regular or premium?
2/24/13, 09:21 PM
#61
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To bad the 03-04 cobras were a new edge. How can you be sad about that engine? They could handle 800 reliably and last I checked you do a pully swap and exhaust and that's more than enough to be faster than a slowmaro. Yet again swap the supercharger for 1-2k with a tune and you have a monster. But I'm sorry that engine makes you sad....
2/24/13, 09:23 PM
#63
Banned
Join Date: July 4, 2012
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you stupid? The new edge mustang raped the old 5.0. The old 5.0 had all of 220hp. Not to mention the 4.6 modular engines are just plain better. For instance the 4.6 cobras were better than the old 5.0 cobras by a lot. In 03-04 forget about it that car ****s on any old 5.0 mustang and with few mods are faster than the new 5.0. The only reason people use the old 5.0 is that the parts are dirt cheap.
2/24/13, 09:24 PM
#64
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2/24/13, 09:25 PM
#66
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 16, 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To bad the 03-04 cobras were a new edge. How can you be sad about that engine? They could handle 800 reliably and last I checked you do a pully swap and exhaust and that's more than enough to be faster than a slowmaro. Yet again swap the supercharger for 1-2k with a tune and you have a monster. But I'm sorry that engine makes you sad....
2/24/13, 09:29 PM
#67
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes we were talking about the 2v 4.6 and then someone said everything started getting slower after they took the 5.0 away....yeah no stock power outputs were up. The new edge made 60 more hp stock and 40 more torque. I think the 4.6 is a little better than the slowrod 5.0 of the past. Not to mention 6k will get the 2v to 1000+ hp you just need forged internals and a better tranny and rear end. By your logic your saying unless a car can do a lot from basic bolt of there's no point in getting it. If that was true than no one would buy the old 5.0's or the new edge or 05+ mustangs.
Last edited by TheMuffinMan; 2/24/13 at 09:31 PM.
2/24/13, 09:29 PM
#68
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 22, 2012
Location: Ontario, California
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
17 Posts
Some people lack the basic manners required to have a conversation. Any difference of opinion from their own is automatically stupid or wrong. It's sad that common courtesy is incredibly uncommon.
2/24/13, 09:31 PM
#69
Banned
Join Date: July 4, 2012
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It also was posting slightly slower 1/4 mile times than the outgoing 5.0.
Then for a bit in the regular GT crowd things were kinda... meh. plenty of faster cars for the money (new), but hell.. it was a Mustang. It's special. You have to own one to understand it. Then the new edge came around, but still at the same MSRP was outclassed in power, but still had something special about it. S197 came, power up again, whole new chassis. Outgunned in some ways especially power wise, but the car had some genuine soul to it that just made it an amazing ride to have. Then the '10 restyle and re-engineer of many components. Power was also bumped a hair. Closing the gap.
5.0 comes. /game over. just an amazing car to own and drive and EXPERIENCE. Doesn't sound as good as the wheezy '96 GT, but I think the 200hp power difference makes up for it.
Last edited by TheDivaDanielle; 2/24/13 at 09:37 PM.
2/24/13, 09:34 PM
#70
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No she's just calling the 2v mustangs a pointless car and that the modular 4.6 is a bad engine. That being said it is not a bad engine at all. Compared to say a corvette engine yes it would be. But your not looking at the fact that the Ls engine was built for the corvette not the camaro. Chevy just got lazy and stuffed a expensive engine in a pile of duky. If we are arguing what makes a better engine based on how fast it goes and what it makes mod for mod then why do people build up v6 mustangs with turbos that rape our v8's? WHY THE HELL ARE WE FIGHTING OVER WHAT ENGINE IS BETTER WHEN PEOPLE BUILD UP WHAT THEY WANT AND THERE'S SMALLER ENGINES PUTTING US TO SHAME? It makes no sense to even argue what is and isn't a good engine or car. Maybe stock wise yes but we wouldn't be car people if we kept things STOCK. Also the old 5.0 did the 1/4 mile in high 14 low 15 stock that is in no way faster than the new edge mustangs stock for stock.
Last edited by TheMuffinMan; 2/24/13 at 09:39 PM.
2/24/13, 09:43 PM
#71
Banned
Join Date: July 4, 2012
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Chevy made the Corvette engine for the Corvette"
No. General Motors created the LS engine for the same reason that Ford created the modular engines. The old motors were 30+ years old and couldn't keep up with the technology and better practices learned over the years and needed to be engineered differently.
