was a 2.0 on street tires as well. The 5.0 gets it done. Would I prefer it a pushrod? My build speaks for itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one thing I will say though, compression changes things. a high compression 2v can make an amazing amount of low end torque..

Well of course, so does a Kenne bell and nitrous haha....im not saying you cant make a 4.6 60 foot well, I just feel like the larger cubic inch pushrod motors tend to have more balls down low.

My last car was a 94 5.0 and my 4.6 4v feels like it had better low end. The 5.0 H.O never did anything for me and I had 2 of them :/

Heads up and ass kickin! Using Tapatalk 2

Well you're also comparing a 300 hp motor vs a 225 hp motor.

I would think a hci 5.0 with about the same hp as a 4v would have better low end tq.....wouldnt think thats a very fair comparison like that.

The proof is in the numbers to me and from my research over the past years ive noticed that a lot of 10/11 second 4.6 cars have 60 foots in the 1.6-1.7 range which is kinda slow for the ET if you ask me.

The pushrod builds seem to have no issues jumping right into the 1.5 60 foot range.

Ive also got a 4.6 2v build....this doesnt mean the 5.0 is a better motor, just something ive always noticed over the years.....always seems like the 4.6s didnt have the low end to 60 foot that well to me.

Edited by justinschmidt1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were you the army's favorite son?

[ATTACH]925[/ATTACH]

The D3V

Toast of the Army's favorite son. Hail to the brave big red 1. Always the first to thirst for a fight. No foe shall challenge our right to victory. We take the field a grand sight to see. Pride of the infantry! Men of a great division, courage is our tradition. Forward the big red 1!!!

Edited by Luis@OrtizPerformance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toast of the Army, favorite son. Hail to the brave big red 1. Always the first to thirst for a fight. No foe shall challenge our right to victory. We take the field a grand sight to see. Pride of the infantry! Men of a great division, courage is our tradition. Forward the big red 1!!!

I still sing to myself all the time even though im in 2nd ID land ....

The D3V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

330cube stop trying to defend this, I have OWNED and RACED both a 4v 4.6L (my Mach 1) and my old HCI 302(94 GT). My Mach 1 is faster, but the 94 gt had WAY better torque below 3k. Once my Mach hits 3k it pulls like a raped ape, my GT was different, it pulled harder up top due to the cam I put in, but even with 3.73s vs. the 4.10s in my Mach, the GT still had more torque off the line by far. It's a common knowledge thing. Do I like the 302 pushrod more than my 4v? No way! The 4v is an engine MILES ahead of my old 5.0L in terms of technology and power. A positive displacement blower (heaton, kenne bell, whipple etc) would make the torque line on a 4.6 Mod engine much closer to the 5.0L, but off the line, the 5.0L gets the nod but as soon as the revs build, 4v blows it's doors off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

330cube stop trying to defend this, I have OWNED and RACED both a 4v 4.6L (my Mach 1) and my old HCI 302(94 GT). My Mach 1 is faster, but the 94 gt had WAY better torque below 3k. Once my Mach hits 3k it pulls like a raped ape, my GT was different, it pulled harder up top due to the cam I put in, but even with 3.73s vs. the 4.10s in my Mach, the GT still had more torque off the line by far. It's a common knowledge thing. Do I like the 302 pushrod more than my 4v? No way! The 4v is an engine MILES ahead of my old 5.0L in terms of technology and power. A positive displacement blower (heaton, kenne bell, whipple etc) would make the torque line on a 4.6 Mod engine much closer to the 5.0L, but off the line, the 5.0L gets the nod but as soon as the revs build, 4v blows it's doors off.

Yep exactly.

The thing is were talking tenths of a second in the 60 foot...that's A very small measurement of time.

Id still prefer a 4.6 4v all day

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Edited by justinschmidt1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Torque....

4.6s don't have it

This was the original post, I thought he was stating that they made less torque then a pushrod motor in genral. No talk about rpm untill I pointed that out. And justin agreed and claimed thats what he was saying all along. Some what of a misunderstanding I guess..... Either way I feel the same way 4v>302 push any day.:P

Heads up and ass kickin! Using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1992 - 5.0L EFI V-8 = 205 hp @ 4200 RPM & 275 lb-ft @ 3000 RPM

1997 - 4.6L SOHC V-8 = 215 hp @ 4200 RPM & 285 lb-ft @ 3400 RPM

too many variables besides what the numbers show rims for foxs were usually 15-16's as to gt's being 17's. fox stock springs have be known to perform outstounding compared to any other gt stock springs most 11 fox's still use stock springs and have been know to lose e/t changing them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

