4.6 vs. 5.0
06-24-2008, 02:59 PM
#52
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Jersey
Posts: 2,445
RE: 4.6 vs. 5.0
Right now the guy with the 302 is running AFR 185s I believe with a TF track heat intake, and some comp cams pre made, but he upgraded to a custom grind recently I heard.
EDIT: I'm almost positive the intake is lightly ported too.
EDIT: I'm almost positive the intake is lightly ported too.
06-24-2008, 03:07 PM
#54
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Jersey
Posts: 2,445
RE: 4.6 vs. 5.0
Well this is some 50 something guy that uses the car as his play thing. It's a stripped out notch that weighs about 2400 pounds and he runs slicks on his built 9" rear. The best part is he throws the power down through an auto.
06-24-2008, 03:21 PM
#56
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Jersey
Posts: 2,445
RE: 4.6 vs. 5.0
I'm pretty sure its a built c4. He said he didn't want a c6 because they rob too much power. I could definitely see his car throwing down about 330 whp with a custom ground cam and a fresh tune.
06-24-2008, 04:20 PM
#58
M.A.D. Motorsports
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 8,014
RE: 4.6 vs. 5.0
ORIGINAL: USMCrebel
whats done to your car? a mild build 351 can put out more power than the 5.4 mpg i dont worry about
ORIGINAL: projectresto83
Exactly my point. Yes the 5.4 is a nice motor but its still not able to compete with the big cubed motors that chevy puts out stock for stock. Maybe if a stock 5.4 is put into a fox but then that isn't stock now is it?
I would like to put a DOHC 5.4 in my car with all the computer stuff. It would get better gas milage/power ratio than a EFI 5.8 would. Just too expensive.
Exactly my point. Yes the 5.4 is a nice motor but its still not able to compete with the big cubed motors that chevy puts out stock for stock. Maybe if a stock 5.4 is put into a fox but then that isn't stock now is it?
I would like to put a DOHC 5.4 in my car with all the computer stuff. It would get better gas milage/power ratio than a EFI 5.8 would. Just too expensive.
06-24-2008, 04:30 PM
#59
1st Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 79
RE: 4.6 vs. 5.0
the guy who had it before me had bored out the block and some other work i would have to talk to him to find out some details but that is what he dyno it at when i took it into him or maybe he just guesstimated.....
06-24-2008, 05:38 PM
#60
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3,451
RE: 4.6 vs. 5.0
ORIGINAL: Projectquick
To dyno at 385 you need to be running more displacement than 302 cubic inches. I have heard of some of the best H/C/I 331 builds not making that much to the wheels so either you have something bigger than a 5 liter or you have forced induction, either way no too good of a comparison.
[/quote]
No you don't. 385 can be pulled off with no power adder & stock displacement, I'm not saying with his parts, but it's doable.
I don't see a stock s197 running down a full bolt on fox unless that full bolt on fox has something very wrong with it. As far as it running out of breath, that is 100% true if they're both running on only one gear, but they're not & fortunately we can shift into the next gear to keep it close to it's powerband.
btw, a fox's peak torque point is altered when you add the bolt ons. What parts you use will determine where it's peak is.
Also you said it would run it down.. have you considered the aerodynamics of a fox vs the s197, comes into play quite a bit at higher speeds where the running down takes place
true the sohc & dohc 5.4/4.6 are more efficient engines when compared to the 5.0 stock for stock, mostly due to heads. if you build it right a 351 won't get bad fuel economy. Heck I get 24-25mpg highway with my '89 & it runs 12's. It can get better with a few other things done (which I intend on doing) but that's not too bad.
My friends 5.0 is getting around 32mpg to give you a good idea. Keep in mind you can get way better fuel economy if you run a standalone. For his car I leaned it to 16.3:1 under cruise conditions, the idea is to lean it out as far as possible until the car starts to surge then back it off around .3 to .4 points.
You'd be amazed at the fuel economy you can pick up being able to make your own fuel & spark maps with a standalone & you know whats even worse you can buy/build a ms standalone with a wideband o2 for around the cost that it takes to do a mass air swap.
If I had to choose between the two as far as efficiency I'd pick a modular engine, but when it comes down to everything, cost & ease of working on a 5.0 vs the 5.4 I prefer the 5.0 by quite a bit.
To dyno at 385 you need to be running more displacement than 302 cubic inches. I have heard of some of the best H/C/I 331 builds not making that much to the wheels so either you have something bigger than a 5 liter or you have forced induction, either way no too good of a comparison.
[/quote]
No you don't. 385 can be pulled off with no power adder & stock displacement, I'm not saying with his parts, but it's doable.
ORIGINAL: Blue07GT
There is only a couple undered pounds between the S197 and the FOX, The S197 has better gearing and 80 more hp. The only advantage the Fox has is that they hit their peak torque at a lower rpm. So, yeah a "full bolt-on" fox will get a "stock" s197 out of the hole and keep him at bay for a few seconds but the S197 is going to run the fox down. Start putting bolt-ons on the S197 and it gets far worse for the fox. Not to mention if the two go from a roll, that 5.0 is gonna run out of breath long before that 3v will.
There is only a couple undered pounds between the S197 and the FOX, The S197 has better gearing and 80 more hp. The only advantage the Fox has is that they hit their peak torque at a lower rpm. So, yeah a "full bolt-on" fox will get a "stock" s197 out of the hole and keep him at bay for a few seconds but the S197 is going to run the fox down. Start putting bolt-ons on the S197 and it gets far worse for the fox. Not to mention if the two go from a roll, that 5.0 is gonna run out of breath long before that 3v will.
btw, a fox's peak torque point is altered when you add the bolt ons. What parts you use will determine where it's peak is.
Also you said it would run it down.. have you considered the aerodynamics of a fox vs the s197, comes into play quite a bit at higher speeds where the running down takes place
ORIGINAL: projectresto83
Yes, I know but like I said STOCK setups. Anyway like my sig says, thats whats done with my car except I have 1.6 rockers now so my lift numbers are up a little. I don't worry to much about MPG either right now BUT with gas prices and wanting it to be a DD MPG will come into play somewhat no matter who you are unless your work is around the block. I have plans to do a mild 351 setup that has seen 475hp. (R.Barns old 351 setup) 351 bored out, afr 185's, big cam and a good carb plus a couple of small goodies. Much cheaper than the 5.4 setup but half the gas milage.
Yes, I know but like I said STOCK setups. Anyway like my sig says, thats whats done with my car except I have 1.6 rockers now so my lift numbers are up a little. I don't worry to much about MPG either right now BUT with gas prices and wanting it to be a DD MPG will come into play somewhat no matter who you are unless your work is around the block. I have plans to do a mild 351 setup that has seen 475hp. (R.Barns old 351 setup) 351 bored out, afr 185's, big cam and a good carb plus a couple of small goodies. Much cheaper than the 5.4 setup but half the gas milage.
My friends 5.0 is getting around 32mpg to give you a good idea. Keep in mind you can get way better fuel economy if you run a standalone. For his car I leaned it to 16.3:1 under cruise conditions, the idea is to lean it out as far as possible until the car starts to surge then back it off around .3 to .4 points.
You'd be amazed at the fuel economy you can pick up being able to make your own fuel & spark maps with a standalone & you know whats even worse you can buy/build a ms standalone with a wideband o2 for around the cost that it takes to do a mass air swap.
If I had to choose between the two as far as efficiency I'd pick a modular engine, but when it comes down to everything, cost & ease of working on a 5.0 vs the 5.4 I prefer the 5.0 by quite a bit.