The engine was NOT built for the Corvette. To say that is a broad oversight. They built it for what actually makes them money. The trucks. The SUVs. the coupes, the mass moving sedans, and the utes. While the aim for higher power was directed at the Corvettes, the Camaros and everything under the HSV banner, the LS series was for making their engines last longer, have better emissions control and technological advances, and to eliminate what was no longer needed. Improved power was just a byproduct.
The difference is that by design the modular motors are large. Much more than a pushrod engine. That created packaging issues. Henceforth while the Mustang had to go with a smaller engine. the 5.4 didn't fit. This is part of why in GMs case, power values jumped up drastically.
In the case of the F150 the old 5.0 had 200hp then the switch and it had 235hp. If the 5.4 had fit in the Mustang, no doubt that with different intake and possibly a different head/compression config it would have hit about 250-260 right off the bat.
Unfortunately the preferred engine didn't fit.
No. General Motors created the LS engine for the same reason that Ford created the modular engines. The old motors were 30+ years old and couldn't keep up with the technology and better practices learned over the years and needed to be engineered differently.
The engine was NOT built for the Corvette. To say that is a broad oversight. They built it for what actually makes them money. The trucks. The SUVs. the coupes, the mass moving sedans, and the utes. While the aim for higher power was directed at the Corvettes, the Camaros and everything under the HSV banner, the LS series was for making their engines last longer, have better emissions control and technological advances, and to eliminate what was no longer needed. Improved power was just a byproduct.
The difference is that by design the modular motors are large. Much more than a pushrod engine. That created packaging issues. Henceforth while the Mustang had to go with a smaller engine. the 5.4 didn't fit. This is part of why in GMs case, power values jumped up drastically.
In the case of the F150 the old 5.0 had 200hp then the switch and it had 235hp. If the 5.4 had fit in the Mustang, no doubt that with different intake and possibly a different head/compression config it would have hit about 250-260 right off the bat.
Unfortunately the preferred engine didn't fit.
Last edited by TheDivaDanielle; 2/24/13 at 09:55 PM.
2/24/13, 09:45 PM
#72
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Chevy made the Corvette engine for the Corvette"
No. General Motors created the LS engine for the same reason that Ford created the modular engines. The old motors were 30+ years old and couldn't keep up with the technology and better practices learned over the years and needed to be engineered differently.
The engine was NOT built for the Corvette. To say that is a broad oversight. They built it for what actually makes them money. The trucks. The SUVs. the coupes, the mass moving sedans, and the utes. While the aim for higher power was directed at the Corvettes, the Camaros and everything under the HSV banner, the LS series was for making their engines last longer, have better emissions control and technological advances, and to eliminate what was no longer needed. Improved power was just a byproduct.
No. General Motors created the LS engine for the same reason that Ford created the modular engines. The old motors were 30+ years old and couldn't keep up with the technology and better practices learned over the years and needed to be engineered differently.
The engine was NOT built for the Corvette. To say that is a broad oversight. They built it for what actually makes them money. The trucks. The SUVs. the coupes, the mass moving sedans, and the utes. While the aim for higher power was directed at the Corvettes, the Camaros and everything under the HSV banner, the LS series was for making their engines last longer, have better emissions control and technological advances, and to eliminate what was no longer needed. Improved power was just a byproduct.
2/24/13, 09:51 PM
#74
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stock there better but after mods it's all about what you do to it that was my point. To say a engine is bad based on the fact it doesn't produce as much power stock is stupid. Just like it's stupid to say the 1994 GT's are faster the the 1999-04 GT's the numbers don't add up to those claims when comparing them stock for stock. The old 5.0 was a high 14-low 15 second car.
2/24/13, 09:54 PM
#75
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 16, 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stock there better but after mods it's all about what you do to it that was my point. To say a engine is bad based on the fact it doesn't produce as much power stock is stupid. Just like it's stupid to say the 1994 GT's are faster the the 1999-04 GT's the numbers don't add up to those claims when comparing them stock for stock. The old 5.0 was a high 14-low 15 second car.
2/24/13, 09:57 PM
#78
Banned
Join Date: July 4, 2012
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't this the 2010-2014 section anyway?
BTW...
http://www.stangtv.com/features/edit...g-get-its-due/
BTW...
http://www.stangtv.com/features/edit...g-get-its-due/
Last edited by TheDivaDanielle; 2/24/13 at 09:58 PM.
2/24/13, 10:00 PM
#80
Banned
Join Date: July 4, 2012
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if you don't care... I'll tell you. It was worlds better than the *older* 150ish HP 3.8, and matched the f-body v6's perfectly. I actually prefer that 3.8 over the buick 3.8 that was in the f-bodies.