4.6 vs. 5.0
SkyWolf
Ok... I know that the 5.0 is a 302. What the heck is the 4.6... a new
289? Why did Ford do a 4.6? Any reason to avoid one?
Mac
SkyWolf's Lair WWII Combat Aircraft Image Archive
www.skywolf.com
Sky...@skywolf.com
Kathy and Erich Coiner
They did it to save money and get better gas mileage and be able to say that
their cars are overhead cam engines. No reason to avoid one especially if
you want a new once since the 5.0 is Obsolete.
Erich
SkyWolf wrote in message <3838723...@news.gte.net>...
Larry Hepinstall
vendors that are doing just fine, thank you, catering to the 5.0 crowd.
BTW: You forgot to mention that upgrades for the 5.0 are much more plentiful
and less expensive.
Have a great day!
LJH
Kathy and Erich Coiner <kathy....@gte.net> wrote in message
news:DB_Z3.2625$VO5....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
Craig Keto
Vlad Petersen
>
> In cubic inches it is 281. It is an all new (since 96) over head cam V8.
A bit of a correction: the 281 SOHC V8, although it appeared in Mustang
only in 96, have been available if I am not mistaken since the early
90's in other Ford cards, probably in an SUV like Explorer and some long
bodied sedans like Lincoln or one of the Murcuries.
> They did it to save money and get better gas mileage and be able to say that
> their cars are overhead cam engines. No reason to avoid one especially if
> you want a new once since the 5.0 is Obsolete.
Regards,
Vlad
Ken Davis
>Kathy and Erich Coiner wrote:
>>
>> In cubic inches it is 281. It is an all new (since 96) over head cam V8.
>
>A bit of a correction: the 281 SOHC V8, although it appeared in Mustang
>only in 96, have been available if I am not mistaken since the early
>90's in other Ford cards, probably in an SUV like Explorer and some long
>bodied sedans like Lincoln or one of the Murcuries.
Ford put them in the T-birds years before they made it to the Mustang.
-Ken
'99 Mustang GT (chrome yellow)
Vortech S-trim on the way
http://members.aol.com/yella99gt/home/HomeKD.html
(** See new classic pics, last updated 11/21/1999)
dang...@earthlink.net
>Ok... I know that the 5.0 is a 302. What the heck is the 4.6... a new
>289? Why did Ford do a 4.6? Any reason to avoid one?
>
>Mac
It's a modular engine design. Set up for tooling compatability
between engine variants. Easy and inexpensive to change the
configuration. At least, that's was how it was justified :-)
The valvetrain is fairly simple for an OHC. OHC is advantageous
because it gives more precise cam timing and fewer problems related to
rods and mechanical slop. Good for performance, but from Ford's
veiwpoint, makes the emissions easier to dial-in for long term
reliability. EPA rules keep changing for ever longer mandated
emission lifetimes.
I think the DOHC version w/ Al block is tits. In earlier days, only
Ferrari and a few other exotics had such Aluminum V block DOHC
performance engines. Now many drivers can afford one, and even
better, travel more than 500 miles between engine rebuilds!
For a real exotic, look into the Ford 427 SOHC "Cammer". 600+HP from
a single 4V, factory stock. If you can call any 427 "stock".
Regards,
Dangerdave
Anthony S
This thread is making me sick. First off this reply ins't just to dangerdave.
Its to lots of folks.
First the 4.6 first appeared in '92 in the Crown Victoria, and it was also in
some Lincoln's. Two, the '99 SOHC 4.6 and the DOHC 4.6 (96+) are more than a
match for a factory 5.0. I've gone head to head with plenty of 5.0s and know,
even Cobra 5.0s. Three, the 427 cammer is a SOHC 2V engine, not a 4V one, and
it makes nowhere near 600hp in stock form. Fourth, the SOHC 427 is also rated
in gross hp, not net hp so the power numbers aren't even comparable.
Yes, speedparts are cheaper for the 5.0, but there are some distinct
performance advantages to the 4.6. For instance, the DOHC heads on my car with
some minor porting and a good valve job will outflow R model 5.0 heads. Also
to make 600 hp or so in a 5.0 requires a new race block at $1500 a pop. In a
4.6, you can use a factory DOHC block, which I already have. Same goes for the
crankshaft. The DOHC 4.6 has a forged steel crank, and 5.0s don't, but you can
get them for lots of cash.
You 5.0 diehards keep laughing at 4.6s. There are quite a few of 4.6s running
10s now, and if I'm not mistaken Paz may have recently run an 11 N/A.
'97 Cobra #301
http://members.aol.com/asmall9494/
<a href="http://members.aol.com/asmall9494/">The Cobra Lair</a>
<a href="http://members.aol.com/svo23turbo/l">Anthony's SVO Site</a>
Try SuperFord and 5.0 magazines free for 90 days at my site.
Gary H
wrote:
>Vlad wrote:
>>Kathy and Erich Coiner wrote:
>>>
>>> In cubic inches it is 281. It is an all new (since 96) over head cam V8.
>>
>>A bit of a correction: the 281 SOHC V8, although it appeared in Mustang
>>only in 96, have been available if I am not mistaken since the early
>>90's in other Ford cards, probably in an SUV like Explorer and some long
>>bodied sedans like Lincoln or one of the Murcuries.
>
>Ford put them in the T-birds years before they made it to the Mustang.
Ford started putting the 4.6 SOHC in TBird/Cougars in 1994. Before
that they put it in the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis starting in 1991 I
believe.
r...@mailandnews.com
wrote:
>>From: dangerdav
>>For a real exotic, look into the Ford 427 SOHC "Cammer". 600+HP from
>>a single 4V, factory stock. If you can call any 427 "stock".
> Three, the 427 cammer is a SOHC 2V engine, not a 4V one, and
>it makes nowhere near 600hp in stock form.
Umm, I think he meant V as in venturi, whenever I read about old Ford
engines that's my assumption anyway.
Edward S. Clark IV
Three, the 427 cammer is a SOHC 2V engine, not a 4V one, and
> in gross hp, not net hp so the power numbers aren't even comparable.
4V is old guy talk for "four venturi" or 4 barrle carb. 4 valves on a
SOHC is pretty tricky.
Ed Clark
Anthony S
>>>From: dangerdav
>>>For a real exotic, look into the Ford 427 SOHC "Cammer". 600+HP from
>>>a single 4V, factory stock. If you can call any 427 "stock".
>> Three, the 427 cammer is a SOHC 2V engine, not a 4V one, and
>>it makes nowhere near 600hp in stock form.
>
>Umm, I think he meant V as in venturi, whenever I read about old Ford
>engines that's my assumption anyway.
>
>
True, but since this is a thread about the 4.6, I found it confusing to say the
least. 4V and 2V mean something totally different when talking about mod
motors.
Dave Shoe
>>>>a single 4V, factory stock. If you can call any 427 "stock".
>>> Three, the 427 cammer is a SOHC 2V engine, not a 4V one, and
>>>it makes nowhere near 600hp in stock form.
>>
>>Umm, I think he meant V as in venturi, whenever I read about old Ford
>>engines that's my assumption anyway.
>>
>>
>True, but since this is a thread about the 4.6, I found it confusing to say
the
>least. 4V and 2V mean something totally different when talking about mod
>motors.
It is a matter of context. Because terminology has changed over the
decades, it is probably best that certain acronyms be spelled out
appropriately to prevent misunderstandings between the generations.
When speaking of the 427 Cammer (a high-revving hemi motor), whether it be
the first 50 aluminum headed monsters made for NASCAR homologation (but
instantly illegalized by Bill France when he upped the hologation quantity
requirement to 500) in 1964-1/2 to compete with Chrysler's free-breathing
426 Hemi OHV motor, or the 250-or-500 (it's argueable whether the second
batch of 250 homologation motors were made, but it is generally accepted
they were) 1965-and-later "revised port" iron headed beasts, created only to
keep Chrysler's 426 Hemi in-check with NASCAR, the "V" stands for venturi,
not valves per cylinder. Just to keep things clear for those less familiar
with the early iron, the 427-8V made 652 HP at 8300 RPM using Ford's "Solar"
camsaft grind. It was advertised to NASCAR as 616 HP at 7000 RPM, because
that was the official redline of the motor (and also because Ford didn't
want NASCAR to kill the motor). I've never seen power specs for the 427-4V
(that would be "venturi") Cammer, but 600 HP+ is reasonable for this docile
"grocery-getter". Also note the first 50 Cammers had magnesium valve covers
and incorporated valve shims, and the latter bunch used taller aluminum
valve covers to fit adjustable rockers.
