Why did Ford go with the 4.6?
04-21-2008, 07:47 PM
#11
5th Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: carlisle PA
Posts: 3,007
RE: Why did Ford go with the 4.6?
ORIGINAL: lizzyfan
Kinda answered your own question
ORIGINAL: silverstang1996
Just as the title says, I've been wondering why Ford ever swapped over from 5.0? I mean the 5.0 isn't really that great to start with but what's even good about a 4.6? They say they switched it over because it's more efficient, but I really don't understand how they can say this engine is efficient when GM introduced the LSx engines where they are about a whole liter larger, almost 100hp more, and they still can get like 30mpg, which is better than I can even imagine in my car. So could someone please educate me on this?
Just as the title says, I've been wondering why Ford ever swapped over from 5.0? I mean the 5.0 isn't really that great to start with but what's even good about a 4.6? They say they switched it over because it's more efficient, but I really don't understand how they can say this engine is efficient when GM introduced the LSx engines where they are about a whole liter larger, almost 100hp more, and they still can get like 30mpg, which is better than I can even imagine in my car. So could someone please educate me on this?
04-21-2008, 07:50 PM
#12
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12,575
RE: Why did Ford go with the 4.6?
ORIGINAL: jlw2387
Yeah but its was way easier to get power out of a 5.0 than a 4.6. Plus they dont **** out at 450rwhp. They both have their advantages, but unfortunately the 4.6L is more in the "economy, interchangeability" region.
ORIGINAL: 35thAnni99GT
I know. that blistering 225 hp from the 5.0 pushrod motor was unbelievable
I know. that blistering 225 hp from the 5.0 pushrod motor was unbelievable
To answer the OP's question, ford wanted a "Modular" system where they could build mulitple engines for multiple platforms with the same basic parts and castings/manfuacture procedure. To understand how big of an advantage this is you need to understand how a factory setup works.
The more parts you build, the cheaper they are to build, the better you can build them (over time it improves) and the faster you can build them. If you can use a engine or even engine family in more than one platform, you can see how many more parts you could make and how much cheaper/faster it could be.
Ford decided the best way to do this would be to build an engine that would share many similar componets over different setups/displacement, and decided that the 4.6/5.4 etc systems would best suit their needs.
BTW, I always find it funny that the main people usually complaining about how much easyer and cheaper it is to build a 5.0 only have bolton only 2v cars. I raced plenty of bolton only 5.0Ls with my bolton only 4.6L, and none of them were anywhere close. IMO the 4.6L even in built engine form would make more power than the 5.0L IF the aftermarket support for true aftermarket heads were there... unforutnatly they are not. Try making big power from a 5.0L on the stock (even ported etc)e7 heads....
04-21-2008, 07:58 PM
#14
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location:
Posts: 936
RE: Why did Ford go with the 4.6?
ORIGINAL: cliffyk
[/align][/align]Then I kind of fuzzy on whyyou bought a 4.6L Mustang?[/align][/align]Bob Hall (the self-renounced "father" of the Miata) used to have as his email tagline "If you can't drive fast with 90 HP then 900 won't help." While this is a bit of an exaggeration, it is fundamentally true--going fast and driving fast are two different things.[/align][/align]I once "out drove" an M3 Beemer, in my old 74HP early '86 Corolla sedan (the last RWD Corolla made), for 150 miles on I-10 between Tallahassee and Jacksonville... The poor jerk driving the M3 was beside himself by the time we turned south on I-95...[/align][/align][/align]
ORIGINAL: DS002
Im fine with the whole ohc setup but I'd prefer some more displacement so we can at least keep up with our competition.
Im fine with the whole ohc setup but I'd prefer some more displacement so we can at least keep up with our competition.
Unless youre talking about Auto-x or other forms of track racing, in which case I wouldnt be driving a mustang. I bought a mustang for straight line speed, being a great drive compared to an average driver is only going to get you so far in cars like ours when it comes to racing in a straight line.
04-21-2008, 08:32 PM
#15
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Springfield IL
Posts: 579
RE: Why did Ford go with the 4.6?
ORIGINAL: 2000GT4.6
Try making a5.0L make more than 500 WHP on the stock block/internals... and then after you buy an afteramarket 5.0L block (forget the internals)come tell me that a shortblock for a 4.6L is expensive.
To answer the OP's question, ford wanted a "Modular" system where they could build mulitple engines for multiple platforms with the same basic parts and castings/manfuacture procedure. To understand how big of an advantage this is you need to understand how a factory setup works.
The more parts you build, the cheaper they are to build, the better you can build them (over time it improves) and the faster you can build them. If you can use a engine or even engine family in more than one platform, you can see how many more parts you could make and how much cheaper/faster it could be.
Ford decided the best way to do this would be to build an engine that would share many similar componets over different setups/displacement, and decided that the 4.6/5.4 etc systems would best suit their needs.
