ski

Then you're all set. You're welcome.

boomee

anyways back to what we were talking about before how do you all feel about the reliablity of the 4.6

WhiteNoise

i started kinda like u, the 4.6 gives u more power all around and it responds great to mods. the only thing is, is that the mustang is slugish in the turns and gearing alwayse needs changing. the motors are stout ! you get more per dollar then the small compacts.

Riptide

I'm not so sure the 4.6 responds to mods that well. How many mods for it produce over 20whp gains? Not many. And look at the costs involved. Cams? Headers? Driveshafts? Yikes. Those aren't cheap at all when you consider the minimal gains you get out of them.

The only two mods that are IMO a good deal would be the CAI/Tune and gears.

shoeys08dkcandygt

when i had my car dyno tuned the sheet stated that at 1500-2k rpms i have 250rwtq and it peaks at 304 around 4800rpms. just took a 8 hr road trip to new orleans last week and took my cai and tune off so i wouldnt have to pay for 93 the whole way down and back. and man what a differnce the tune makes. while stock it felt like i was just barely gettin off the line and out of the hole. but once the rpms got to 3k she would start pulling like crazy. needless to say to the c&l racer and tune is going back on soon. hate not being able to downshift without the car jerking. the dyno tune turned off the throttle response. which is a huge must in any tune.

boomee

thanks for the comments guys i appreciate them

deekum1627

its not that the motor is missing tq down low i think its more of the crappy gears in the car

Norm Peterson

Relative to its displacement, it really does have decent low-end torque, seems much better than in the 1960's carbureted 289's. But remember that it's only got 281 cubic inches to work with, so on an absolute scale it's only medium-good at best. Lots better than under-3 liter fours and sixes, nowhere near as good as 427+ CID V8's, so what you're coming into this car from is going to have a lot to do with your first impressions.

You have to blame 5% (about one step) of what you "need" in the available axle gear ratios on those 27" tall tires, not the engine. IOW, you need 3.55 vs 3.31 (or 3.73 vs 3.55, or 4.10 vs 3.90) just to stay even with the same car if it came with 245/45-17's. Part of the price you pay when appearance overrides engineering at the OE level.


Norm

boomee

hmmm i see never thought of it like that.