The 1964-1/2 Cammer made nearly identical power to the 1964 427HR up through
the HR's rated peak of 540 HP at 6300 RPM, but at this point the Cammer just
kept making more power as the revs rose. The 1965-1/2 427MR-8V (which owes
it's stronger block, crank, rods, and more to the Cammer) made 485HP at
6300RPM, and the original 1963-1/2 427LR-8V made 425 HP at 6000 RPM. In
early 1965 the port/bowl floors were revised (filled in) to improve flow in
both the Cammer and the HR, but revised power figures were apparently never
released thorough Ford.
I guess, when you speak of 2V, 4V, 8V or whatever, it only makes sense in
the right context. Because the 427 SOHC was only made in 2 valve form,
referring to the valve count is pointless (venturi count may be a different
matter), though I do sometimes wonder what the infamous 427 Cammer would do
with a DOHC / 4-valve arrangement. Side note: the 427 block reinforcements
(square-cast cylinder jackets, etc) of 1966-1/2 were not directly due to 427
SOHC motor development.
Shoe.
Dave Shoe
be bought in crate-form through Holman&Moody for $5000 early on, and through
the middle and latter '60's it was readily available brand-spanking-new to
anyone with a spare $2500 laying around. They are a little more spendy
nowadays, but unopened-crate Cammer motors still exist.
Sorry to deviate from the original topic. I like the 5.0 better right now,
but aftermarket technology will likely change my opinion to favor the 4.6 in
the next few years, but then I've pretty much already demonstrated that I'm
just an old fogey, so I wouldn't put too much into my opinions. My winter
driver is a green 1967 Galaxie 427MR-4V named Steve McGarrett (though Dano
actually drove the facsimile), and my sunny-day baby is a grabber yellow
1969 Mach 1 351 shaker with a 427-4V / toploader plopped between the wells.
I'm gone.
Shoe.
SkyWolf
wrote:
> This thread is making me sick. First off this reply ins't just to dangerdave.
> Its to lots of folks.
But who gives a crap?
>You 5.0 diehards keep laughing at 4.6s. There are quite a few of 4.6s running
>10s now, and if I'm not mistaken Paz may have recently run an 11 N/A.
The reason I asked was because I was looking at picking up either a 95
GT 5.0 or a 96 GT 4.6 as a third car/toy/thing to do. Thanks to the
people that answered the question... I did look over my Mustangs
Unlimited Catalog and decided to go with the 5.0 because it's cheaper
and easier to play with....plus I can pick up 2 or 3 5.0 GT-40
Aluminum Head long blocks for the price of one 4.6. Makes me bolder
when I start wrenchin' some crap I've never wrenched before.
Thanks again for the answers....
J.L.
<kathy....@gte.net> wrote:
>In cubic inches it is 281. It is an all new (since 96) over head cam V8.
>They did it to save money and get better gas mileage and be able to say that
>their cars are overhead cam engines. No reason to avoid one especially if
>you want a new once since the 5.0 is Obsolete.
How do you figure it's obsolete? Out of production, yes. But
obsolete? No way..
--
Josh
97 Cobra (13.45 @ 101.11)
Dynos are irrelevant,
Bench Racers will be assimilated.
J.L.
wrote:
>Yes, speedparts are cheaper for the 5.0, but there are some distinct
>performance advantages to the 4.6. For instance, the DOHC heads on my car with
>some minor porting and a good valve job will outflow R model 5.0 heads. Also
Flow isn't everything. Otherwise everyone would be bolting R model
heads onto their stock 302 motors.
>to make 600 hp or so in a 5.0 requires a new race block at $1500 a pop. In a
There are lots of stock blocks that are daily driven and hold up to
500+rwhp on a daily basis. It's all in the methodology and the tune.
>4.6, you can use a factory DOHC block, which I already have. Same goes for the
>crankshaft. The DOHC 4.6 has a forged steel crank, and 5.0s don't, but you can
>get them for lots of cash.
The 4.6 DOHC also has weakling ringlands that break even easier than
the 93-95 5.0L hypereutectic pistons..
>You 5.0 diehards keep laughing at 4.6s. There are quite a few of 4.6s running
>10s now, and if I'm not mistaken Paz may have recently run an 11 N/A.
Fast 5.0s are still way outnumbering 4.6s, and they're still way
easier to do in terms of picking an effective combination. And Paz
didn't run an 11 N/A, he broke twice due to excessive traction killing
parts. However, Evan Smith, piloting Paul Svinicki's blue 98 Cobra,
did go into the 11s. A little bird told me, even though everyone at
the shootout had to sign an NDA.
Anthony S
>>Yes, speedparts are cheaper for the 5.0, but there are some distinct
>>performance advantages to the 4.6. For instance, the DOHC heads on my car
>with
>>some minor porting and a good valve job will outflow R model 5.0 heads.
>Also
>
>Flow isn't everything. Otherwise everyone would be bolting R model
>heads onto their stock 302 motors.
>
Correct, but it isn't a bad thing either especially when going for big power.
>>to make 600 hp or so in a 5.0 requires a new race block at $1500 a pop. In
>a
>
>There are lots of stock blocks that are daily driven and hold up to
>500+rwhp on a daily basis. It's all in the methodology and the tune.
There aren't many that fit that bill for long. Its all about driving them hard
on the dyno once and never flogging them again. Yes the tune is big, because
one detonation on a combo like that, and you're gonna have a multi piece block.
>>4.6, you can use a factory DOHC block, which I already have. Same goes for
>the
>>crankshaft. The DOHC 4.6 has a forged steel crank, and 5.0s don't, but you
>can
>>get them for lots of cash.
>
>The 4.6 DOHC also has weakling ringlands that break even easier than
>the 93-95 5.0L hypereutectic pistons..
Pistons and rings are cheap compared to blocks and cranks. That's how I like
to think of it anyway. Stock heads are also way cheaper than aftermarket ones.
>>You 5.0 diehards keep laughing at 4.6s. There are quite a few of 4.6s
>running
>>10s now, and if I'm not mistaken Paz may have recently run an 11 N/A.
>
>Fast 5.0s are still way outnumbering 4.6s, and they're still way
>easier to do in terms of picking an effective combination. And Paz
>didn't run an 11 N/A, he broke twice due to excessive traction killing
>parts. However, Evan Smith, piloting Paul Svinicki's blue 98 Cobra,
>did go into the 11s. A little bird told me, even though everyone at
>the shootout had to sign an NDA.
>
Well Evan is one heck of a driver. Too bad about Paz breaking. That's
probably why I didn't see any posts at musclestang about it.
Yes, fast 5.0s outnumber fast 4.6s. That's like saying fast GM 350s outnumber
fast LS1s though. Of course they do, its called the law of averages.
Anthony S
>>>>>For a real exotic, look into the Ford 427 SOHC "Cammer". 600+HP from
>>>>>a single 4V, factory stock. If you can call any 427 "stock".
>>>> Three, the 427 cammer is a SOHC 2V engine, not a 4V one, and
>>>>it makes nowhere near 600hp in stock form.
>>>
>>>Umm, I think he meant V as in venturi, whenever I read about old Ford
>>>engines that's my assumption anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>True, but since this is a thread about the 4.6, I found it confusing to say
>the
>>least. 4V and 2V mean something totally different when talking about mod
>>motors.
>
>It is a matter of context. Because terminology has changed over the
>decades, it is probably best that certain acronyms be spelled out
>appropriately to prevent misunderstandings between the generations.
You are correct, and I understand the old terminology. I just didn't think of
it at the time due to the origins of the thread.
Matt R.
>You 5.0 diehards keep laughing at 4.6s. There are quite a few of 4.6s
>running
>10s now, and if I'm not mistaken Paz may have recently run an 11 N/A.
and your point is?
there are 5.0's running 10's on stock block, rods, pistons, crank. I've seen
alot of 5.0's run 11's N/A. Hell, Jr Ibanez runs 7's with a 306 with a single
turbo. We already went through this argument about a month ago when Super Ford
did that Mod Motor Shoot-out. So I broke out with Super Ford's 5.0 Shoot-out. I
can break it again if you want me to.
