Mustang GT-R Cconcept Technical Specifications
#41
Originally posted by PaperTarget@Apr. 7th, 2004, 9:50 AM
I just don't see the 4V head coming back on any 4.6L motor for two big reasons:
1) The 3V flows the same
2) The 4V doesn't have VVT
The 3V head is better, period. Nobody is going to want to buy a Special Edition Mustang if the regular GT has better techology. I think it would be more likely that you'd see a 4.6L 3V S/C motor than a 4V. VVT makes up for the low end torque loss of the 4V head.
I just don't see the 4V head coming back on any 4.6L motor for two big reasons:
1) The 3V flows the same
2) The 4V doesn't have VVT
The 3V head is better, period. Nobody is going to want to buy a Special Edition Mustang if the regular GT has better techology. I think it would be more likely that you'd see a 4.6L 3V S/C motor than a 4V. VVT makes up for the low end torque loss of the 4V head.
Ford has already said that they will continue development of 4V modular motors. VCT will be added to the 4V head soon. Expect a VCT equipped 4V head this decade.
People don't give a rats behind which head has "better technology", if the 4V is making more power. Ask people in Australia who own a Falcon GT or XR8 if they care that the base Falcon has VCT.
#42
Originally posted by PaperTarget@Apr. 7th, 2004, 9:14 AM
I think a n/a 4.6L with 3V heads can hit 350 hp without a problem as long as they up the compression and switch to premium (91+ octane).
I think a n/a 4.6L with 3V heads can hit 350 hp without a problem as long as they up the compression and switch to premium (91+ octane).
#43
Originally posted by mkoesel@Apr. 7th, 2004, 9:19 AM
It's somewhat naive to compare the all-new 3V modular head to the relatively-unchanged-for-5-years 4V modular head, and conclude that the 4V head is going away on the 4.6L
Ford has already said that they will continue development of 4V modular motors. VCT will be added to the 4V head soon. Expect a VCT equipped 4V head this decade.
People don't give a rats behind which head has "better technology", if the 4V is making more power. Ask people in Australia who own a Falcon GT or XR8 if they care that the base Falcon has VCT.
It's somewhat naive to compare the all-new 3V modular head to the relatively-unchanged-for-5-years 4V modular head, and conclude that the 4V head is going away on the 4.6L
Ford has already said that they will continue development of 4V modular motors. VCT will be added to the 4V head soon. Expect a VCT equipped 4V head this decade.
People don't give a rats behind which head has "better technology", if the 4V is making more power. Ask people in Australia who own a Falcon GT or XR8 if they care that the base Falcon has VCT.
What's naive about it? It's a comparison. People have been comparing it to the 2V head too, are they naive? :angry:
Anyway, I have no doubt that Ford with update the 4V head to VCT. My point was strictly that no one with common sense would want a 4V head without VCT over a lighter 3V head that flows the same with VCT. Which would you choose if you had the choice??? I'd pick the better head - the 3V.
You Australian arguement doesn't really apply here in the States. They have 5.4L motors, not 4.6L. Plus, they already have VCT on their 4V heads.
#44
I just don't see alot of interest in a 350hp SE model that is just a mildly pumped up version of the regular GT's engine. The only way i see that sort of SE selling is in a Bullitt type car with no more than a $3,000 premium over the normal GT's price.
#45
Originally posted by PaperTarget@Apr. 7th, 2004, 12:15 PM
BTW, I was speaking specifically about the Mustang...
BTW, I was speaking specifically about the Mustang...
What's naive about it?
It's a comparison.
"I just don't see the 4V head coming back on any 4.6L motor for two big reasons:
1) The 3V flows the same
2) The 4V doesn't have VVT"
You said on any 4.6L motor. If that's not what you meant, fine. But your words certainly imply that you were including all 4.6L motors from here and into the future.
People have been comparing it to the 2V head too, are they naive? :angry:
Anyway, I have no doubt that Ford with update the 4V head to VCT. My point was strictly that no one with common sense would want a 4V head without VCT over a lighter 3V head that flows the same with VCT.
doesn't really matter that the 3V heads have "better technology". Obviously
the supercharged 4V will have better performance.
Which would you choose if you had the choice??? I'd pick the better head - the 3V.
You Australian arguement doesn't really apply here in the States. They have 5.4L motors, not 4.6L.
So, are you saying that, if the Mustang motors were 5.4L, then you would not automatically prefer the 3V head? Why not?
Plus, they already have VCT on their 4V heads.
#46
You didn't say that, but I still disagree anyway.
The naivete I was refering to was the implication made by your words, that the 4V heads would not be updated. You've changed your tune in the post I'm responding to here, but obviously I was making my statements based on your original post.
Its a poor one.
You said on any 4.6L motor. If that's not what you meant, fine. But your words certainly imply that you were including all 4.6L motors from here and into the future.
What if the 4V was supercharged? That's a very real possibility. So now, it doesn't really matter that the 3V heads have "better technology". Obviously
the supercharged 4V will have better performance.
the supercharged 4V will have better performance.
I'd never build a modular motor without 4V heads. Of course, I'd use FR500 or Navigator heads, which will outflow the 3V heads handily.
Why does engine displacement matter here at all?
So, are you saying that, if the Mustang motors were 5.4L, then you would not automatically prefer the 3V head? Why not?
Nope not on the modular they don't. 4V Heads are the same ones we use here.
#47
Originally posted by PaperTarget@Apr. 7th, 2004, 2:01 PM
The whole thread has been about Mustangs, I was clarifying it to make sure you understood.
Just to clarify this point, I don't see the CURRENT (and only ones I know of at this point) 4V heads on the 4.6L coming back on a Mustang.
So basically what it boils down to then is that the 4.6L 4V found in the Mach I will not make it into an S197. And had you just said that, I'd have agreed. But you didn't say that. And somehow I don't think you meant your words to be that specific at that time either. But that's neither here not there now.
Again, not really. Stay in context.
Ok, but I wasn't talking about a s/c motor. If the 3V was s/c I'd still pick it because it would be better on the low end.
Those aren't the same 4V heads we've been talking about are they???
never build a modular without 4V heads. Even if my choice were the current stock 3V or 4V heads, I'd still choose the 4V heads. However, I would do so only because the 4V heads have a more established aftermarket.
"Why does engine displacement matter here at all?"
You tell me.
You tell me.
Why does it matter if the 3V heads flow the same as the 4V heads?
If the 3V heads flow the same as 4V heads and have VCT where the 4V heads don't, I'd pick the 3V heads.
Come on man, now you're just lying for the sake of supporting your argument.
I'll have to check into that. Someone brought heads over from there and put them on a 5.4L here (they were VCT) but they didn't have the ability to use the VCT technology on them. I'll see if I can't find the story.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MRGTX
2012-2013 BOSS 302
12
8/7/15 08:29 AM