4.6 2V a dog?
08-27-2006, 02:46 AM
#11
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: La
Posts: 2,119
RE: 4.6 2V a dog?
ORIGINAL: zhu04gt
Mustang GTs 04 and earlier tested by car and driver and road and track never did anything better than 14.8 in the 1/4 mile....that's not low dude. And 0-60 in 6.3 is less than impressive
ORIGINAL: ackuric
i think a lot of other 'sports cars' are more of a dog than our 4.6 2v v8 that can hit low 14's stock and still get 22 mpg if you drive nice. and still have the sound of a mean v8. if you bought a gt expecting a 11-12 second car or quicker for cheap, you should be smacked...thats a cobra.
i think a lot of other 'sports cars' are more of a dog than our 4.6 2v v8 that can hit low 14's stock and still get 22 mpg if you drive nice. and still have the sound of a mean v8. if you bought a gt expecting a 11-12 second car or quicker for cheap, you should be smacked...thats a cobra.
08-27-2006, 02:47 AM
#12
RE: 4.6 2V a dog?
ORIGINAL: zhu04gt
Mustang GTs 04 and earlier tested by car and driver and road and track never did anything better than 14.8 in the 1/4 mile....that's not low dude. And 0-60 in 6.3 is less than impressive
ORIGINAL: ackuric
i think a lot of other 'sports cars' are more of a dog than our 4.6 2v v8 that can hit low 14's stock and still get 22 mpg if you drive nice. and still have the sound of a mean v8. if you bought a gt expecting a 11-12 second car or quicker for cheap, you should be smacked...thats a cobra.
i think a lot of other 'sports cars' are more of a dog than our 4.6 2v v8 that can hit low 14's stock and still get 22 mpg if you drive nice. and still have the sound of a mean v8. if you bought a gt expecting a 11-12 second car or quicker for cheap, you should be smacked...thats a cobra.
08-27-2006, 02:48 AM
#13
1st Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location:
Posts: 55
RE: 4.6 2V a dog?
ORIGINAL: 2000GT4.6
All of the MT and R&T articles I saw on the 99-04 GTs had them in the 14.2-14.0 range.
What is really strange is that they have different times for each year, but so far as the 1/4 is concerned the cars are identical.
Ive never seen 99-04GTs do anywhere near that stock. C&D is rough on domestic cars, because most domestics are crap.
BTW, R&T and MT are not what you should use as a benchmark for 1/4 mile performance. not only are virtually all car magazines bias against domestic cars, but they also usually don't get anywhere near the max performance level out of the car. Hell, they have the 03/04 cobra's best time at a 13.0, and compared it as being equal in accleration to a WRX STI lol.
ORIGINAL: zhu04gt
Mustang GTs 04 and earlier tested by car and driver and road and track never did anything better than 14.8 in the 1/4 mile....that's not low dude. And 0-60 in 6.3 is less than impressive
ORIGINAL: ackuric
i think a lot of other 'sports cars' are more of a dog than our 4.6 2v v8 that can hit low 14's stock and still get 22 mpg if you drive nice. and still have the sound of a mean v8. if you bought a gt expecting a 11-12 second car or quicker for cheap, you should be smacked...thats a cobra.
i think a lot of other 'sports cars' are more of a dog than our 4.6 2v v8 that can hit low 14's stock and still get 22 mpg if you drive nice. and still have the sound of a mean v8. if you bought a gt expecting a 11-12 second car or quicker for cheap, you should be smacked...thats a cobra.
What is really strange is that they have different times for each year, but so far as the 1/4 is concerned the cars are identical.
Ive never seen 99-04GTs do anywhere near that stock. C&D is rough on domestic cars, because most domestics are crap.
BTW, R&T and MT are not what you should use as a benchmark for 1/4 mile performance. not only are virtually all car magazines bias against domestic cars, but they also usually don't get anywhere near the max performance level out of the car. Hell, they have the 03/04 cobra's best time at a 13.0, and compared it as being equal in accleration to a WRX STI lol.
08-27-2006, 02:48 AM
#14
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12,575
RE: 4.6 2V a dog?
ORIGINAL: zhu04gt
The more I read in here and research on the net, the more I come to realize that it might not be worth it to build a 2V 4.6L engine. It seems like the only way one can get decent power out of this engine is forced induction or NO2.
Is this engine just a boat anchor?
The more I read in here and research on the net, the more I come to realize that it might not be worth it to build a 2V 4.6L engine. It seems like the only way one can get decent power out of this engine is forced induction or NO2.
Is this engine just a boat anchor?
About 330-340 WHP is all you can expect out of anything close to a streetable build, and even that is fairly hairy. The most i have seen out of a stock displacement 4.6L was like 360 WHP n/a, with one hell of a set of camshafts.
Put it this way, you can spend close to 10K to make 340 whp, or you can spend 4K to make 400+ (both assuming you already have full boltons). If you notice, all of the guys that end up doing a N/A motor build are also packing a little blue bottle in the trunk.
The reason for all this? The wonderful 2v heads that flow a whopping (not) 250 CFM if they are ported to hell and back.
08-27-2006, 02:52 AM
#15
1st Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location:
Posts: 55
RE: 4.6 2V a dog?
ORIGINAL: 02 Stang
Dude, my friends stock GT can run 14.3 on a bad day, what are you talking about?
ORIGINAL: zhu04gt
Mustang GTs 04 and earlier tested by car and driver and road and track never did anything better than 14.8 in the 1/4 mile....that's not low dude. And 0-60 in 6.3 is less than impressive
ORIGINAL: ackuric
i think a lot of other 'sports cars' are more of a dog than our 4.6 2v v8 that can hit low 14's stock and still get 22 mpg if you drive nice. and still have the sound of a mean v8. if you bought a gt expecting a 11-12 second car or quicker for cheap, you should be smacked...thats a cobra.
i think a lot of other 'sports cars' are more of a dog than our 4.6 2v v8 that can hit low 14's stock and still get 22 mpg if you drive nice. and still have the sound of a mean v8. if you bought a gt expecting a 11-12 second car or quicker for cheap, you should be smacked...thats a cobra.
In the face of evidence, reject reality and substitute your own
08-27-2006, 02:54 AM
#17
1st Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location:
Posts: 55
RE: 4.6 2V a dog?
Here's some R&T numbers...again less than impressive.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=5
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=5
08-27-2006, 02:59 AM
#20
1st Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location:
Posts: 55
RE: 4.6 2V a dog?
Im not an idiot, you imbicile. That's what the numbers are. Check the links, moron, and do something that is extremely hard for you and read.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=5
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...rts-page3.html
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=5
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...rts-page3.html