Matt
'89 Mustang GT
best time: 13.49@103.9 mph
member of Strictly 5.0 Racing club #11
http://hometown.aol.com/mrfiveoh/auto/index.htm
http://www.netwiz.net/~strictly/
Subic Sailor
Kathy and Erich Coiner <kathy....@gte.net> wrote in message
news:DB_Z3.2625$VO5....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> In cubic inches it is 281. It is an all new (since 96) over head cam V8.
> They did it to save money and get better gas mileage and be able to say
that
> their cars are overhead cam engines.
No reason to avoid one especially if
> you want a new once since the 5.0 is Obsolete.
>
Sniff! Sniff!
Is it just me or is it a bit stuffy in here?
--
Subic Sailor
91 LX 5.0 Coupe
> Erich
>
> SkyWolf wrote in message <3838723...@news.gte.net>...
> >
> >
> >Ok... I know that the 5.0 is a 302. What the heck is the 4.6... a new
> >289? Why did Ford do a 4.6? Any reason to avoid one?
> >
vinc...@my-deja.com
although the Lincolns got one in '91...here's a nice article on this
debate: [http://www.autosite.com/GARAGE/encyclop/ency19h.asp]. also
some nice engine specs.
i love the 281 in my '93 CV -- i'd like to do the Kenny Brown deal one
day & bore each cylinder 1 ci & then use 289 pistons, svo heads & other
goodies...even so, you gotta like the 302s even with the basic
engineering designs dating back to the 1950s -- the amount of available
hipo parts in staggering and makes for a great 350+ HP small-block
project !
In article <383e7227...@news.injersey.infi.net>,
ga...@injersey.net (Gary H) wrote:
> On 22 Nov 1999 09:14:29 GMT, yell...@aol.comspamsux (Ken Davis)
> wrote:
>
> >Vlad wrote:
> >>Kathy and Erich Coiner wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In cubic inches it is 281. It is an all new (since 96) over head
cam V8.
> >>
> >>A bit of a correction: the 281 SOHC V8, although it appeared in
Mustang
> >>only in 96, have been available if I am not mistaken since the early
> >>90's in other Ford cards, probably in an SUV like Explorer and some
long
> >>bodied sedans like Lincoln or one of the Murcuries.
> >
> >Ford put them in the T-birds years before they made it to the
Mustang.
>
> Ford started putting the 4.6 SOHC in TBird/Cougars in 1994. Before
> that they put it in the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis starting in 1991 I
> believe.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
dang...@earthlink.net
>First the 4.6 first appeared in '92 in the Crown Victoria, and it was also in
>some Lincoln's.
It was designed for Job 1 in the Lincoln. Lincoln used to be the
primary technology showcase platform (in the US). Now that Ford
controls Jaguar, Volvo, AM, and others, new technologies will launch
in alternative platforms besides Lincoln.
>Three, the 427 cammer is a SOHC 2V engine, not a 4V one
Means venturi. As in a single 4bbl carburator. As to the 600+ HP
rating, sure the ratings have changed from Gross to SAE Net, but a
stock 427 cammer will still eat any stock 4.6L alive. Those were real
race engines. Designed to push the old non-aerodynamic, full size,
basically stocker bodies to 200MPH.
Sorry the thread is making you sick. Maybe some Alka Seltzer?
Regards,
Dangerdave
dang...@earthlink.net
>>From: r.m
>
>>>>From: dangerdav
>>>>For a real exotic, look into the Ford 427 SOHC "Cammer". 600+HP from
>>>>a single 4V, factory stock. If you can call any 427 "stock".
>>> Three, the 427 cammer is a SOHC 2V engine, not a 4V one, and
>>>it makes nowhere near 600hp in stock form.
>>
>>Umm, I think he meant V as in venturi, whenever I read about old Ford
>>engines that's my assumption anyway.
>>
>>
>
>True, but since this is a thread about the 4.6, I found it confusing to say the
>least. 4V and 2V mean something totally different when talking about mod
>motors.
>
>
>'97 Cobra #301
>http://members.aol.com/asmall9494/
><a href="http://members.aol.com/asmall9494/">The Cobra Lair</a>
><a href="http://members.aol.com/svo23turbo/l">Anthony's SVO Site</a>
>
>Try SuperFord and 5.0 magazines free for 90 days at my site.
>
That's how the 427 SOHC was specified. 4v and 8v versions, meaning
(1) or (2) 4bbl carburators. V = Venturi (a single carburator
barrel).
Must be showing my age here :-)
Regards,
Dangerdave
dang...@earthlink.net
<kq...@erols.com> wrote:
>Anthony S wrote:
>Three, the 427 cammer is a SOHC 2V engine, not a 4V one, and
>> it makes nowhere near 600hp in stock form. Fourth, the SOHC 427 is also rated
>> in gross hp, not net hp so the power numbers aren't even comparable.
>
>4V is old guy talk for "four venturi" or 4 barrle carb. 4 valves on a
>SOHC is pretty tricky.
>
>Ed Clark
Old guy!
Regards,
Dangerdave
Dave Shoe
>>>600+HP from a single 4V, factory stock.
Also, you DID state "from a single 4V". It's really tough to confuse your
context with "valve count". Carburetors aren't exactly obsolete in racing
circles, so even fuel-injected youngsters should still understand the lingo.
Shoe.
Anthony S
>>You 5.0 diehards keep laughing at 4.6s. There are quite a few of 4.6s
>>running
>>10s now, and if I'm not mistaken Paz may have recently run an 11 N/A.
>
>and your point is?
>
>there are 5.0's running 10's on stock block, rods, pistons, crank.
Not for long until the block splits in two pieces. Do I need to find pictures
for you?
>I've seen
>alot of 5.0's run 11's N/A.
Yep.
>Hell, Jr Ibanez runs 7's with a 306 with a single
>turbo.
Yep, but that is one expensive 306.
>We already went through this argument about a month ago when Super Ford
>did that Mod Motor Shoot-out. So I broke out with Super Ford's 5.0 Shoot-out.
>I
>can break it again if you want me to.
Do whatever you like.
Anthony S
Nope, but they are very obsolete on production vehicles. And again, this
thread is about production vehicles that were built rather recently. So once
again, wrong context. Not to mention a lot of race cars are switching over to
fuel injection and computer tunability.
Dave Shoe
>>>>>For a real exotic, look into the Ford 427 SOHC "Cammer".
>>>>>600+HP from a single 4V, factory stock.
>>
>>Also, you DID state "from a single 4V". It's really tough to confuse your
>>context with "valve count". Carburetors aren't exactly obsolete in racing
>>circles, so even fuel-injected youngsters should still understand the
lingo.
>
>Nope, but they are very obsolete on production vehicles. And again, this
>thread is about production vehicles that were built rather recently. So
once
>again, wrong context. Not to mention a lot of race cars are switching over
to
>fuel injection and computer tunability.
Anthony S stated:
"True, but since this is a thread about the 4.6, I found it confusing to say
the least. 4V and 2V mean something totally different when talking about
mod motors" and "this thread is about production vehicles that were built
rather recently"
You, however, were not talking about mod motors when you authoratively
wrote:
"the 427 cammer...makes nowhere near 600hp in stock form" and "the SOHC 427
is also rated in gross hp, not net hp so the power numbers aren't even
comparable"
Make up your mind.
Let's forget about the naivety of your 2V / 4V / 8V acronym
misunderstandings for now, and also forget about your inability to
dissociate the term "single 4V" from valvetrain geometry. If you can only
understand the newer bloodlines, perhaps you should spew less
mis-information about the vintage dogs.
The Cammer is not a well understood animal. I'm only here as an observer of
technology fine and fun, with perhaps a bent toward liking the 5.0 as cheap
and powerful, and liking the 4.6 more for it's technology, style, and
potential, but only having garage space for FE iron (I guess I need to
explain that the dated acronym "FE" would refer to the Ford/Edsel engine
line. An Edsel is a car which was produced several decades ago but is no
longer being manufactured, while the Ford is still being produced today.
Hope this clears up any confusion, and I apologize in advance for bringing
up old cars again). I only spoke up when you authoratively referred to the
Cammer incorrectly as "a 2 valve motor which makes nowhere near 600 HP".
Your willingness to dictate specifications of purebred vintage racemotors
appears, additionally, to be stunted by your lack of ability to correlate
engine HP to rear wheel HP. True, we are speaking of passenger vehicles
here, so rear wheel horsepower may be the spec-du-jour, but race motors to
this day are still dynoed in an engine room and still generate numbers in
gross horsepower. The savvy writer might just explain that, "GHP and RWHP
aren't the same, but that it is fairly easy to make an approximate
conversion between the two specifications" - which is a reasonable thing to
due because you are now comparing racemotors to streetmotors, which are only
approximately similar animals in themselves.