87-93 5.0 ho is rated at 225 HP and 300 tq fyi

Also, id like to point out that the reason this was brought up was because of Rice Slayers Mach 1 60 foots and that car makes peak torque way up high....317 ft lb@ 4,750 rpm

Like I said before, there is a huge difference between making peak torque at 3k and 5k

Edited by justinschmidt1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

330cube stop trying to defend this, I have OWNED and RACED both a 4v 4.6L (my Mach 1) and my old HCI 302(94 GT). My Mach 1 is faster, but the 94 gt had WAY better torque below 3k. Once my Mach hits 3k it pulls like a raped ape, my GT was different, it pulled harder up top due to the cam I put in, but even with 3.73s vs. the 4.10s in my Mach, the GT still had more torque off the line by far. It's a common knowledge thing. Do I like the 302 pushrod more than my 4v? No way! The 4v is an engine MILES ahead of my old 5.0L in terms of technology and power. A positive displacement blower (heaton, kenne bell, whipple etc) would make the torque line on a 4.6 Mod engine much closer to the 5.0L, but off the line, the 5.0L gets the nod but as soon as the revs build, 4v blows it's doors off.

Well that's weird what kind of hci combo ? On the 302 because you should have atleast been running 12.60's with a hci 302 I think the main factor is now you can drive good and that's why the Machs times are down there ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the early '80s the horsepower wars were back. Ford's entry in this race was the new Fox chassis based Mustang powered by the newest member of the Small Block family, the 5.0 High Output. Fed initially by a 2V carburetor in 1982, followed by a Holley 4V carburetor, later by speed-density fuel injection, and ultimately by a mass airflow injection system, the 5.0 inched its way up from around 157 HP in 1982 to 225 HP in 1987. The 1985 and later engines feature roller tappet camshafts and factory short-tube headers; 1986 and later engines feature a ram-tuned intake system.

The 1993 5.0 Cobra featured SVO GT-40 heads and intake manifold, better flowing exhaust, 65 mm TB, 24# injectors, 70 mm MAF and a recalibrated EEC-IV computer. Conservatively rated at 235 HP (was actually around 265 FWHP).

5.0 High Output -- Chronology of Changes 1982 -- 157 HP @ 4200

  • Introduction of the 5.0 High Output engine
  • Lighter (120 lb.) thin wall 302 block, with old-style 2-piece rear main bearing seal
  • Reciprocating assembly changed to utilize 50 oz.-in. unbalance flywheel and 34 oz.-in. damper
  • Cast pistons, 8.4:1 C.R.
  • Heads with smaller "high velocity" ports and valves
  • "1973 Torino" profile flat tappet camshaft, duration 260° intake, 278° exhaust, lift of .416" intake, .444" exhaust
  • Double row roller timing chain
  • Aluminum intake manifold
  • 369 cfm Motorcraft 2-barrel carburetor
  • Dual snorkel, high dome cover, low restriction element, air cleaner
  • Cast iron exhaust manifold with a 2" outlet, 2.25" Y-pipe

1983 -- 175 HP @ 4200

  • Same camshaft, exhaust manifolds, and pistons as 1982
  • 600 cfm Holley 4180C 4-barrel carburetor and aluminum intake manifold
  • New block and crankshaft to use a one piece main seal introduced mid-year

1984 -- 175 HP @ 4200

  • Generally the same as 1983
  • Redesigned choke, eliminating heat tubes from the manifolds

1985 -- 210 HP @ 4400

  • Hydraulic roller tappet camshaft introduced. 266' duration, .444 valve lift
  • Revised block (122 lb.) with two retainer bosses for roller tappets.
  • New cylinder heads, revised to allow service removal of the roller tappets
  • Distributor drive gear material changed to be compatible with steel camshaft
  • Forged pistons with low tension rings and thicker ring lands. Compression remained at 8.4:1
  • Holley 4180C carburetor, with improved secondary metering
  • Water pump impeller diameter increased to 4.4" for increased flow
  • Stainless steel tubular headers

1986 -- 200 HP @ 4000

  • Stronger block (126 lb.) incorporating "squared bores" for better oil control.
  • Compression increased to 9.2:1 with flat-top pistons
  • Masked intake valve, high-swirl cylinder heads, casting # E6AE-AA. This head was also used on 1986/91 normal passenger car engines.
  • Roller cam same as 1985
  • First year for multi-port speed density fuel injection, 58 mm throttle body, 19 lbs/hr. injectors
  • Dropped cold start exhaust control valve, header outlet size changed to 2 1/4"
  • New water pump with exit scroll and more efficient impeller.