BTW, I always find it funny that the main people usually complaining about how much easyer and cheaper it is to build a 5.0 only have bolton only 2v cars. I raced plenty of bolton only 5.0Ls with my bolton only 4.6L, and none of them were anywhere close. IMO the 4.6L even in built engine form would make more power than the 5.0L IF the aftermarket support for true aftermarket heads were there... unforutnatly they are not. Try making big power from a 5.0L on the stock (even ported etc)e7 heads....
ORIGINAL: jlw2387
Yeah but its was way easier to get power out of a 5.0 than a 4.6. Plus they dont **** out at 450rwhp. They both have their advantages, but unfortunately the 4.6L is more in the "economy, interchangeability" region.
ORIGINAL: 35thAnni99GT
I know. that blistering 225 hp from the 5.0 pushrod motor was unbelievable
I know. that blistering 225 hp from the 5.0 pushrod motor was unbelievable
To answer the OP's question, ford wanted a "Modular" system where they could build mulitple engines for multiple platforms with the same basic parts and castings/manfuacture procedure. To understand how big of an advantage this is you need to understand how a factory setup works.
The more parts you build, the cheaper they are to build, the better you can build them (over time it improves) and the faster you can build them. If you can use a engine or even engine family in more than one platform, you can see how many more parts you could make and how much cheaper/faster it could be.
Ford decided the best way to do this would be to build an engine that would share many similar componets over different setups/displacement, and decided that the 4.6/5.4 etc systems would best suit their needs.
BTW, I always find it funny that the main people usually complaining about how much easyer and cheaper it is to build a 5.0 only have bolton only 2v cars. I raced plenty of bolton only 5.0Ls with my bolton only 4.6L, and none of them were anywhere close. IMO the 4.6L even in built engine form would make more power than the 5.0L IF the aftermarket support for true aftermarket heads were there... unforutnatly they are not. Try making big power from a 5.0L on the stock (even ported etc)e7 heads....
04-21-2008, 08:40 PM
#16
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 4,951
RE: Why did Ford go with the 4.6?
ORIGINAL: jlw2387
Are you seriously saying a motor thats been around since 91 is gonna have better after market support than the 5.0 which has been around since 68 and is Fords most popular engine ever. Yeah the 4.6 has come along way in recent years, but if Ford went the LSx way and kept the 5.0L/5.8L, we'd be in a better position.
ORIGINAL: 2000GT4.6
Try making a5.0L make more than 500 WHP on the stock block/internals... and then after you buy an afteramarket 5.0L block (forget the internals)come tell me that a shortblock for a 4.6L is expensive.
To answer the OP's question, ford wanted a "Modular" system where they could build mulitple engines for multiple platforms with the same basic parts and castings/manfuacture procedure. To understand how big of an advantage this is you need to understand how a factory setup works.
The more parts you build, the cheaper they are to build, the better you can build them (over time it improves) and the faster you can build them. If you can use a engine or even engine family in more than one platform, you can see how many more parts you could make and how much cheaper/faster it could be.
Ford decided the best way to do this would be to build an engine that would share many similar componets over different setups/displacement, and decided that the 4.6/5.4 etc systems would best suit their needs.
BTW, I always find it funny that the main people usually complaining about how much easyer and cheaper it is to build a 5.0 only have bolton only 2v cars. I raced plenty of bolton only 5.0Ls with my bolton only 4.6L, and none of them were anywhere close. IMO the 4.6L even in built engine form would make more power than the 5.0L IF the aftermarket support for true aftermarket heads were there... unforutnatly they are not. Try making big power from a 5.0L on the stock (even ported etc)e7 heads....
ORIGINAL: jlw2387
Yeah but its was way easier to get power out of a 5.0 than a 4.6. Plus they dont **** out at 450rwhp. They both have their advantages, but unfortunately the 4.6L is more in the "economy, interchangeability" region.
ORIGINAL: 35thAnni99GT
I know. that blistering 225 hp from the 5.0 pushrod motor was unbelievable
I know. that blistering 225 hp from the 5.0 pushrod motor was unbelievable
To answer the OP's question, ford wanted a "Modular" system where they could build mulitple engines for multiple platforms with the same basic parts and castings/manfuacture procedure. To understand how big of an advantage this is you need to understand how a factory setup works.
The more parts you build, the cheaper they are to build, the better you can build them (over time it improves) and the faster you can build them. If you can use a engine or even engine family in more than one platform, you can see how many more parts you could make and how much cheaper/faster it could be.
Ford decided the best way to do this would be to build an engine that would share many similar componets over different setups/displacement, and decided that the 4.6/5.4 etc systems would best suit their needs.
BTW, I always find it funny that the main people usually complaining about how much easyer and cheaper it is to build a 5.0 only have bolton only 2v cars. I raced plenty of bolton only 5.0Ls with my bolton only 4.6L, and none of them were anywhere close. IMO the 4.6L even in built engine form would make more power than the 5.0L IF the aftermarket support for true aftermarket heads were there... unforutnatly they are not. Try making big power from a 5.0L on the stock (even ported etc)e7 heads....
