mpe488

Sometimes all the speculation is just annoying. By no means do I frequent this section, but the thread caught my eye form LS1tech homepage. i just got here and all the guesses and speculation are already running wild. 10 theories and rumors will come and go before Ford has anything to say about it.

sb427f-car

That's what makes a forum so great...we'll talk about rumors and speculation like facts...gotta have some way to pass the time.

99Hawk262

iTrader: (19)

If you don't want to speculate then don't bother posting. It's interesting info that I thought I'd share to see what others thought. I love muscle cars irrespective of make and I like to stay current on what's up and coming. Info on this car has been available for a few months and the only spec that I've seen that changed is the horsepower rating.

SilverStang00

iTrader: (2)

The new mod motors have proven just as, if not more capable than the old OHV 5.0, the OHC doesn't make as much TQ, but they make up for it with rpm. The 4 valve cars pull up to 7k and make power there. With the extra cubes and good heads, this modular 5.0 will be a terror.

kennyxg

iTrader: (1)

With the new motor yes ,but as the current 4.6 I would think that is the reason why they made an improved bigger 5.0. The current 4.6 just does'nt cut it.The pushrod 5.0could touch 11's with heads and cam only beside the Mach 1 and mod motor cobra with the dohc, the current 4.6 sohc seems to only run well with a power adder.Pushrod motors in my opinion are more reliable and cheaper to mod.The old 5.0 computer could adapt to a cam change and any other bolt on with out having to pay 450.00 for a tune.

HandsomeBWouderful

iTrader: (2)

But in the grand sceme of things, Ford and the industry doesn't care about you. (I mostly agree with you BTW) Customers demand high-tech engines. The EPA demands strict emission controls. A carb is MUCH more simple and easy to mod. Its also cheaper, but because of the reasons above, the are no longer around.

OSUBraden

I'm going to have to agree with the idea that "The 4.6 just doesn't cut it". I clearly rememeber the summer I was shopping for a new car... debating back and forth between the Mustang GT or the Camaro Z28/SS with my wallet. Obviously, the '03, '04 Mustangs were more expensive than the '00-'02 camaro's. One thing QUICKLY set in after a few test drive.. the 5.7 > 4.6.. and on top of that, the camaro's were 3-4 grand cheaper.. thus I own a Camaro Z28.

Also the guy worried about speculation.. This is a discussion.. forum, no? :X

kennyxg

iTrader: (1)

The 5.0 sfi never had a problem passing the sniff test. Just wanna make sure that we are talking about the same thing. And the right thing to say would be that the big three dont care about us!!! Is it really fare to say that the 4.6 is high tech compared to the pushrod 5.0? the 5.0 made more hp and torque per cubic inch than the current 4.6 ever did . Normally asperated no power adders, and even if that was'nt the case as far as hp, it made more torque at lower rpm and was way cheaper to make it go fast.

Hydramatic

I agree with you 100%, but the 302 was as old as time itself for petes sake! That engine family debuted in like the 60's man. And there weren't really any MAJOR changes to the engine itself like GM did to its SB engines. It was about time for a change when Ford went over to the mod motors, they just did it with too little displacement and not enough power. That's one thing I hate about Ford. They absolutely, positively hang on to an engine until it's completely outmoded and obsolete. Kinda like their original 4 banger, or the 3.8L from the T-bird, or that goddamn split-port four cylinder in the focus.

kennyxg

iTrader: (1)

Agreed! I hope they do go ahead with the new 5.0 .Mod motor or not, with Chevy coming out with the Camaro again it well be interesting.

SilverStang00

iTrader: (2)

Not sure what you mean when you say the 5.0 made more HP and TQ per cubic inch than the 4.6? The 4.6 is smaller(281vs302/306) and makes a ton more power, especially the 3v and 4v cars. The new 3v SOHC GTs have 300hp, when did a 302 have that from the factory? A stock fox body will probably blow up trying to keep up with a stock S197 Mustang.

1bdbrd

iTrader: (12)

you arent comparing apples to apples though. yes you could run 11s in a FOX with a 5.0L in it with just heads and cam but that will never happen in an Sn95 car (94-98, 94-95 with the 5.0L). the foxes were much lighter than the Sn95.

if you wanted to compare apples to apples there, then you need to compare trap speeds. that 11 second fox would trap 105-109 or less. a good friend of mine owns an SN95 5 liter and theres not a chance in hell its going into the 11s with bolt ons, heads and cam and no power adder.

jking

That really isn't the case anymore.

The Mach 1 and the 03-04 Cobra were underrated.

The Shelby and current Mustang GT put down numbers consistent with their factory claims.

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

When there at the dragstrip thats how they run. I could care less about there dyno #. Take a pullied Cobra for example 450-460 rwhp and runs 11.8-12.0@115-118 in typical street car form. A f-bod with that power is high 10's -11.5@ 120+. I personally have'nt seen a Mach go faster than a 13.3 with tires and other stuff. I have seen the newer Mustang leave so hard it pulled the front wheel and run a 13.1 or 2 @ 103. I still have'nt figured out how he did that.

jking

I've had different experiences with Machs.

I had a 2003 Mach 1 M5 and ran a 12.90@105.5 stock on DR's with a 1.78 60'.

With an offroad pipe, CAI and a predator I got it down to a 12.61@107.77.

I've personally raced a bone stock Mach with my LS1 C5 that went 13.1's several times in a row against my 12.8xx's.

Granted, I race at HRP, which is a fast track. You might be running somewhere slower..

jking

I would agree that the new Shelby runs nothing like you would expect...

jking

Actually I had an intake spacer in addition to the other mods at the time.. That probably added a whole nother 3 hp or so...

http://www.mach1registry.org/forums/...hlight=Houston

SilverStang00

iTrader: (2)

I think they do ok, They are heavy as hell, and have shitty gearing. Some decent tires and gears will net some good times in those cars, if you can drive. I bet the TQ on those things makes it a bitch to launch.

SilverStang00

iTrader: (2)

That seems a little fast for a Mach, but your right alot of them are low 13s bone stock. Most people on here give them respect, which they should, even tho the Machs dyno lower than LS1s they are lighter and are geared better. Were those times with the stock 3.55s?

jking

Yes, stock 3.55's.

There were a couple of guys from the Mach site out there that night, and they were shitting themselves over it. One of the guys couldn't get his car into the 13's, but he was having a lot of trouble on the stock Gatorbacks.

It was a very strong running car and I suprised a lot of folks with it. I bought it used and it didn't have the Mach stickers on it. Just white with the shaker and black wing, which I removed.