1987/88 -- 225 HP @ 4000

  • Same Camshaft, exhaust manifolds, and block as 1986
  • Truck casting wedge cylinder heads with revised combustion chamber, casting # E7TE-AA, used through '95
  • 9.0:1 compression forged pistons with valve eyebrows
  • Speed Density EFI with same intake runners, larger crossover duct, and 60 mm throttle body

1989/92 -- 225 HP @ 4000

  • Same block, heads, intake and exhaust manifolds as 1987
  • Introduction of the 55 mm Mass Airflow fuel injection system. Since this system measures the actual air flowing into the engine, high performance camshafts may be used.
  • These engines offer the greatest performance potential of the 5.0 H.O. series
  • In stock trim, the small 55 mm MAF & revised camshaft actually limited breathing, so it was no longer producing 225 HP.

1993 H.O. -- 215 HP @ 4200

  • Mostly indentical to 1989/92 engines
  • New cast hypereutectic aluminum pistons, lighter weightand greater hot strength
  • Hi-torque, mini starter
  • Advertised horsepower dropped due to the incremental changes.

1993 Cobra -- 235 HP

  • Same cast pistons as 5.0 H.O.
  • Cast iron GT-40 heads
  • Shorter duration, higher lift camshaft
  • 1.7:1 ratio roller rocker arms
  • Cast aluminum GT-40 style intake
  • 65 mm throttle body, 24 lbs-hr injectors, 70mm mass air meter
  • Special type exhaust manifolds
  • Specially programmed EEC-IV

Small Block Balance Considerations

Small block reciprocating assemblies have external balance. The crankshaft itself does not carry enough counterweights to achieve zero balance. Extra counterweighting is cast into the flywheel and harmonic balancer bring the entire assembly into neutral balance. Early engines use 28.2 oz.-in. external balance, while 1982 and later engines use 50 oz.-in. at the flywheel and 34 oz.-in. at the damper.

Automatic transmission flexplates have a welded-on weight plus a cutaway window on the opposite side. Rivets are used to fine-tune the balance.

When converting from automatic to a manual transmission, be sure to use the correct flywheel bolts. Those specified for use with an automatic transmission flexplate and stiffener are not long enough.

Current Ford Master Parts Catalogs specify part # D2AZ-6379-B bolts for both flexplates and flywheels. They are not long enough to properly clamp a manual transmission flywheel to the crankshaft. Don't trust 'em.

Obsolete but still available part # B8AZ-6379-A is the correct grip length. These bolts come with thread sealant pre-applied.

The cast iron GT-40 cylinder heads may be identified by casting marks shown here. These GT-40 heads are casting # F3ZE-AA. Small block cylinder head casting numbers are found on the underside of the part, between the pushrod holes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

87-93 5.0 ho is rated at 225 HP and 300 tq fyi

Also, id like to point out that the reason this was brought up was because of Rice Slayers Mach 1 60 foots and that car makes peak torque way up high....317 ft lb@ 4,750 rpm

Like I said before, there is a huge difference between making peak torque at 3k and 5k

if was late in the day even my spelling was typod

i meant 93 with hyper pistons made 215 275

87-92 is correct for 225 300

and anyways who cares about low end tq when you can just play catch up on the top end, why else would you have a 4v :D

Edited by kennyGT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if was late in the day even my spelling was typod

i meant 93 with hyper pistons made 215 275

87-92 is correct for 225 300

and anyways who cares about low end tq when you can just play catch up on the top end, why else would you have a 4v :D

You can play catch up all you want you won't catch up tho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's weird what kind of hci combo ? On the 302 because you should have atleast been running 12.60's with a hci 302 I think the main factor is now you can drive good and that's why the Machs times are down there ...

Lmao I have NEVER seen a HCI 302 run 12s here. I live in 1500ft altitude, my driving is not the question here. I had the trickflow top end kit on a 230000km bottom end, made 270rwhp/283rwtq. New 5.0Ls and camaros run mid to low 13s on street tires here. My mach 1 is actually the fastest bolt on one I have seen at my track aside from my buddies that he sold, but that thing was a factory freak, minor bolt ons and gears running 12.5@112mph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


SN95 Source ©

The premier SN95 Community

×
×
  • Create New...