Next time, perhaps, if you could say "as I understand it" before speaking
fabricated facts of such confusing items as race motors and vintage
equipment, your misrepresentative words might not seem so authorative. Or
better yet, maybe just stick to speaking only modern street motor
terminology. That's apparently what this particular thread is all about,
anyway.
(just having fun - and trying one last time to win this skirmish) Shoe.
Anthony S
>You, however, were not talking about mod motors when you authoratively
>wrote:
>"the 427 cammer...makes nowhere near 600hp in stock form" and "the SOHC 427
>is also rated in gross hp, not net hp so the power numbers aren't even
>comparable"
>
>Make up your mind.
>
And it doesn't.
>Let's forget about the naivety of your 2V / 4V / 8V acronym
>misunderstandings for now, and also forget about your inability to
>dissociate the term "single 4V" from valvetrain geometry.
Are you done whining yet? I hope so. Like I said, I got it wrong took out of
context. If you don't like my reasoning as to why, tough. You're a big boy
roll over and take it. Stop whining about it though. Its really for naught.
>If you can only
>understand the newer bloodlines, perhaps you should spew less
>mis-information about the vintage dogs.
Saying the 427 cammer makes no where near 600 hp in factory form is no where
near misinformation. Its a cold fact.
> I only spoke up when you authoratively referred to the
>Cammer incorrectly as "a 2 valve motor which makes nowhere near 600 HP".
Well hey, go ahead and prove me wrong on that one. Its a 2 valve per cylinder
motor and it makes nowhere near 600 hp in factory form as purported. So speak
away, all knowing one.
>Your willingness to dictate specifications of purebred vintage racemotors
Rein your horses in there shoe. The original comment was a production motor
cranking out 600hp. Well that hasn't happened to date. Ferrari has gone well
into the 4s, and Lamborghini claims 5. The Vector and a few one off hand built
jobs have seen 6. But no way as anything coming off an assembly line in this
country seen 600 unless it was built for aircraft use.
>appears, additionally, to be stunted by your lack of ability to correlate
>engine HP to rear wheel HP.
Actually, I can correlate this far better than you ever will be able to. I
advise you not to go there, self proclaimed omiscient one.
>True, we are speaking of passenger vehicles
>here, so rear wheel horsepower may be the spec-du-jour, but race motors to
>this day are still dynoed in an engine room and still generate numbers in
>gross horsepower.
Bullshit. RWHP, gross hp, and net hp are three different things. The du jour
of the factory rating world is SAE net hp. Get your eggs in one basket, shoe
on the wrong foot boy, and we'll talk.
> The savvy writer might just explain that, "GHP and RWHP
>aren't the same, but that it is fairly easy to make an approximate
>conversion between the two specifications" - which is a reasonable thing to
>due because you are now comparing racemotors to streetmotors, which are only
>approximately similar animals in themselves.
>
No there is no correlation between gross hp and rwhp. That's why the SAE
stopped using gross hp back in '72 or so. There is however a correlation
between net hp and rwhp.
>Next time, perhaps, if you could say "as I understand it" before speaking
>fabricated facts of such confusing items as race motors and vintage
>equipment, your misrepresentative words might not seem so authorative.
Take your own advice, because you don't know jack about hp ratings.
>Or
>better yet, maybe just stick to speaking only modern street motor
>terminology. That's apparently what this particular thread is all about,
>anyway.
Was until you went and swallowed that shoe of yours.
>(just having fun - and trying one last time to win this skirmish) Shoe.
>
Well get the shoe out of your mouth, or maybe its an entire shoe store by now.
I made a faux pax and admitted to it. You ate a pile of cow dung. If you want
to call it a victory, fine you win. In reality, you know about 1/10th as much
as you claim to.
Dave Shoe
I don't claim to be "all knowing". I do claim to have a long history with
the FE motor line, and I do have lots of old literature on the subject as
well as heaps of toys. 426 Hemi's are cool too, but I've never had space to
own any.
>>>Saying the 427 cammer makes no where near 600 hp
>>>in factory form is no where near misinformation. Its a cold fact.
Hmmm...Since Chrysler's 426 race Hemi was making around 575 HP when the
Cammer debuted, I wonder why Chrysler notified NASCAR that if the Cammer was
legalized for NASCAR they would respond with a 32 valve DOHC Hemi (the A925
program), complete with 16-branch intake (they showed NASCAR a
non-functioning prototype of the motor). This certainly influenced Bill
France's decision to illegalize the Cammer for it's intended purpose in
NASCAR. If the 1964-1/2 Cammer was weaker than the Hemi, I doubt Chrysler
would have made the threat. In 1969, factory race Hemis were making around
640HP, so 2 valves per cylinder were even hot tickets for BB (that would be
"Big Block") pushrod motors of the era.
My friend's Cammer, built in Michigan 4 years ago to slightly warmed factory
specs with the help of John Vermeersch's shop/warehouse, exceeds the
1964-1/2 factory HP numbers. Heck, I'd believe Vermeersch's daily-driver
390 SOHC puts out 600+ HP easily. (I was told his '64 convertible was a 390
SOHC, but I'd be more inclined to believe it was a short-stroke 396 SOHC.
Could be either, I guess. Someday maybe I'll find out.)
I've never seen info suggesting the Cammer was, say, similar to the 427HR
(540HP) in performance. Could you help me find your resource which claims
the Cammer puts out far different (higher or lower???) than 600 HP? Also,
which version of the Cammer would you be speaking of?
Please give me a lead on your "cold fact". I won't lose much sleep if you
fail to deliver on my request, as I haven't yet learned anything of interest
from you, and I don't expect this trend to change.
>>>Rein your horses in there shoe. The original comment was
>>>a production motor cranking out 600hp.
Actually, I think the original comment was, "For a real exotic, look into
the Ford 427 SOHC "Cammer". Nothing about "production" in that statement.
>>>Bull....RWHP, gross hp, and net hp are three different things.
>>>The du jour of the factory rating world is SAE net hp. Get your
>>>eggs in one basket, shoe
Net HP is a nice factory advertising number, but aftermarket mods are
generally benchmarked against a fresh RWHP baseline, and generated as RWHP
numbers. Since race motors are generally measured in gross ratings, I guess
your interest in "net" ratings suggests you have no intention of modifying
your vehicle to deviate from factory ratings.
>>>No there is no correlation between gross hp and rwhp.
>>>That's why the SAE stopped using gross hp back in '72
>>>or so. There is however a correlatio between net hp and rwhp.
Again, your preference to stick with "net" is admirable, though I don't know
anyone who regularly measures this specification outside the factory. To
convert between any of the three measurements, one must only factor in
parasitic elements. This ain't tough to do, assuming an approximation is
sufficient.
Shoe.
Side note: Even though the Cammer was illegalized for NASCAR, it still
served the useful purpose of increasing the number of NASCAR restrictions on
Chrysler's Hemi. I believe the already-illegal iron-headed (lower cost)
Cammers were commissioned purely to keep NASCAR regulation pressure on
Chrysler.
Anthony S
>>>>So speak away, all knowing one.
>
>I don't claim to be "all knowing". I do claim to have a long history with
>the FE motor line, and I do have lots of old literature on the subject as
>well as heaps of toys. 426 Hemi's are cool too, but I've never had space to
>own any.
Space is infinite so most say.
>>>>Saying the 427 cammer makes no where near 600 hp
>>>>in factory form is no where near misinformation. Its a cold fact.
>
>Hmmm...Since Chrysler's 426 race Hemi was making around 575 HP when the
>Cammer debuted, I wonder why Chrysler notified NASCAR that if the Cammer was
>legalized for NASCAR they would respond with a 32 valve DOHC Hemi (the A925
>program), complete with 16-branch intake (they showed NASCAR a
>non-functioning prototype of the motor). This certainly influenced Bill
>France's decision to illegalize the Cammer for it's intended purpose in
>NASCAR. If the 1964-1/2 Cammer was weaker than the Hemi, I doubt Chrysler
>would have made the threat. In 1969, factory race Hemis were making around
>640HP, so 2 valves per cylinder were even hot tickets for BB (that would be
>"Big Block") pushrod motors of the era.
