4.6 performance

[streetarab]

Anyone watch Horsepower TV? If you do, you have probably seen the buildup of Project Nightmare. A 1996 Ford Mustang with a 4.6 liter engine. The problem (in my opinion) is that they added a Vortech Centrifugal supercharger running 6 or 8 psi(I'm really sorry I can't remember which). The car only dynoed at 286 horsepower. Does anyone else see a problem with this. GM's Northstar V8's are 4.6 liters. Their production, production numbers are 320 horsepower and 310 lb. ft. of torque.

This V-8 Crate Engine (RPO LH2) features the following:
320 Horsepower @ 6400 RPM and 310 lb-ft @ 4400 RPM torque
Sequential fuel injection
Bore is 93.00 mm and Stroke is 84.00 mm with 10.5:1 compression ratio
Aluminum Block, Aluminum Heads, and Hydraulic roller design camshaft
-GM Performance Parts

Maybe it's just me, but I think the Ford 4.6 is a waste.


EDIT-you know, the original point of my my thread was not to say that gm's are better, but that a supercharged 4.6 should make more power, i make one comment and everyone comes rushin in to say its wrong, ok, but you are missing my point, this just doesnt seem right to me, 286 horsepower out of a v8 with 6 or 8 pounds of boost

[T5Bird]

Originally posted by streetarab
Anyone watch Horsepower TV? If you do, you have probably seen the buildup of Project Nightmare. A 1996 Ford Mustang with a 4.6 liter engine. The problem (in my opinion) is that they added a Vortech Centrifugal supercharger running 6 or 8 psi(I'm really sorry I can't remember which). The car only dynoed at 286 horsepower. Does anyone else see a problem with this. GM's Northstar V8's are 4.6 liters. Their production, production numbers are 320 horsepower and 310 lb. ft. of torque.

-GM Performance Parts

Maybe it's just me, but I think the Ford 4.6 is a waste.

Maybe it's just me, but I think comparing inflated flywheel horsepower #'s to real world rear wheel horsepower #'s is a waste. :poosie:

[gorillam]

^^ I agree,

Streetarab you are comparing a non PI (1996), (without power improvement heads and wtihout power inprovement intake mani) to a brand new engine that is inflated **estimated flywheel hp, to actual ground horsepower.

And the 4.6 is an extremly great engine there are parts everywhere, ford used this engine in the mustang, f150, tbird, crown, and other cars.

Look at the 1997 4.6 in the cobra that's 305 hp engine alone non pi.


It is just you the 4.6 isnt a waste, how do you justify comparing a 1996 versus a 2002-2005 enigine that dont even have remotely the same internals/top end.

:english:

[streetarab]

but with a Cadillac Northstar V8 putting 320 horsepower to the rear wheels, the XLR is the division's signature piece
http://www.flatoday.com/sections/newcar/cadillac.htm

Both the XLR and new STS have it

and gm's aside, it should still make more horsepower

[streetarab]

shit, you know what, let me make it easy on you

[gorillam]

You have gotta be kidding me, that engine is in the xlr which is caddilac's top of the line car 80+ grand canadian. yeah where's the dyno chart they said it puts 320 to the ground where's the proof?


And serioussly guy that's a dohc 2003 or 2004 top of the line motor. that 1996 they did was the base model 4.6.


1999-2000 4.6 in the mustang cobra is 320 dohc 4.6



:drama:

[gorillam]

You are still comparing a state of the art 2005 to 1996 motor you have no case here.

Compare 2005's then we can talk, but now it's over.

:english:

[streetarab]

http://www.fordracingparts.com/crateengine/modularcobra.asp
all right, now i will take back my statement of the gm motor, but i still believe that motor should make way more horsepower than it does now

shit, i found this page here, whats the drivetrain loss on the auto tranny?
http://www.tomorrowstechnician.com/tt/tt80458.htm

In 1995, the power rating of the L37 4.6L V8 (VIN 9) was bumped up slightly to 300 hp, and the LD8 4.6L V8 (VIN Y) was upped to 275 hp.

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/spec_engines.aspx?modelid=1101&trimid=-1&src=vip
the cobra was 305 horsepower, the gt was 215

[kevie88]

Originally posted by gorillam
You are still comparing a state of the art 2005 to 1996 motor you have no case here.

Compare 2005's then we can talk, but now it's over.

:english:

Gorrillam, if you have something to add to your last post before someone responds please edit your last post. Please stop posting multiple times in a row in threads, this wastes bandwidth.

[streetarab]

all right, ill quit with the posts for now
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/spec_engines.aspx?modelid=1101&trimid=-1&src=vip
the cobra was 305 horsepower, the gt was 215

[NickGT]

Originally posted by gorillam
You are still comparing a state of the art 2005 to 1996 motor you have no case here.

Compare 2005's then we can talk, but now it's over.

:english:

Even in the end, Streetarab still doesn't get it. Man some people are dense.


Originally posted by streetarab
shit, you know what, let me make it easy on you

No let me make it easy for you. You have made a retarded comparison and this thread deserves to be :closed:

The 2001 Ford Mustang Cobra 4.6L V8 DOHC power to the rear wheels (I use the term rear wheels as loosely as your GM article - because thats actually to the flywheel being given):

320 HP, 317 Torque

Does that satisfy the benchracer in you? Now start up a thread on why the GM 4.6L has less torque would ya. Cause we don't have nearly enough useless threads today.