why all the displeasement?
05-01-2006, 12:34 PM
#22
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,654
RE: why all the displeasement?
I've got over 400 rwhp and over 400 torque out of a supercharged 2V motor that has a somewhat conservative tune... No complaints here since noone is keeping up with me with either a 3v or 4v unless they get a supercharger, turbo, or run nitrous. Even then, a 4V terminator in stock form can't take me. Also the 2V cars are going for a great price these days.
For the same bodystyle as a 29000+ 03 Cobra, you can pick up a 99 GT for about 10k. Do you know how insanely sick you can make a 99 GT with an extra $19,000?
For the same bodystyle as a 29000+ 03 Cobra, you can pick up a 99 GT for about 10k. Do you know how insanely sick you can make a 99 GT with an extra $19,000?
05-01-2006, 12:59 PM
#23
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Deerfield, VA
Posts: 674
RE: why all the displeasement?
Oh stop it with the 2V mod motor crap, the '69 and '70 Boss 302 mills only made 290 flywheel HP, which in turn is about 232 to the rear wheels. Similar #'s to our Gt's with a 5 spd. And a boss had more head and flow than a 5.0 liter could use. Those cars were Dogs with stock gearing, they needed 4.31's to begin to talk. Did you know a '69 and '70 Boss 429 only did the quarter in 13.6 seconds stock? and your lowly GT 2V does it in 14.2 stock, and still can deliver up to 30 mpg. I'll take my "crap" cross bolted main, cracked sintered rod, plastic intaked, aluminum headed, SEFI, piece of junk any day over what I had. Most of you folks haven't experienced what was available, and how it ran in the 60's and 70's. Hp even back then cost big $ to achieve, but I suppose the grass always looks greener on the other side. Todays engines do it all so much better, efficiently, and consistently than anything put out 35 years ago. And if we didn't start smog control back in the '70's we'd all be using oxygen tanks today. Asthma is the biggest disease amongst children today, automobile air pollution, the biggest cause. Sometimes, you gotta look at the big picture and take it from there.
John
John
05-01-2006, 05:20 PM
#24
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location:
Posts: 14,917
RE: why all the displeasement?
2000GT4.6 - I totally overlooked that you were talking about the 2v, sorry about that. 
70 MACH 1, you are right about the 69 and 70 Boss, but you forget there is a huge aftermarket, they are relatively cheap to build up. Also, 30mpg out of a 2v? HAHA, you do realize that Ford is under huge pressure from the government because of there TERRIBLE gas mileage? If you think you get 30mpg out of your car, you need to set up a camera with a live feed, because I'll never believe it and I'm pretty confident everyone else here knows better than to think they can get 30mpg out of a 5sp 2v.
The 2v, there is no affordable set of heads that give you the HP gains that you can get for a push rod motor, simply put.
Like I said earlier the 2v is a complete failure. Until it's possible to do a CHEAP 3v head swap, it's just going to continue to be a HORRIBLE base car to start with, until you can start finding these cars for 3,500 bucks with 80,000 or less miles. The 2v is absolutely unresponsive to bolt-ons, loves boost but it's limited to 450HP or less. The 3650 is a poor choice of an upgrade over the T45. Why Ford continually makes these horrible decisions...I don't know, but it's sure hurting their bottom line. Ford sucks & there is absolutely no arguing that. Quality products that are WORTH the money, can struggle on the market, but they don't rest near bankruptcy like Ford is right now.
It's very very similar to GM using the 305 TPI in the F-body, while it's PLENTY capable, it costs twice as much or even MORE just to reach the same numbers a 350 TPI can make. Why GM ever did it...beats me. Why did Ford ever bother with a 2v? I think they should have kept using the 5.0 until they had a motor, like the 3v, that responded great to modifications & was truly a bang for your buck car.
Sorry if I seem bitter, but I had an 02 GT that I was trying hard to break into low 13's. My buddy had a stock & BEAT 98 Z28 AUTOMATIC that was running low 13's with 70,000 miles on it. I realized that if I wanted a nice LATE MODEL CAR that had bang for your buck potential, without dropping a GRAND at a time...I had to forget the mistake I made and get rid of my GT. I was going 4v or pushrod and a deal for the Cobra just so happened to work out.