You are talking about balanced and blueprinted race motors, not production
ones. This thread started off with production motors. I could find the
ratings for the production cammer. I'm pretty sure it was in the 4s and that
was again gross hp, which isn't very impressive by today's standards.
>My friend's Cammer, built in Michigan 4 years ago to slightly warmed factory
>specs
Well that's all you have to say. Slightly warmed as in not production.
>I've never seen info suggesting the Cammer was, say, similar to the 427HR
>(540HP) in performance. Could you help me find your resource which claims
>the Cammer puts out far different (higher or lower???) than 600 HP?
Where is your documentation other than your memory of slightly warmed engines?
>Please give me a lead on your "cold fact". I won't lose much sleep if you
>fail to deliver on my request, as I haven't yet learned anything of interest
>from you, and I don't expect this trend to change.
Likewise, you fail to prove your facts too. All you've got to offer is your
memory. That is amazingly like someone else no doubt.
>>>>Rein your horses in there shoe. The original comment was
>>>>a production motor cranking out 600hp.
>
>Actually, I think the original comment was, "For a real exotic, look into
>the Ford 427 SOHC "Cammer". Nothing about "production" in that statement.
It was exotic for a production engine at the time. It also didn't make 600hp.
>>>>Bull....RWHP, gross hp, and net hp are three different things.
>>>>The du jour of the factory rating world is SAE net hp. Get your
>>>>eggs in one basket, shoe
>
>Net HP is a nice factory advertising number, but aftermarket mods are
>generally benchmarked against a fresh RWHP baseline, and generated as RWHP
>numbers.
Well now you are changing the story.
>Since race motors are generally measured in gross ratings, I guess
>your interest in "net" ratings suggests you have no intention of modifying
>your vehicle to deviate from factory ratings.
Do you even know what net hp is? Do you even know how gross hp compares to
that? For a production street driven vehicle, modified or not, net hp and rwhp
are the only ones that matter. Gross hp is simply irrelevant.
>Again, your preference to stick with "net" is admirable, though I don't know
>anyone who regularly measures this specification outside the factory. To
>convert between any of the three measurements, one must only factor in
>parasitic elements. This ain't tough to do, assuming an approximation is
>sufficient.
Approximations aren't sufficient. Have you heard of the '99 Cobra debacle?
That should clue you in on this topic.
>Side note: Even though the Cammer was illegalized for NASCAR, it still
>served the useful purpose of increasing the number of NASCAR restrictions on
>Chrysler's Hemi. I believe the already-illegal iron-headed (lower cost)
>Cammers were commissioned purely to keep NASCAR regulation pressure on
>Chrysler.
>
>
Well, I'm happy you believe that. I like to believe Ford wanted to kick the
crap out of Chrysler and Petty. They built an engine that could do it, and it
was considered illegal. Then all hemis were illegal, so Ford had to start
kicking thier butt with the CJ series of engine in the Torino and Cyclone. No
surprise really.
I can also remember back in '83 when Nascar quickly outlawed the offset
chassis. That's a shame because I saw one of the first ones sitting in the
shop.
Hey Shoe, since you know so much about Nascar race motors (yah, right) maybe
you can answer this (I doubt it). What is the one thing you absolutely have to
do if you are going to let a Nascar race motor sit for a week without running
if you want it to last more than 10 min and why? TIA.
sh...@my-deja.com
"Edward S. Clark IV" <kq...@erols.com> wrote:
> Anthony S wrote:
> Three, the 427 cammer is a SOHC 2V engine, not a 4V one, and
also rated
> > in gross hp, not net hp so the power numbers aren't even comparable.
>
> 4V is old guy talk for "four venturi" or 4 barrle carb. 4 valves on a
> SOHC is pretty tricky.
The engine in the 2000 Eclipse GT is a SOHC 24 valve V6, which surprised
the hell out of me. 4 valves per cylinder with SOHC.
Josh Wingell
'97 Eclipse GSX - 12....@104.55mph / 1.726s 60ft
Best 60ft - 1.68s
Dave Shoe
Early on I learned that playing with more than one motor family got too
messy and complicated for me. I guess maybe it's just the way I play (I
tinker a lot), because my Hemi friend (66 Charger Hemi) has a 66 Biscayne
427 and more recently he built 427 Cobra replica (which he races regularly),
and a half dozen other cars, all whole, and all choice (a modded Mustang 5.0
and stock 65 Mustang is among the bunch). He doesn't have shelves of
blocks, trannies, and other toys like I tend to collect. Guess we all play
the game differently.
>>>Where is your documentation other than your memory of
>>>slightly warmed engines?
I'm referring to my book containing the only factory released horsepower
chart I've seen for the Cammer, which lays the Cammer power curve over the
427HR power curve. My friend's (a former Ford factory engine designer - he
has great stories) Cammer was rebuilt to "factory specs", but as the
rebuilders were involved in SOHC racing, I guess they knew some tricks. You
may know the details, I don't.
>>>Do you even know what net hp is?
Suddenly I'm wondering what YOU think it is. I've never had to deal with
dyno runs incorporating non-race trimmings myself, but you seem to live with
it a whole lot.
>>>Approximations aren't sufficient. Have you heard of the
>>>'99 Cobra debacle?
Cobra debacle? Heck, I've just learned about the Anthony debacle. Haven't
had time to follow the latest Cobra stuff.
>>>Well, I'm happy you believe that. I like to believe Ford wanted to
>>>kick the crap out of Chrysler and Petty. They built an engine that
>>>could do it, and it was considered illegal. Then all hemis were
>>>illegal, so Ford had to start kicking thier butt with the CJ series
>>>of engine in the Torino and Cyclone. No surprise really.
Ford never raced the CJ series other than at the drags. High-alloy
cross-bolted 428s at the Winternationals. Those were cool motors. My
Fairlane Cobra FB beater is a riot and my Talladega is totally sleek, though
I wish I had my Cyclone CJ back - I liked the clean look and deluxe interior
the best. You might be thinking of the Boss, which was a hemi. Actually,
the 429 Marine Boss was a true Hemi, the 429 Boss (S & T production motors,
as well as the race motors which, among other things, apparently used a
stronger #1 main cap bolt arrangement than either the S or T) was called a
429 "Crescent", because at the last minute (apparently) Ford decided to add
tiny (decorative???) squish chambers to the head to differentiate it, in
name, from the Chrysler Hemi. At least that's my take on the "squish".
Side note: The 427 wedge remained popular in parts of NASCAR through 1972 or
so because of restrictions on hemi (and crescent?!?) -chambered motors.
>>>I can also remember back in '83 when Nascar quickly outlawed
>>>the offset chassis. That's a shame because I saw one of the
>>>first ones sitting in the shop.
Cool idea! Here, have a cookie. You finally taught me something
interesting, though your credibility with facts is presently waning so I
won't be able to repeat it unless I research it some more. Was Smoky
involved in that (rhet)?
>>>Hey Shoe, since you know so much about Nascar race motors
>>>(yah, right) maybe you can answer this (I doubt it). What is the
>>>one thing you absolutely have to do if you are going to let a Nascar
>>>race motor sit for a week without running if you want it to last more
>>>than 10 min and why? TIA.
Interesting question. You'd get a second cookie for adding yet another
juicy tidbit to the thread, but you lose it for claiming I know a lot about
NASCAR race motors. I don't. I'm especially not hot on the latest
technology. I claim, as previously stated, only to know a heap (and far
from everything) about the FE series of motor. My suspicion regarding your
question is the valve springs would need to be relaxed, or perhaps only the
pushrods need to be relaxed. Perhaps you might try this on yourself?
Shoe.
Anthony S
>>>>Space is infinite so most say.
>
>Early on I learned that playing with more than one motor family got too
>messy and complicated for me. I guess maybe it's just the way I play (I
>tinker a lot), because my Hemi friend (66 Charger Hemi) has a 66 Biscayne
>427 and more recently he built 427 Cobra replica (which he races regularly),
>and a half dozen other cars, all whole, and all choice (a modded Mustang 5.0
>and stock 65 Mustang is among the bunch). He doesn't have shelves of
>blocks, trannies, and other toys like I tend to collect. Guess we all play
>the game differently.
Yep, all must play within thier own budget and personal space considerations.
I don't have much of either right now, but that's going to change soon.
>>>>Where is your documentation other than your memory of
>>>>slightly warmed engines?
