Wonder what could have been... Reply #15 – January 21, 2008, 11:02:49 PM http://youtube.com/watch?v=OuDkwTk1lP8&feature=relatedaero thats the best gto one i found o man makes me actually think about buying a chevy product! Quote Selected
Wonder what could have been... Reply #16 – January 21, 2008, 11:31:57 PM I guess it just depends on the car. Stuffing a 4.6 in a 1983-85 car makes more sense due to the car's lighter weight. Personally I wouldn't mind one of those.Taking Carm's point a little further, there is something inherently primitive about our cars. They are the dividing line between old-school and ultra-modern, and I'm not just talking about looks. Sure, the bodies were slick, and some of the manufacturing techniques were relatively new at the time, but otherwise the cars have parts and principles that dated back to the 1970's, even the late 1960's for some components. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are officially 'archaic' now. It just makes sense to stuff in an old engine vs. a later model one. Our cars were built for them...built around them.What we are lucky for, though, is that we can do newer engine swaps if we want to, all thanks to the SN95 platform. At the very least, this gives us at least 10 more years' worth of parts and engines for a potential transplant into our cars. But with all the federal regulations that kicked in (OBD-II), the EEC-V system, and features that our cars lacked (modern ABS, air bags, etc.), the most difficult aspect isn't really the motor...it's the wiring. So long as there are companies to make stand-alone engine management a reality for older cars (think hot rods), we'll be okay.For the foreseeable future we'll probably be alright with older engine swaps also. I mean, you can still buy a new 302 block, you can get a stroker kit or even a pre-stroked motor, there are kits to drop in a 460...it's still an open world. The sands of time may tick by faster now but that doesn't mean we're totally lost in those sands. Besides, as mentioned here, even a GM motor would work. We have super modern hot rod potential!!!1!Personally I think there's going to be a very big market in the next decade for some kind of conversion kits for alternative fuels. Once the E85 infrastructure is solidified across North America, there will be a great opportunity for the enterprising to offer legitimate conversion kits for internal combustion engines to run on ethanol. Actually, if you think about it, hot rodding almost certainly has to go that direction. It is a stop-gap measure, no doubt, but it would help. Already Detroit is embracing it with concept cars; the '08 Indy Pace Corvette runs on E85. Plus you have all the numerous GM vehicles that already have the capability. So once this catches on we could techinically be right back in the thick of things and have a great opportunity to be "cutting edge" again. And let's face it: the engines from our era burned dirty. We can use some newer technology to help us there. Another option would be electric conversions...ironic, though, since Fords from our era are notorious for a myriad of electrical problems. :rolleyes: But still, if there was a way to stuff a 200hp electric setup under the hood of my '84, I'd be first in line. Even a hybrid-style electric generator kit would sell well if the electronic management system can be standardized. Believe me, someone's going to do this and make a lot of money. It's all just a matter of time now.So in short, we're far from being irrelevant. There are good things around the corner.As for the modular motors...I've only seen a handful of people that have actually attempted it. Why is that? Is it the electronics? The cost? The extra work? Who knows. It's been over a decade of mod motors and they haven't exactly caught on like wildfire. If you have stupid throwaway money they can be a great project though. I'd never knock anyone that took the time to do it the correct way. Again, you get the right lightweight car and that can be a lot of fun.Ford's ideas with their motors are hit and miss. They seem to be content being 2-3 years behind what GM is doing. I do like the potential of the new EcoBoost engines and hopefully they'll continue to grow their V6 and V8 programs to be competitive. But they really dropped the ball in the last 10 years and it's going to be difficult to make that back up, plus make a desirable engine series. You have to remember that whatever is under the Mustang's hood is going to be considered "legendary". Ford absolutely cannot screw up their signature car's powerplant. So you'll be guaranteed at least one fairly stout engine from them in the future. Quote Selected
Wonder what could have been... Reply #17 – January 22, 2008, 12:09:15 AM All the MN-12 guys go around taking shiznit about the 4.6 in their cars. I always like that my 5.0 with stock Ford parts (Explorer) makes more power than their *modded* 4.6s with PI heads.I've driven 4.6 powered cars and I haven't been particulary impressed. I mean hell my 5.0 will wind to 6,000 rpm no problem. Why the hell can't a 4.6 wind much higher than that. It's an OHC engine after all......... Quote Selected
Wonder what could have been... Reply #18 – January 22, 2008, 12:35:18 AM I've owned my '96 (4.6) for nearly four years now, and I've never really gotten into modifying it. I installed a Dynomax cat-back kit to make it actually sound like a V8, and I had a performance chip in it for a few months.Other than that, I just drive the thing. It's been the most reliable car I've ever owned, and that's exactly how I see it - not as a pavement-scorching weekend warrior.The only other MN12 that I've had a strong desire to own would be a '91 XR7. It has the most attractive front end, a monochromatic paint scheme, and most of all - a HO 5.0.Quote from: thunderjet302;199215All the MN-12 guys go around taking shiznit about the 4.6 in their cars...You will see that a lot over at TCCoA. There are some members there who have had me fuming in the past. Some of them are just really, really dumb. Quote Selected