70 MACH 1, you are right about the 69 and 70 Boss, but you forget there is a huge aftermarket, they are relatively cheap to build up. Also, 30mpg out of a 2v? HAHA, you do realize that Ford is under huge pressure from the government because of there TERRIBLE gas mileage? If you think you get 30mpg out of your car, you need to set up a camera with a live feed, because I'll never believe it and I'm pretty confident everyone else here knows better than to think they can get 30mpg out of a 5sp 2v.
The 2v, there is no affordable set of heads that give you the HP gains that you can get for a push rod motor, simply put.
Like I said earlier the 2v is a complete failure. Until it's possible to do a CHEAP 3v head swap, it's just going to continue to be a HORRIBLE base car to start with, until you can start finding these cars for 3,500 bucks with 80,000 or less miles. The 2v is absolutely unresponsive to bolt-ons, loves boost but it's limited to 450HP or less. The 3650 is a poor choice of an upgrade over the T45. Why Ford continually makes these horrible decisions...I don't know, but it's sure hurting their bottom line. Ford sucks & there is absolutely no arguing that. Quality products that are WORTH the money, can struggle on the market, but they don't rest near bankruptcy like Ford is right now.
It's very very similar to GM using the 305 TPI in the F-body, while it's PLENTY capable, it costs twice as much or even MORE just to reach the same numbers a 350 TPI can make. Why GM ever did it...beats me. Why did Ford ever bother with a 2v? I think they should have kept using the 5.0 until they had a motor, like the 3v, that responded great to modifications & was truly a bang for your buck car.
Sorry if I seem bitter, but I had an 02 GT that I was trying hard to break into low 13's. My buddy had a stock & BEAT 98 Z28 AUTOMATIC that was running low 13's with 70,000 miles on it. I realized that if I wanted a nice LATE MODEL CAR that had bang for your buck potential, without dropping a GRAND at a time...I had to forget the mistake I made and get rid of my GT. I was going 4v or pushrod and a deal for the Cobra just so happened to work out.
05-01-2006, 07:17 PM
#25
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12,575
RE: why all the displeasement?
ORIGINAL: 70 MACH I
Oh stop it with the 2V mod motor crap, the '69 and '70 Boss 302 mills only made 290 flywheel HP, which in turn is about 232 to the rear wheels. Similar #'s to our Gt's with a 5 spd. And a boss had more head and flow than a 5.0 liter could use. Those cars were Dogs with stock gearing, they needed 4.31's to begin to talk. Did you know a '69 and '70 Boss 429 only did the quarter in 13.6 seconds stock? and your lowly GT 2V does it in 14.2 stock, and still can deliver up to 30 mpg. I'll take my "crap" cross bolted main, cracked sintered rod, plastic intaked, aluminum headed, SEFI, piece of junk any day over what I had. Most of you folks haven't experienced what was available, and how it ran in the 60's and 70's. Hp even back then cost big $ to achieve, but I suppose the grass always looks greener on the other side. Todays engines do it all so much better, efficiently, and consistently than anything put out 35 years ago. And if we didn't start smog control back in the '70's we'd all be using oxygen tanks today. Asthma is the biggest disease amongst children today, automobile air pollution, the biggest cause. Sometimes, you gotta look at the big picture and take it from there.
John
Oh stop it with the 2V mod motor crap, the '69 and '70 Boss 302 mills only made 290 flywheel HP, which in turn is about 232 to the rear wheels. Similar #'s to our Gt's with a 5 spd. And a boss had more head and flow than a 5.0 liter could use. Those cars were Dogs with stock gearing, they needed 4.31's to begin to talk. Did you know a '69 and '70 Boss 429 only did the quarter in 13.6 seconds stock? and your lowly GT 2V does it in 14.2 stock, and still can deliver up to 30 mpg. I'll take my "crap" cross bolted main, cracked sintered rod, plastic intaked, aluminum headed, SEFI, piece of junk any day over what I had. Most of you folks haven't experienced what was available, and how it ran in the 60's and 70's. Hp even back then cost big $ to achieve, but I suppose the grass always looks greener on the other side. Todays engines do it all so much better, efficiently, and consistently than anything put out 35 years ago. And if we didn't start smog control back in the '70's we'd all be using oxygen tanks today. Asthma is the biggest disease amongst children today, automobile air pollution, the biggest cause. Sometimes, you gotta look at the big picture and take it from there.
