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

3v bottom end vs. 2v

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-01-2009, 11:41 PM
  #1  
jawsgt
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
jawsgt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location:
Posts: 406
Default 3v bottom end vs. 2v

y is the 3v able to run 475+ rwhp and tq but not a 2v? it was my understanding that they shared the bottom end. hell even fords whipple kit dyno's 475 at the tires and they have no problems with it.
jawsgt is offline  
Old 04-02-2009, 12:11 AM
  #2  
2000AZ5.0GT
5th Gear Member
 
2000AZ5.0GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,731
Default

Originally Posted by jawsgt
y is the 3v able to run 475+ rwhp and tq but not a 2v? it was my understanding that they shared the bottom end. hell even fords whipple kit dyno's 475 at the tires and they have no problems with it.

well from my understanding, without knowing the exact specifications of the 3V bottom end, it would be because the top end is so much more efficient.

I think a ported set of 3V heads flows somewhere around 320CFM, a SUPER port job on a 2V is around 240CFM, with stock numbers about 80CFM less.

So I would imagine they can make more power because it's putting less stress on the bottom end when doing so. I still don't know how safe they would be at that level .
2000AZ5.0GT is offline  
Old 04-02-2009, 12:27 AM
  #3  
SVTeeshirt
5th Gear Member
 
SVTeeshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 4,955
Default

seems the safe level on s197s is right around 500whp... idk maybe robs theory is right, or maybe they use a different mix of sillicone and other metals.
SVTeeshirt is offline  
Old 04-02-2009, 12:28 AM
  #4  
GTRACER88
5th Gear Member
 
GTRACER88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 2,112
Default

My guess too would be efficiency. Its like a GT vs Mach 1. Same bottom end but at 10 psi the mach one makes much more power than a GT at the same amount of boost due to its greater effiency, and greater compression ratio... but leave this part out for this sake. And i thought the rods were different in the s197...?
GTRACER88 is offline  
Old 04-02-2009, 01:16 AM
  #5  
cobra dreamer
2nd Gear Member
 
cobra dreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ma
Posts: 308
Default

allso the 03 dont have the weak connecting rods like the 2v and yes there heads flow WAY better than the 2v which plays a huge role in why they make more power
and i believe the whole rotating assembly is forged in the 3 v also
cobra dreamer is offline  
Old 04-02-2009, 01:20 AM
  #6  
2000AZ5.0GT
5th Gear Member
 
2000AZ5.0GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,731
Default

Originally Posted by cobra dreamer
allso the 03 dont have the weak connecting rods like the 2v and yes there heads flow WAY better than the 2v which plays a huge role in why they make more power
and i believe the whole rotating assembly is forged in the 3 v also
everything except the last part is true.

they DO NOT have a forged rotating assembly. if they did, you'd be seeing 900+rwhp 3Vs on the stock block
2000AZ5.0GT is offline  
Old 04-02-2009, 02:05 AM
  #7  
pcs
4th Gear Member
 
pcs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: yuma, az
Posts: 1,252
Default

i saw an article on hot rod mag (i think) where they talked about all the improvements ford made to the engine over the previous 2v engine. i remember them showing how the pistons had been improved with a coating on them and the bearing system was improved, ect. more hp through better efficiency
pcs is offline  
Old 04-02-2009, 01:32 PM
  #8  
Fobra
Banned
 
Fobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location:
Posts: 4,064
Default

Originally Posted by 2000AZ5.0GT
well from my understanding, without knowing the exact specifications of the 3V bottom end, it would be because the top end is so much more efficient.

I think a ported set of 3V heads flows somewhere around 320CFM, a SUPER port job on a 2V is around 240CFM, with stock numbers about 80CFM less.

So I would imagine they can make more power because it's putting less stress on the bottom end when doing so. I still don't know how safe they would be at that level .

280 cfm ported around 220ish stock.... the heads are the difference

pretty sure there is no difference in the rods
Fobra is offline  
Old 04-02-2009, 01:52 PM
  #9  
Brute03
5th Gear Member
 
Brute03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,504
Default

i guess i'll play devil's advocate

how would more efficient heads allow the bottom end to hold more power? if that was the case, the 4v would be able to make more power than the 2v before something breaks... but we all know they have similar max HP limits

so i'm just saying as far as the 3v is concerned, it's probably more than just the heads
Brute03 is offline  
Old 04-02-2009, 02:06 PM
  #10  
amoosenamedhank
5th Gear Member
 
amoosenamedhank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MN
Posts: 4,412
Default

The theory that they are using is, with more efficient heads you will lessen the strain on the short block. Instead of dumping 13lbs of boost into the cylinder to make 500hp, you might only need to use 8lbs. Lower cc pressure, lower stress on the rotating assembly.
amoosenamedhank is offline  


Quick Reply: 3v bottom end vs. 2v



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:03 AM.