>
>I'm referring to my book containing the only factory released horsepower
>chart I've seen for the Cammer, which lays the Cammer power curve over the
>427HR power curve. My friend's (a former Ford factory engine designer - he
>has great stories) Cammer was rebuilt to "factory specs", but as the
>rebuilders were involved in SOHC racing, I guess they knew some tricks. You
>may know the details, I don't.
I found a website that had the same numbers you are talking about. My
impression of the information is that the particular engine in question was a
one off prototype. Those are great numbers, but for one off hand built engine,
I'm not surprised.
>>>>Do you even know what net hp is?
>
>Suddenly I'm wondering what YOU think it is. I've never had to deal with
>dyno runs incorporating non-race trimmings myself, but you seem to live with
>it a whole lot.
Yes, I know what net hp is. I also know what gross hp is. There is a big
reason why production engines aren't rated using gross hp. Net hp is more
reflective of the truth since the engine is rated with all of its accessories
(A/C, P/S, water pump, etc.) and using the factory induction and exhaust from
the air silencer all the way to the exhaust tip.
Gross hp, you can use just about anything you'd like and omit anything you
don't like all of the accessories and force water through the engine to cool
it. That's why gross hp ratings should be taken with a salt lick (cows lick
10-20 lb blocks of salt over the winter for a nutritional supplement to go with
thier hay and oats and corn meal). Net hp ratings reflect reality for
production vehicles and gross hp ratings do not. So yes, I deal mostly with
net ratings.
>>>>Approximations aren't sufficient. Have you heard of the
>>>>'99 Cobra debacle?
>
>Cobra debacle? Heck, I've just learned about the Anthony debacle. Haven't
>had time to follow the latest Cobra stuff.
Wow you need to get with it. It turns out the '99 Cobras aren't putting out
rwhp numbers in line with thier net hp rating of 320 hp. Of course, this is
nothing new for the DOHC Cobra.
>>>>Well, I'm happy you believe that. I like to believe Ford wanted to
>>>>kick the crap out of Chrysler and Petty. They built an engine that
>>>>could do it, and it was considered illegal. Then all hemis were
>>>>illegal, so Ford had to start kicking thier butt with the CJ series
>>>>of engine in the Torino and Cyclone. No surprise really.
>
>Ford never raced the CJ series other than at the drags. High-alloy
>cross-bolted 428s at the Winternationals.
I could've sworn they called the engines in the Cyclones and Torino Cobra's
CobraJets. Oh well, you are probably right.
>Those were cool motors. My
>Fairlane Cobra FB beater is a riot and my Talladega is totally sleek, though
>I wish I had my Cyclone CJ back - I liked the clean look and deluxe interior
>the best. You might be thinking of the Boss, which was a hemi. Actually,
>the 429 Marine Boss was a true Hemi, the 429 Boss (S & T production motors,
>as well as the race motors which, among other things, apparently used a
>stronger #1 main cap bolt arrangement than either the S or T) was called a
>429 "Crescent", because at the last minute (apparently) Ford decided to add
>tiny (decorative???) squish chambers to the head to differentiate it, in
>name, from the Chrysler Hemi. At least that's my take on the "squish".
>Side note: The 427 wedge remained popular in parts of NASCAR through 1972 or
>so because of restrictions on hemi (and crescent?!?) -chambered motors.
No I'm not thinking of the Boss 429. The Boss 429 was built for Nascar too,
but it'd have killed all the competition. That is the motor that led Nascar to
outlaw all hemis.
>>>>I can also remember back in '83 when Nascar quickly outlawed
>>>>the offset chassis. That's a shame because I saw one of the
>>>>first ones sitting in the shop.
>
>Cool idea! Here, have a cookie. You finally taught me something
>interesting, though your credibility with facts is presently waning so I
>won't be able to repeat it unless I research it some more. Was Smoky
>involved in that (rhet)?
Then research away. Want to know who the chassis builder was? The same guy
still prepares Nascar chassis' to this day.
>>>>Hey Shoe, since you know so much about Nascar race motors
>>>>(yah, right) maybe you can answer this (I doubt it). What is the
>>>>one thing you absolutely have to do if you are going to let a Nascar
>>>>race motor sit for a week without running if you want it to last more
>>>>than 10 min and why? TIA.
>
>Interesting question. You'd get a second cookie for adding yet another
>juicy tidbit to the thread, but you lose it for claiming I know a lot about
>NASCAR race motors. I don't. I'm especially not hot on the latest
>technology. I claim, as previously stated, only to know a heap (and far
>from everything) about the FE series of motor. My suspicion regarding your
>question is the valve springs would need to be relaxed, or perhaps only the
>pushrods need to be relaxed. Perhaps you might try this on yourself?
I already know the answer, so I don't have to try. And yes, you get partial
credit for guessing the valve train has to be relaxed, but you don't make the
grade because you never stated why.
Anthony S
>The engine in the 2000 Eclipse GT is a SOHC 24 valve V6, which surprised
>the hell out of me. 4 valves per cylinder with SOHC.
How in the hell did they do that? You got pictures. I wanna see 'em.
Dave Shoe
COOL!!! I haven't yet found any web resources with this info. I'd like to
connect with the site. Could you point me to the URL, please? I got the
impression from my book that the chart was published by Ford to define the
baseline Cammer to racers and the public.
Note that Cammer crate motors were never blueprinted to racing specs, only
to 427 production specs. Blueprinting was always left to the buyer, and
frequently tasked to H&M once the owner paid for the crate. It's my belief
that the process of blueprinting the Cammer didn't so much benefit the
overall power as it helped tweak/equalize the power to all cylinders, to
prevent things like detonation in one particular cylinder at maximum
outputs. Blueprinting also obviously tolerances and relieves the parts so
they can live at thrashing speeds a bit longer.
>>>I could've sworn they called the engines in the Cyclones and Torino
>>>Cobra's CobraJets. Oh well, you are probably right.
If the image of the car is clear in your mind, you are definitely thinking
of the drags.
You may be thinking of the 1969-1/2 Ford NASCAR mandate when the Torino
Talladegas (and Cyclone IIs) were homolgated and on the race track prior to
the availability (homologation) of the 429 Boss motor.
Ford wanted to define the 1969-1/2 Torino Talladega (based on the 1969
Fairlane Cobra) to the NASCAR public as a pure Boss motored vehicle (an
additional marketing tactic to aid the differentiation was to officially
change the "Fairlane" tag on the Cobra to "Torino" on the Talladega).
Because the early Talladegas had 427 tunnel port motors, Ford dictated that,
to get any factory sponsorship, they needed to paint their 427 Talladega as
a "Torino Cobra". No decals saying "Torino Talladega" were allowed to be
displayed on the 427 Talladegas if you expected to be paid. I never heard
whether similar rules were ever placed on the aero-nosed Cyclone.
Actually, Ford marketing somehow decided to sour on the Fairlane tag for the
Cobra once 1969 got under way, so the plain old Fairlane Cobra (common
nosed) race cars started to get "Torino" painted on their flanks. I don't
know if Ford sponsorship played into this earlier naming trend, or if racers
just liked theTorino name better because it contained fewer letters to paint
on the car. I do know that the 1969 production Cobra was a Fairlane, and
always had a 428CJ or SCJ. The 1970 became the Torino Cobra (though the
base - and most common frickin' motor in the 1970 was a wimpy 429, the CJ
429 and SCJ 429s being Torino Cobra options - bean counters suck).
>>>Want to know who the chassis builder was?
Actually, this info is pretty well beyond my scope of eptitude and interest.
I gotta stick to what I know, and learn whatever I can within my limited
realm.
>>>you get partial credit for guessing the valve train has to be
>>>relaxed, but you don't make the grade because you never stated why.
The reason does interest me. I'd assume it would be to prevent the
critically treated spring material from scragging (exceeding the Hooks
limit) until absolutely necessary (i.e.: fatiguing naturally during the
race). Valve springs, like tires, have changed so dramatically over the
years that I don't know much about their physics anymore.
See what this thread has turned into because of us? We should have let it
die respectably.
Having fun watching the thread's subject line disappear off to the right,
Shoe.
Chris Bredesen
1993 or so?
-Chris
Vlad Petersen <nojunk...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:3838DCD8...@uniserve.com...
> Kathy and Erich Coiner wrote:
> >
> > In cubic inches it is 281. It is an all new (since 96) over head cam V8.