John
IMHO the 2v is NOT a terrible engine setup. I am making well over 400 RWHP from a basically stock engine and a small amount of boost.
The real problem is that there are too many 400+ flywheel horsepower cars out there stock. The competition has simply gotten much much harder to beat.
Even in that case, I have yet to loose a race yet with the blower setup. Hell, I have only lost 2 races since I bought the car. There is potential there, you're just not going to unlock it with a exhaust and a set of camshafts.
05-01-2006, 07:30 PM
#27
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location:
Posts: 5,128
RE: why all the displeasement?
for God's sake the general motors 350s make more horse than the 4.6... big whoop. it's a 5.7 pushrod engine, which are inherintly torque monsters and can be made very powerful. You have to realize that the power out of a 281 V8 is not bad for the size!
The 4.6 in the Mustangs is an engine Ford developed for vehicles across the board, from trucks to police cars to limos, and they just stuffed it into our cars because it was easier to use an engine they already developed. Also, in unmodded form they are very reliable engines and go for many many miles.
I'm content with my NPI 4.6... not the fastest by any means but it does me good and the bottom line, is it is still a MUSTANG. They have always been a good bang for your buck. The first car my mom ever owned was a 66 Mustang GT... and the first car I picked myself was a 97 GT....
every car has it's weaknesses, strengths and best ways of modification. I'm not going to try to mod my car to beat X car or such and such's whatevermobile... I'm going to modify it to make it better than it was and make it mine
that's my $0.02
The 4.6 in the Mustangs is an engine Ford developed for vehicles across the board, from trucks to police cars to limos, and they just stuffed it into our cars because it was easier to use an engine they already developed. Also, in unmodded form they are very reliable engines and go for many many miles.
I'm content with my NPI 4.6... not the fastest by any means but it does me good and the bottom line, is it is still a MUSTANG. They have always been a good bang for your buck. The first car my mom ever owned was a 66 Mustang GT... and the first car I picked myself was a 97 GT....
every car has it's weaknesses, strengths and best ways of modification. I'm not going to try to mod my car to beat X car or such and such's whatevermobile... I'm going to modify it to make it better than it was and make it mine
that's my $0.02
05-01-2006, 07:33 PM
#29
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location:
Posts: 5,128
RE: why all the displeasement?
not bad. and I bet that 13 is because you like the blower? I'm sure if it wasn't in boost it would probably get very near stock mpg... but hey you put it in for the power!
I am averaging 15-17 city now. I do 90% city driving soo.... dunno about highway. best i got on the highway so far was 24
I'm sure if it wasn't in boost it would probably get very near stock mpg... but hey you put it in for the power! I am averaging 15-17 city now. I do 90% city driving soo.... dunno about highway. best i got on the highway so far was 24
05-01-2006, 09:18 PM
#30
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In between Your Mom's Titties, skeet skeet..
Posts: 2,045
RE: why all the displeasement?
I still think that a lot of it does also come down to the addage "No replacement for Displacement.."
Sure you guys can mention "Import this, and Import that.." The truth is, I've seen a very few, less than a handful of Imports/Sport Compacts that can run w/ the big boys w/ out a S/C or a Turbo, or N20 for that matter...
An LS1 is a 5.7.. Our 4.6 is more than a WHOLE LITRE of displacement less, yet, things like the Mach 1, and the 99-01 Cobras can still hang w/ the F-body guys... And that's w/ the lack of displacement..
Sure engineering was partially flawed, but then again, maybe not.. Maybe they wanted consumers to see the big gap between Street Fun and a Fast car (GT to Cobra respectively)..
Look at the SS vs. the Z-28.. Not a ton of difference in terms of performance.... But the price tag shows...
JT
Sure you guys can mention "Import this, and Import that.." The truth is, I've seen a very few, less than a handful of Imports/Sport Compacts that can run w/ the big boys w/ out a S/C or a Turbo, or N20 for that matter...
An LS1 is a 5.7.. Our 4.6 is more than a WHOLE LITRE of displacement less, yet, things like the Mach 1, and the 99-01 Cobras can still hang w/ the F-body guys... And that's w/ the lack of displacement..
Sure engineering was partially flawed, but then again, maybe not.. Maybe they wanted consumers to see the big gap between Street Fun and a Fast car (GT to Cobra respectively)..
Look at the SS vs. the Z-28.. Not a ton of difference in terms of performance.... But the price tag shows...
JT