Wonder what could have been... Reply #19 – January 22, 2008, 01:27:15 AM I always thought the OHV motor could be more potent then the pushrod motor due to less valvetrain work and resistants. Remember the ford cammer motor it was banned from nascar. I think the problem w/the 4.6 is the bore and stoke not enough bore and to much stroke I don’t know I’m not an engineer.On the brighter side I read this somewhere and I believe it and that is the 79-93 fox stangs are the today’s 55-57 chevys a dime a dozen that’s why everyone dose them that good for use since there kind of our cousin. And as for the EFI 5.0s there kind of the first step into the fuel injection world in 86’ and ford did a great job when other were still running carbs for how long after. Quote Selected
Wonder what could have been... Reply #20 – January 22, 2008, 08:02:00 AM Quote from: daboss351;199177what are you talking about? since when do the 4.6l sound like a 6?When they were in my father-in-law's pristine Crown Vic and F-150. What can I say? There was no rumble and all you heard was valvetrain. I've heard more excitement from a tractor.You don't have to like it guys, but that's my opinion of the 4.6. My gutless POS 305 sounded better than most stock 4.6's. Quote Selected
Wonder what could have been... Reply #21 – January 22, 2008, 08:55:31 AM QuoteI drive a "260HP P.I. 2V SOHC" and it barely keeps up with an LT1 Impala from 7 years before it!No, you drive a 239 HP version :hick: I know I'm splitting hairs!QuoteYou want a 2001 or newerStay away from the '06-up unless you want to play with it on the dyno. The electronic throttle settings on most of them make them feel even slower than the earlier ones.QuoteAll the MN-12 guys go around taking shiznit about the 4.6 in their cars. A non-pi 2v 205 HP motor in a 3800 lb car with absolutely no room under the hood? Hmmm....Yeah I'll take 12:hick: Quotethere is something inherently primitive about our cars. They are the dividing line between old-school and ultra-modernWell put! My car(to me anyway) has good looks compared with anything on the road and still gives that feeling of having it's own pulse when I drive it. I can "feel" what it conveys to me. This is something my Mustang (and almost every other car I've driven) is lacking. I can actually tell the difference in exhaust note between a 2V, 3V, and 4V 4.6, stock exhaust or not.Listen to this: http://videos.streetfire.net/category/Ford/20/4329fcc6-d375-4eae-9544-993e018210c1.htm Quote Selected
Wonder what could have been... Reply #22 – January 22, 2008, 08:58:42 AM Ya know I gotta say now that I think about it my mom's '02 Explorer does sound a lot like that, I've always wondered why there was so much noise from under there. :hick: Quote Selected
Wonder what could have been... Reply #23 – January 22, 2008, 09:30:59 AM 239/250/260, they're all dog slow :(I forgot about the electronic throttle though, good point.My 4.6 better pray it never dies. Because something much bigger and better would go in it's place... Quote Selected
Wonder what could have been... Reply #24 – January 22, 2008, 09:40:23 AM Quote from: Innes;199226On the brighter side I read this somewhere and I believe it and that is the 79-93 fox stangs are the today’s 55-57 chevys I thought the Honda Civic was today's 55-57 Chevy? (that's what some dumbass import mag said, probably sport compact car :rolleyes: )Anyway I still like my archaic 2.3 that all the car mags poo-pooed back in the day, although I also have yet to own a vehicle with a gas V8 in it. At least you V8 guys, mod motor or windsor, have some kind of aftermarket to work with! Quote Selected
Wonder what could have been... Reply #25 – January 22, 2008, 09:49:11 AM Quote from: Aerobird Motorsports;199259239/250/260, they're all dog slow :(I forgot about the electronic throttle though, good point.My 4.6 better pray it never dies. Because something much bigger and better would go in it's place...They're just in cars that are too heavy...a 2V 4.6 with Patriot heads, stage 2 cams and stuffed into something lighter ('83 T-Bird?) would be nice. Add a 5 speed and 3.73's:burnout: Quote Selected
Wonder what could have been... Reply #26 – January 22, 2008, 09:58:12 AM Except at that cost, an LS1/T56 could be had with Patriot heads and a real cam and make 500+ HP. And still fit easier!!! Or honestly even a serious (400+HP) 302/331/347/351 and fit even easier still.There's a few 460's and even a V10 (bad idea, all of the weight, none of the power) in CV's. The engine isn't bad in the CV, it's just short-winded. Mine will jump off of the line great and bark 2nd, but once it hits 3rd it just lays over and plays dead. What's the point of a cammer if it can't rev? John's GTO goes to 6400 stock! It's probably so disappointing because it has potential (ala 03/04 Cobra). But when you add in horrible head flow (on the 2V's), two different architectures (Romeo/Windsor), 4 plug threads (STILL to this day on the CV's!!! How many more plugs have to be blown out of the things for Ford to recall!!!), lack of high-revving capability, and then top it all of with a big ole dose of super-freaking-heavy and huge it's just depressing. Quote Selected
Wonder what could have been... Reply #27 – January 22, 2008, 10:01:02 AM You've basically just described every reason why I've never owned a 2 valve! The 3 Valve has so much more potential it's not even funny. Quote Selected
Wonder what could have been... Reply #28 – January 22, 2008, 10:11:38 AM Good point. Wonder what the prices on 3V heads/Intake are coming to? Might be a fun conversion for me... Quote Selected
Wonder what could have been... Reply #29 – January 22, 2008, 10:18:23 AM http://www.blowbyracing.com/bbr-3v-heads.htmlDig the stock flow #'s....They outflow the stage II 2V heads from Patriot performance on the intake side! Quote Selected
Topic: Wonder what could have been... (Read 7576 times)
previous topic - next topic