>
> A bit of a correction: the 281 SOHC V8, although it appeared in Mustang
> only in 96, have been available if I am not mistaken since the early
> 90's in other Ford cards, probably in an SUV like Explorer and some long
> bodied sedans like Lincoln or one of the Murcuries.
>
> > They did it to save money and get better gas mileage and be able to say
that
> > their cars are overhead cam engines. No reason to avoid one especially
if
> > you want a new once since the 5.0 is Obsolete.
>
> Regards,
> Vlad
TiggerSVO
Siamesed-paired 'rockers'.
Joe
'96 Cobra 13.91 @ 102mph ~ bone stock
'89 GT 142,000+ miles and still kick'n!
Anthony S
>>How in the hell did they do that?
>
>Siamesed-paired 'rockers'.
Pretty cool idea. I wonder where it originated from.
Anthony S
>Didn't the Modular first appear as the 32V flavor in the Mark VIII around
>1993 or so?
No, that was the first 32V mod motor though. It really appeared a year earlier
in the Crown Vic and a lesser Lincoln as a 16V engine.
Gary H
wrote:
>>From: "Chris Bredesen"
>
>>Didn't the Modular first appear as the 32V flavor in the Mark VIII around
>>1993 or so?
>
>No, that was the first 32V mod motor though. It really appeared a year earlier
>in the Crown Vic and a lesser Lincoln as a 16V engine.
TBirds/Cougars started with the 2V 4.6 in '94....Mark VIIIs started
with the 4V 4.6 in '93. Crown Vics/Grand Marquis started around '91
with the 2V 4.6.
dang...@earthlink.net
>My friend's Cammer, built in Michigan 4 years ago to slightly warmed factory
>specs with the help of John Vermeersch's shop/warehouse, exceeds the
>1964-1/2 factory HP numbers. Heck, I'd believe Vermeersch's daily-driver
>390 SOHC puts out 600+ HP easily. (I was told his '64 convertible was a 390
>SOHC, but I'd be more inclined to believe it was a short-stroke 396 SOHC.
>Could be either, I guess. Someday maybe I'll find out.)
>
Shoe, you seem to be my man. I hope you don't mind, but I live in SE
Mich, and I am also interested in a 427 Mustang. I've had a couple of
Mustangs before.
I've always wanted a Mustang Convertible with the 68' Shelby GT500KR
bodywork and a 427. I saw one in Underground Atlanta years ago, and
since then I've been hooked. Where do I begin?
I've been looking through the web, Shelby clubs, 427 Marine Engine
builders, a good FE engine history page, some other places, but it
sounds like you have a line on the real shit. Any advice or
suggestions would be sincerely appreciated.
Post here or Email if you want.
Sounds like you have some NICE toys!
Thanks much in advance.
Regards,
Dangerdave
dang...@earthlink.net
wrote:
>>>>>For a real exotic, look into the Ford 427 SOHC "Cammer". 600+HP from
>>>>>a single 4V, factory stock. If you can call any 427 "stock".
>>>> Three, the 427 cammer is a SOHC 2V engine, not a 4V one, and
>>>>it makes nowhere near 600hp in stock form.
>>>
>>>Umm, I think he meant V as in venturi, whenever I read about old Ford
>>>engines that's my assumption anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>True, but since this is a thread about the 4.6, I found it confusing to say
>the
>>least. 4V and 2V mean something totally different when talking about mod
>>motors.
>
>It is a matter of context. Because terminology has changed over the
>decades, it is probably best that certain acronyms be spelled out
>appropriately to prevent misunderstandings between the generations.
>
>When speaking of the 427 Cammer (a high-revving hemi motor), whether it be
>the first 50 aluminum headed monsters made for NASCAR homologation (but
>instantly illegalized by Bill France when he upped the hologation quantity
>requirement to 500) in 1964-1/2 to compete with Chrysler's free-breathing
>426 Hemi OHV motor, or the 250-or-500 (it's argueable whether the second
>batch of 250 homologation motors were made, but it is generally accepted
>they were) 1965-and-later "revised port" iron headed beasts, created only to
>keep Chrysler's 426 Hemi in-check with NASCAR, the "V" stands for venturi,
>not valves per cylinder. Just to keep things clear for those less familiar
>with the early iron, the 427-8V made 652 HP at 8300 RPM using Ford's "Solar"
>camsaft grind. It was advertised to NASCAR as 616 HP at 7000 RPM, because
>that was the official redline of the motor (and also because Ford didn't
>want NASCAR to kill the motor). I've never seen power specs for the 427-4V
>(that would be "venturi") Cammer, but 600 HP+ is reasonable for this docile
>"grocery-getter". Also note the first 50 Cammers had magnesium valve covers
>and incorporated valve shims, and the latter bunch used taller aluminum
>valve covers to fit adjustable rockers.
>
>The 1964-1/2 Cammer made nearly identical power to the 1964 427HR up through
>the HR's rated peak of 540 HP at 6300 RPM, but at this point the Cammer just
>kept making more power as the revs rose. The 1965-1/2 427MR-8V (which owes
>it's stronger block, crank, rods, and more to the Cammer) made 485HP at
>6300RPM, and the original 1963-1/2 427LR-8V made 425 HP at 6000 RPM. In
>early 1965 the port/bowl floors were revised (filled in) to improve flow in
>both the Cammer and the HR, but revised power figures were apparently never
>released thorough Ford.
>
>I guess, when you speak of 2V, 4V, 8V or whatever, it only makes sense in
>the right context. Because the 427 SOHC was only made in 2 valve form,
>referring to the valve count is pointless (venturi count may be a different
>matter), though I do sometimes wonder what the infamous 427 Cammer would do
>with a DOHC / 4-valve arrangement. Side note: the 427 block reinforcements
>(square-cast cylinder jackets, etc) of 1966-1/2 were not directly due to 427
>SOHC motor development.
>
>Shoe.
>
Good stuff, Shoe.
For a street car, do you think it is possible to make a 427 cammer
live? The 6ft cam chain has got me wondering.
Also, where do the tunnel port engines fit in the history?
Last question: I've heard the medium riser is the best bet for a
street car. Any suggestions on the best street version? I'm thinking
about a '67 or '68 chassis w/ 427.
As to the "V" abbreviation, yeah, its definitely a matter of taking it
in proper context:
A few examples off the top of my head:
Valve as in OHV
Venturi as in 4V
Volts as in a 12V
Vehicle as in SVO
Vee as in V8
as so on.
Lots of "V's" in gearhead speak :-)
Regards,
Dangerdave
dang...@earthlink.net
>near misinformation. Its a cold fact.
Really? How much HP does it take to push a mid sixties,
non-aerodynamic, full size, heavy, originally stock Galaxie body and
chassis to 200+MPH?
Even today, with super slippery, downsized, light weight, modern full
racing bodies and tube chassis, it still takes 400+HP, according to
the Winston Cup engine builders. Think they're pulling our legs?
Hey, maybe they only raced downhill in the 427 days :-)
The new 4.6L DOHC is a beautiful engine. It just doesn't have the
pure balls of the 7L SOHC racing engine. The 4.6L has other
advantages, like much lighter weight, more modern design, good
emissions, a long warranty period, good reliability, street
driveability, modern materials, and so on. The 4.6L is good on the
street, as it was designed to be.
Regards,
Dangerdave
dang...@earthlink.net
wrote:
>>>>For a real exotic, look into the Ford 427 SOHC "Cammer".
>>>>600+HP from a single 4V, factory stock.
>
>Also, you DID state "from a single 4V". It's really tough to confuse your
>context with "valve count". Carburetors aren't exactly obsolete in racing
>circles, so even fuel-injected youngsters should still understand the lingo.
>
>Shoe.
I was going to point that out, Shoe. But the emotional young man
seemed to be upset enough already :-)
Regards,
Dangerdave
sh...@my-deja.com
asmal...@aol.com--SUCKS (Anthony S) wrote:
> >From: shape
>
> >The engine in the 2000 Eclipse GT is a SOHC 24 valve V6, which
surprised
> >the hell out of me. 4 valves per cylinder with SOHC.
>
> How in the hell did they do that? You got pictures. I wanna
see 'em.
I don't have any pictures of the engine's guts. Just pictures of
the engine bay. And you can barely see anything under that intake
manifold anyway.
