Pushrods vs DOHC

[Grimace427]

Well, that's also a '12...not a '15....

All you said was take a V6 model and drop in a V8.

Sponsored

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

All you said was take a V6 model and drop in a V8.

True, but this site is about the sixth gen...thought it was understood...

 

[elfiero]

seriously, you guys? This thread is so far removed from the OP, it's crazy. Ford has decided which way they want to go, as has GM and Fiat(dodge). Buy what you like and just drive it. I've many of each type of engine and they all have their good and bad points. Deal with it.

 

[snkmug]

should have never went the path they did. The 4.6 cobra engine and 5.0 are nice mod engine examples, but GM has taken their pushrod engine so much farther. imagine what ford could have had if they took the same path as GM?

 

[arghx7]

Pushrods are great man, but they're going to die in a few years. It's only a matter of time. The EPA will kill them. Enjoy them while they're still around.

 

[Norm Peterson]

should have never went the path they did. The 4.6 cobra engine and 5.0 are nice mod engine examples, but GM has taken their pushrod engine so much farther. imagine what ford could have had if they took the same path as GM?

Imagine what Ford could have done if they'd originally configured the mod motor around a 95 mm bore x 83 mm stroke (289, for the curious) with room to safely bore it out to maybe 98 or 99 mm. Room for bigger valves, lower deck height (engine bulk). What's not to like?


Norm

 

[Hack]

should have never went the path they did. The 4.6 cobra engine and 5.0 are nice mod engine examples, but GM has taken their pushrod engine so much farther. imagine what ford could have had if they took the same path as GM?

I would have much rather seen 347 ci 8.2" deck pushrod motors with good heads in the late 90s Mustangs rather than the 4.6. I might have bought one. The 4.6 never interested me in the least. Even the lukewarm 302s Ford was building in the early 90s were preferable as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Norm Peterson]

The 2-valve 4.6's never interested me either, not even in the PI version. The 3-valve aluminum 4.6 that made about the same power as the NA 4-valve 4.6 is a slightly different story, though I'd have still rather seen it in 4-valve trim (385 HP, 350 ft-lbs, and 7500 rpm in my 4.6 would make for a really nice NA kit/build).

8.2" is kind of a short deck height for a 3.4" crank, don't you think? If it's cast in aluminum you'll still lose weight, and the 8.2" SBF is only around 470 lbs to begin with (unless you put Boss/Cleveland heads on it ;) ).


Norm

 

[Hack]

8.2" is kind of a short deck height for a 3.4" crank, don't you think? If it's cast in aluminum you'll still lose weight, and the 8.2" SBF is only around 470 lbs to begin with (unless you put Boss/Cleveland heads on it ;) ).


Norm

Yeah it's a little short deck for that stroke, but it's what I would choose if building a 8.2 deck SBF nowadays. It's all about power density. I could say I was thinking big bore, but then I would want a 363. As long as you're making a new block from aluminum might as well optimize a few other things.

 

[Strokerswild]

The 2-valve 4.6's never interested me either, not even in the PI version. The 3-valve aluminum 4.6 that made about the same power as the NA 4-valve 4.6 is a slightly different story, though I'd have still rather seen it in 4-valve trim (385 HP, 350 ft-lbs, and 7500 rpm in my 4.6 would make for a really nice NA kit/build).

I loved my '09 Bullitt, and if that car would have had 385-400 HP stock I'd probably still have it....

Sponsored