06tyrfryr

reason for no power at low rpm is small cubic inch and is set up for good mid range hp. if you want power under 2,000 rpm you shoulda bought a diesel truck

Ford_Dude

also the cmcv plates arn't fully open till 2500 RPM's and the only way to really get back the power they take is to get cmcv deletes ans retune

olvanish

I don't know if someone mentioned it already (too much to read so ill just skip it) Because of torque limitter our Stangs may seem underpowered at low rpm (mostly under 3000). I believe trick flow came up with an intake manifold that is not out yet, but is already being tested. The major purpose of it is to improve low-end torque and just by looking at the results I'd say they are pretty impressive. You might want to consider getting it when it comes out. As for the pinging, get a good octane booster and see if it goes away. If it does, you got carbon deposits on your valves.
P.S. for those who read mustangs and fast fords magazine, you probably know which manifold I'm talking about. The issue they mentioned it in came out about 4-5 months ago.

seniorsmith

4:10's and aCAI & Tune...You have to wake these cars up a little I'm afraid.

281GT

The fact is that an engine this size is never going to have much power under 2000 rpm. Just the nature of the beast. The old 5.0s were even worse in this aspect. It's not an issue anyway because the even the stock gearing in these cars will let you get over 2000 almost instantly so I don't know what you are worried about. If you want power under 2000 rpm get a diesel truck.

KEELENTIME

OK, OK..... So look, I have owned a "diesel truck" and I have owned 2 5.0 fox's. We are notlooking fortorque comparable toa powerstroke, and I thoroughly understand the expected torque levels of a small block. The problem here is that it "feels" like the car is being held back at low rpm, like there is some sort of delay. And this is only at take off, when at a roll or at higher gear it is not nearly as noticeable. At higher gear you deffinetly notice the lack of torque that a small block offers, but you don't notice the lag of system.... I am probably not explaining this correctly, but this is more than a nuisance, it is a hazard. Perhaps there is not a reasonable way to eliminate this, and the only answer is to feather the clutch alot and roll at high r's.

seniorsmith

HELLO...Just do what I said...

KEELENTIME

I hear ya, the previous post was more in response to the "if you want torque, buy a diesel" comments.

Valyndiir

Yeah... in reference to small blocks having low torque. From a dig, my 350Z would rape our GTs so bad it wasn't funny and it was only equipped with a measely 3.5 liter with ~290 ft/lbs and it was 200lbs heavier. So would the old carbureted 305 out of my 1984 Trans Am. The 4.6L is plenty capable of low-end torque and creating a broader power band, but as was mentioned before it is not set up for it. I would be curious as to the method that Ford has used to limit it. I have yet to see anyone point this out. There is no doubt in my mind that the engine was purposely restricted, it is too precise to be a mechanical flaw. Does the computer prevent the throttle body from opening completely until an RPM range is satisfied? Is the fuel pump voltage reduced, possibly from the alternator being designed to specifically do so? Fuel regulator? Or maybe it is just ****-poor machining on Fords part. Probably not the latter. Factory heads are always rough as hell, but there is no WAY they are so badly machined to create that sort of hesitation in a motor, you would be having a lot of other problems, like metal flakes blowing out of your exhaust. Maybe the intake manifold is shoddy? Anyone ever seen the inside of one? They are supposed to have tiny ribs machined into them, this helps with atomizing and flow. There are quite a few points to look at when considering where the restriction is placed.

It's funny to see stuff like this after salesmen rave about the platinum spark plugs. OoooOOOoo!! Give me a set of MSD SuperConductor plug wires over platinum plugs any day.