But it seems someone else answered your question anyway :-)
Makes you wonder if someone could make similar SOHC 32 Valve heads
for the Mustang GT :-)
dang...@earthlink.net
>were 615 hp @ 7000 rpm with a single 4-barrel (C6AE-6007-363S), and
>657 hp @ 7500 with dual carburetors (C6AE-6007-359J). For racing
>applications, Ford recommended owners blueprint the engines
>themselves. I don't think blueprinting and balancing improved the
>power output much. They are important to allow a motor to run
>continuously at top RPM, full power, without shaking itself apart,
>like in NASCAR. A 427 could be factory special ordered for Shelby's
>and for dealer Mustangs. I'm not sure which versions of the 427 were
>available for Mustangs and Shelbys.
Adding to my own post, after a bit of research.
The 427SOHC was offered in Mustang A/FX cars (factory experimental).
Street Mustangs and Shelbys received non-OHC 427's on special order
basis.
There may have been a few guys who managed to get 427 SOHC's installed
in their street Mustangs, via the "factory direct" method :-)
Regards,
Dangerdave
dang...@earthlink.net
Regards,
Dangerdave
Anthony S
>>Saying the 427 cammer makes no where near 600 hp in factory form is no where
>>near misinformation. Its a cold fact.
>
>Really? How much HP does it take to push a mid sixties,
>non-aerodynamic, full size, heavy, originally stock Galaxie body and
>chassis to 200+MPH?
Oh, the A/FX Galaxie. That would be FX as in Factory Experimental. Sounds
like a prototype and not a production car to me.
The Saleen mustang is more of a production vehicle.
>Even today, with super slippery, downsized, light weight, modern full
>racing bodies and tube chassis, it still takes 400+HP, according to
>the Winston Cup engine builders. Think they're pulling our legs?
>
>
Actually on about 450 hp with Winston Cup cars on superspeedways, you can only
go about 190.
Now just where did this 200 mph run occur? Was it documented by a third party,
or is this just another manufacturer claim?
>Hey, maybe they only raced downhill in the 427 days :-)
If that's what you'd like to believe.
>The new 4.6L DOHC is a beautiful engine. It just doesn't have the
>pure balls of the 7L SOHC racing engine.
No duh? Who ever said it did. Your key words there are racing engine! Or did
you miss that?
>The 4.6L has other
>advantages, like much lighter weight, more modern design, good
>emissions, a long warranty period, good reliability, street
>driveability, modern materials, and so on. The 4.6L is good on the
>street, as it was designed to be.
And who ever argued that it wasn't? Is this an attempt to appease me? You are
the one who said the SOHC 427 race engine, blah, blah, blah. I just said no
production engine has made 600 hp. The point is and was the 427 SOHC engines
were prototype racing engines. Did you figure that out yet? You yourself
almost stated it?
Heck, I've got a dyno graph for a 4.6L DOHC race motor making 837 hp with a
production block, crank, and heads. Big freakin' deal though. That's not the
issue.
Anthony S
>For a street car, do you think it is possible to make a 427 cammer
>live? The 6ft cam chain has got me wondering.
Well there are cam chains that long in street cars now. Of course, if you
understood 4V in today's engines, you'd know that.
Thanks for calling me an "emotional young man and upset." I see you can't
dismiss a simple mistake either. Thanks.
Please go pat yourself on the back some more. I hope when you make an honest
mistake I'm there to rub your face in it too.
Anthony S
>Adding to my own post, after a bit of research.
>
>The 427SOHC was offered in Mustang A/FX cars (factory experimental).
There ya go... Experimental / one off cars, not production ones.
Anthony S
>Here's a nice grocery hauler!
>
>Regards,
>Dangerdave
>
This is a nonbinary group. Post a link if you want people to see this. Don't
post it to the group.
Anthony S
>Makes you wonder if someone could make similar SOHC 32 Valve heads
>for the Mustang GT :-)
>
Dominion makes heads like them for the 5.0, but they are just too damned
expensive. They are 32V heads using a single cam and pushrods.
Bam2723
As for the reasons to avoid a 4.6, let's just say performance parts are almost
price prohibitive. The later cars do ride better and the extra weight really
halps when launching but other than that go 5.0 unless you have the patients to
wait for a larger selection of go fast stuf for the 4.6.
dang...@earthlink.net
wrote:
>>From: dangerdav
>
>>For a street car, do you think it is possible to make a 427 cammer
>>live? The 6ft cam chain has got me wondering.
>
>Well there are cam chains that long in street cars now. Of course, if you
>understood 4V in today's engines, you'd know that.
Gee, I wish I understood engines like you.
Regards,
Dangerdave
dang...@earthlink.net
>>From: dangerdav
>
>>>Saying the 427 cammer makes no where near 600 hp in factory form is no where
>>>near misinformation. Its a cold fact.
>>
>>Really? How much HP does it take to push a mid sixties,
>>non-aerodynamic, full size, heavy, originally stock Galaxie body and
>>chassis to 200+MPH?
>Oh, the A/FX Galaxie. That would be FX as in Factory Experimental. Sounds
>like a prototype and not a production car to me.
No. Sustained 200MPH, my friend. Grand National.
You've got a cool car. But that's no reason to shit on more powerful
Fords. It doesn't diminish you or your car that other Ford engines
had more power. There will always be a more powerful engine out there
somewhere. Arguing otherwise is unwise.
Regards,
Dangerdave
dang...@earthlink.net
>>From: dangerdav
>
>>Here's a nice grocery hauler!
>>
>>Regards,
>>Dangerdave
>>
>
>This is a nonbinary group. Post a link if you want people to see this. Don't
>post it to the group.
>'97 Cobra #301
>http://members.aol.com/asmall9494/
><a href="http://members.aol.com/asmall9494/">The Cobra Lair</a>
><a href="http://members.aol.com/svo23turbo/l">Anthony's SVO Site</a>
>
>Try SuperFord and 5.0 magazines free for 90 days at my site.
>
You really ARE an angry young man. And badly informed as well!
Anthony S
>>>From: dangerdav
>>
>>>Here's a nice grocery hauler!
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Dangerdave
>>>
>>
>>This is a nonbinary group. Post a link if you want people to see this.
>Don't
>>post it to the group.
>
>>'97 Cobra #301
>>http://members.aol.com/asmall9494/
>>The Cobra Lair
>>Anthony's SVO Site
>>
>>Try SuperFord and 5.0 magazines free for 90 days at my site.
>>
>
>You really ARE an angry young man. And badly informed as well!
No, you are just stupid. Me telling you not to post binaries is nothing new
around here. If you'd been a part of this group for more than a minute or two,
you'd have figured it out for yourself. I'm just trying to help you. But
since you're a bitter, stupid person, you are beyond help.
Anthony S
>>Oh, the A/FX Galaxie. That would be FX as in Factory Experimental. Sounds
>>like a prototype and not a production car to me.
>
>No. Sustained 200MPH, my friend. Grand National.
>
>You've got a cool car. But that's no reason to shit on more powerful
>Fords. It doesn't diminish you or your car that other Ford engines
>had more power. There will always be a more powerful engine out there
>somewhere. Arguing otherwise is unwise.
>
Yes, my car is fine. I'm still waiting for you to show me a production engine
that makes 600 hp though. That's all. No one is saying that factory built
racing engines can't make that kind of power. They can.
Anthony S
>>>From: dangerdav
>>
>>>For a street car, do you think it is possible to make a 427 cammer
>>>live? The 6ft cam chain has got me wondering.
>>
>>Well there are cam chains that long in street cars now. Of course, if you
>>understood 4V in today's engines, you'd know that.
>
>Gee, I wish I understood engines like you.
>
You are the one that is worrying needlessly. There are lots of Ford engines
with 6 ft long timing chains approaching the 100K mile mark while you sit by
worrying needlessly.
Bill S_98GT
cheaper (I don't feel like going and getting the magazine, but it was cold air
thingy or something along those lines and it was more for the 5.0).
Also, there's plenty of parts for the 4.6. You may not have two dozen brands of
something, but you have a couple to choose from. I can do absolutely everything to
my 4.6L that I did (or even planned to do, like a blower, heads, full exhaust,
etc.) with my '86, '89 and '91 5.0's. Patience has nada to do with it. And I might
add, this kind of talk is part of what is hurting the 4.6L image aftermarket. Why
wait when you can do anything you want now? If anything, this is the best time to
do it.
This little 281 stock is just as quick as my '91 302 w/ pullies, headers, mufflers,
de-baffled/K&N, Splitfires/hipo wires, bumped timing, P245 T/A Z's in back and
3.08:1 5-speed. It's no WS6, but who cares?
-bill