4.6L General Discussion This section is for non-tech specific information pertaining to 4.6L (Modular) Mustangs built from 1996 to 2004.

simple ?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 31, 2007 | 05:13 AM
  #11  
devore86's Avatar
devore86
Thread Starter
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 257
From: Vienna, WV
Default RE: simple ?

ORIGINAL: nova0002@hotmail.com

EWW thats some weak sauce, 210-220 for an auto? You think the manual adds 5-10hp I dont know about that....either way thats not much at all, Ford needs to step their game up, they have I-4 turbo's hittin 300 at the crank, where has the American Muscle Car gone????

Well if you were paying attention its 260 at the crank and the latter is at the wheels. Maybe week to some but lets remeber, these cars were not built to be the fastest on the street. They weere built with the potential to be the fastest on the street.
Old Oct 31, 2007 | 07:41 AM
  #12  
2000GT4.6's Avatar
2000GT4.6
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,575
From: United States
Default RE: simple ?

ORIGINAL: nova0002@hotmail.com

EWW thats some weak sauce, 210-220 for an auto? You think the manual adds 5-10hp I dont know about that....either way thats not much at all, Ford needs to step their game up, they have I-4 turbo's hittin 300 at the crank, where has the American Muscle Car gone????
The auto in these cars is not the greatest thing in the world. Its not much, but remeber its alsoa 1999 design and it was the mid level car, not the performance car (cobra was). even the n/a cobra makes 305-320 at the fly, and you arn't going to find anything but top of the line 30K+ cars out there that are 4cyl making 300 flywheel stock (STI etc).

Old Oct 31, 2007 | 08:11 AM
  #13  
HamMach1's Avatar
HamMach1
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,083
From: Richmond, Virginia
Default RE: simple ?

I remember test driving an auto GT when I had my auto 2002 V6 stang and I wasn't very impressed...maybe because it was an auto?
The Mach is a different story though[8D]

Old Oct 31, 2007 | 12:59 PM
  #14  
GhostRider02GT's Avatar
GhostRider02GT
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,456
From: the flatlands
Default RE: simple ?

ORIGINAL: devore86

ORIGINAL: nova0002@hotmail.com

EWW thats some weak sauce, 210-220 for an auto? You think the manual adds 5-10hp I dont know about that....either way thats not much at all, Ford needs to step their game up, they have I-4 turbo's hittin 300 at the crank, where has the American Muscle Car gone????

Well if you were paying attention its 260 at the crank and the latter is at the wheels. Maybe week to some but lets remeber, these cars were not built to be the fastest on the street. They weere built with the potential to be the fastest on the street.
If this were the case, someone, ie Ford oraftermarket, would of built some heads that will actually flow worth a crap
Old Oct 31, 2007 | 01:08 PM
  #15  
mvr's Avatar
mvr
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,361
From: Vegas
Default RE: simple ?

im tired of this debate, if you dont think your gt is fast either make it faster or buy a faster car.


i still think ford needs to put something bigger than a 4.6 in the new gt's, maybe a 5.4. or have the 4.6 gt then a 5.4 car then the gt500.
Old Oct 31, 2007 | 01:31 PM
  #16  
H0SS302's Avatar
H0SS302
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,551
From: Texas
Default RE: simple ?


ORIGINAL: mvr

im tired of this debate, if you dont think your gt is fast either make it faster or buy a faster car.


i still think ford needs to put something bigger than a 4.6 in the new gt's, maybe a 5.4. or have the 4.6 gt then a 5.4 car then the gt500.
or pull a page out of the germans book n slap a turbo desiel engine in that beyatchhh
Old Oct 31, 2007 | 01:36 PM
  #17  
devore86's Avatar
devore86
Thread Starter
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 257
From: Vienna, WV
Default RE: simple ?

ORIGINAL: GhostRider02GT

ORIGINAL: devore86

ORIGINAL: nova0002@hotmail.com

EWW thats some weak sauce, 210-220 for an auto? You think the manual adds 5-10hp I dont know about that....either way thats not much at all, Ford needs to step their game up, they have I-4 turbo's hittin 300 at the crank, where has the American Muscle Car gone????

Well if you were paying attention its 260 at the crank and the latter is at the wheels. Maybe week to some but lets remeber, these cars were not built to be the fastest on the street. They weere built with the potential to be the fastest on the street.
If this were the case, someone, ie Ford oraftermarket, would of built some heads that will actually flow worth a crap

well i have no argument there.....
Old Oct 31, 2007 | 01:44 PM
  #18  
xander0561's Avatar
xander0561
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 623
From: Sarasota(941)
Default RE: simple ?

They need to put the Aston martin Vantage engine in the mustang. 4.3 L 380 horse. Now that makes sense. I mean common, ford does own Aston dont they. Its kinda funny it you look at the valve covers they kinda look like ours.[&:]


[/align][/align]
[/align][/align]
[/align][/align]
-[/align]4,282 cc 4.3 liters V 8 front engine with 89 mm bore, 86 mm stroke, 11.3 compression ratio, double overhead cam, variable valve timing/camshaft and four valves per cylinder[/align][/align][/align]
-[/align]Premium unleaded fuel 91[/align][/align][/align]
-[/align]Fuel economy EPA highway (mpg): 22 and EPA city (mpg): 14[/align][/align][/align]
-[/align]Multi-point injection fuel system[/align][/align][/align]
-[/align]20.2 gallon main premium unleaded fuel tank[/align][/align][/align]
-[/align]Power: 283 kW , 380 HP SAE @ 7,000 rpm; 302 ft lb , 409 Nm @ 5,000 rpm[/align][/align]
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Thunderball
4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang
15
Nov 22, 2015 11:49 PM
flash_xx
S197 Handling Section
14
Oct 16, 2015 07:23 AM
Brett Ludlow
5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang
7
Sep 23, 2015 06:59 AM
JayGee
General Tech
0
Sep 15, 2015 12:41 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:01 PM.