I don't feel 265HP is/was enough in the 2001 Bullitt, although torque was nicely improved. And yes, I'm talking about under-the-hood power. A DOHC like in your Mach 1 (massaged a bit) would work quite nicely. A "special" engine with some real development work and for a limited run only. This could extent to other SE's as well. I would think that current GT/CS owners are more interested in "the look" of the stripes, badging, hood scoop, etc., than the low-profiled look of the Bullitt. Could be wrong, but I think it's a totally different appeal here. GM and Chrysler are going to be offering some fine V-8's with some good power numbers. I may just have to hop the fence, although I don't want to. I'll check in to Mr.Saleen's 5.0 3-valve and see what the scoop is on it. Sounds interesting...............I sure hope you're right, thinking that Ford may have an ear to the ground on their behalf. Who knows for sure?

 

After we got over getting our feathers ruffled and conforming to the lack of expected performance, the '01 BULLITT turned out to be well balanced, sort of a happy medium you might say. It was labeled "The Best GT Ever" which I agree up to the time that the torch was passed to the '05 GT.

It would be good to have our wishes realized but conforming to whatever the final product turns out to be will not be difficult plus it will not lack the fun factor and if the price tag turns out to be under $35K by today's standards it will not be that bad a deal cosidering the Shelby GT and its price increase will be at $41K without it being fully optioned.

 

It is my understanding the variable valve timing was set more for that reason. I also believe the cost/complexity factor would have influenced this design choice for the heads. It is the combination of the tuning, flow characteristics, valve configurations, and intake manifolds that have to meet both emissions as well as power considerations.


In the article in 5.0 Mustang Magazine, it was discussed specifically that the pistons were replaced and shortened to deal with the potential for sticking up out of the cylinder. While I am not an engineer nor have built my own engine, there seemed to be a lot of thought into to meet a higher power levels while working within the architecture. I personally would not call it "junk" unless we start to see engine failures. I don't think Saleen has that reputation

 

considering that the 4.6 3 valve heads do not flow worth a dime ford did not worry about the power output. as you correctly state its about producing a head that is emissions friendly and cheap.

the qoute from fourcam is about the actual components used in this motor and how it was designed. there is no speculation in his answer. and with his knowledge and friends from around the industry i will trust his info on how to correctly build up an engine.

 

If you are talking about its potential being in the 400hp range, then I would agree those heads are not the right ones for that. I suppose this depends on one's defintion of what is considered good flow charateristics.


I have read his posts on SVTperformance and am aware of his in-depth knowledge. I've learned a lot from them. I went back to the article again to verify what I mentioned previously, and I saw that I was incorrect - it had to do with the piston and ring fit not the height. Again, I would not pronounce it "junk" but as a design that is falling within certain constraints.

The bottom line is that I think both of us would love to see an output level like the Saleen engine from Ford. Given it appears that it might not be in the Bullitt, one can only hope for the next Mustang refresh as the point where revised heads and whatever else Ford will do happens!

 

the bottom line is that if you want power from the 4.6 3 valve you will not be able to get it n/a. the 03 mach 1 engine is a much better starting point if you want n/a power. and this is the reason ford is looking at the 5.8, 6.0, and 6.2 in future mustangs.

but all is mute if you dont mind forced induction. one can purchase a new mustang gt and kenne bell with intercooler for under $35k.

 

Assuming we see those engine programs come to fruition for Mustang, the larger displacement will a boon to the production of low and midrange torque, which counts for a lot. I'd rather have the grunt around town!

I suppose if Ford supercharged the 4.6L 3-valve engine, folks would maybe cry "foul", but the end result obviously would be fun.

 

that is where the competition will be in 09 and beyond. i like massive head pounding torque as much as the next guy but one must admit there only so much a car can handle without just spinning its wheels.

the cts v is a very nice car today(used ones are selling for $30k) and with a little work they are over 500 crank hp n/a! a n/a mustang that can do that would be sweet!