Yeah, I'm sure if Ford kept in a bigger displacement, pushrod V8 in the Mustang the car would be faster, but on the other hand a good half of us here wouldn't have been able to afford the car we have right now.
04-21-2008, 11:11 PM
#17
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,721
RE: Why did Ford go with the 4.6?
Isn't the 5.0 "Cammer" motor modular? Why didn't Ford use that?
According to the books it puts out either 400hp or 500hp, I don't remember which one, but that would more than compete with the LSx motors!
According to the books it puts out either 400hp or 500hp, I don't remember which one, but that would more than compete with the LSx motors!
04-21-2008, 11:15 PM
#18
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,721
RE: Why did Ford go with the 4.6?
ORIGINAL: Xemeth
Yeah, but look how much cheaper is Mustang is compared to the Camaro/Trans-Am/etc... The whole "modular" idea is that a big number of parts can be put into not just Mustangs. The LS1 is in what, the f bodies and the Vette? The 4.6 is also in the Explorer, and I'm sure in a few other V8 Ford vehicles. Even if it is just the explorer, think about how many more Explorers are made and sold when compared to the Vette. Mustangs also outsell F bodies.
Yeah, I'm sure if Ford kept in a bigger displacement, pushrod V8 in the Mustang the car would be faster, but on the other hand a good half of us here wouldn't have been able to afford the car we have right now.
Yeah, but look how much cheaper is Mustang is compared to the Camaro/Trans-Am/etc... The whole "modular" idea is that a big number of parts can be put into not just Mustangs. The LS1 is in what, the f bodies and the Vette? The 4.6 is also in the Explorer, and I'm sure in a few other V8 Ford vehicles. Even if it is just the explorer, think about how many more Explorers are made and sold when compared to the Vette. Mustangs also outsell F bodies.
Yeah, I'm sure if Ford kept in a bigger displacement, pushrod V8 in the Mustang the car would be faster, but on the other hand a good half of us here wouldn't have been able to afford the car we have right now.
04-22-2008, 01:36 AM
#19
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Where gunshots are more common than birds chirping
Posts: 504
RE: Why did Ford go with the 4.6?
ORIGINAL: jlw2387
Are you seriously saying a motor thats been around since 91 is gonna have better after market support than the 5.0 which has been around since 68 and is Fords most popular engine ever. Yeah the 4.6 has come along way in recent years, but if Ford went the LSx way and kept the 5.0L/5.8L, we'd be in a better position.
Are you seriously saying a motor thats been around since 91 is gonna have better after market support than the 5.0 which has been around since 68 and is Fords most popular engine ever. Yeah the 4.6 has come along way in recent years, but if Ford went the LSx way and kept the 5.0L/5.8L, we'd be in a better position.
I'm sorry, but thats not even an argument, it's so speculative and no one can say FOR SURE what position Ford would be in if they had not gone modular. No one is contesting the fact that the 5.0 has better aftermarket support (actually you brought it up). 2000GT4.6 said it best
Try making a5.0L make more than 500 WHP on the stock block/internals... and then after you buy an afteramarket 5.0L block (forget the internals)come tell me that a shortblock for a 4.6L is expensive.
IF the aftermarket support for true aftermarket heads were there... unforutnatly they are not. Try making big power from a 5.0L on the stock (even ported etc)e7 heads....
04-22-2008, 02:26 AM
#20
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,731
RE: Why did Ford go with the 4.6?
ORIGINAL: silverstang1996
No, that is my question, how can they call this efficient? The 4.6 OHC motor is a terrible thought to be efficient. A 4.6 V8 with only 225, 260, now (which is a lot better) 300. How could Ford call this motor efficient when counterpart GM, as I stated, make more HP, more MPG, and even with more Liters! And lets not even delve into the efficiency of modding these engines, it just gets even worse..
ORIGINAL: lizzyfan
Kinda answered your own question
ORIGINAL: silverstang1996
Just as the title says, I've been wondering why Ford ever swapped over from 5.0? I mean the 5.0 isn't really that great to start with but what's even good about a 4.6? They say they switched it over because it's more efficient, but I really don't understand how they can say this engine is efficient when GM introduced the LSx engines where they are about a whole liter larger, almost 100hp more, and they still can get like 30mpg, which is better than I can even imagine in my car. So could someone please educate me on this?
Just as the title says, I've been wondering why Ford ever swapped over from 5.0? I mean the 5.0 isn't really that great to start with but what's even good about a 4.6? They say they switched it over because it's more efficient, but I really don't understand how they can say this engine is efficient when GM introduced the LSx engines where they are about a whole liter larger, almost 100hp more, and they still can get like 30mpg, which is better than I can even imagine in my car. So could someone please educate me on this?
I mean think about it, we have 281CID=300hp , their base form F-body has 350CID=350-400hp. That just seems terribly innefficient to me