[mustang66maniac]

Ok, so this is not really a tech question, i just kinda want to see what most people think out there. SO which engine is better, having more perforance, reliability, technology, potential, etc. Im kinda having a beef with this guy about which is better. So let me know what you think.

 

[wellcontrol]

Personaly the ls-1 is better than any 4.6 on the
market.I have friends with both 4.6 and 5.0 stangs
as well as ls-1 camaros and the ls-1 and 5.0's move better.Remember,only my opinion.

 

[dmorris1200]

Nobody can deny that the Mustang hasn't exactly been kickin' Chevys but lately. But I think if you consider that the new 4.6DOHC coming in the 2003 Cobra is rated at 390hp at 6,000 rpm and 390lb-ft of torque at 3,500rpm, that's a significant increase over the 2001 Cobra which was around 320hp. Even the Cobra-R which had a 5.4 engine produced less hp. The question is how many of us can afford a 2003 Cobra, not me. Maybe I'll grab one used a decade or so from now if I'm still alive and kickin.

 

[JdOwNj]

The 4.6 has potential for MUCH more power, but doesnt ship with it from the factory. The big question is where to get it.

 

[dmorris1200]

Yes the 4.6, as does any engine, does have a lot of potential. But the first thing someone at Ford needs to figure out is why they keep popping head gaskets. They had some problems early on with their chain tensioners which they seam to have fixed, but over the last few months we have seen an alarming number of oil and coolant leaks (mostly oil) at the rear corner of the heads. Not sure whether it's a casting problem or Ford changed it's supplier for it's head gaskets. At first it was mostly F-150's with 4.6 engines but now we're seeing Grand Marq's and Crown Vics. as well. It would be a shame if it's just a poor quality head gasket 'cause it really is a great engine.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: dmorris1200 ]</p>

 

[mustang66maniac]

Yeah, I thought the DOHC 4.6 has why more potential that just any old, fuel injected pushrod 350. There is so much more technology put into the engine. People dont give the 4.6s enough credit.

 

[JdOwNj]

The big issue is that there are no aftermarket heads and very few people who can hog out the stock ones for more airflow... I wish theyd make a low compression head so that I could run mor turbo in the one im building...

 

[Tom]

just remember ford dropped something that worked great for the 4.6 and the factories seem to make products that are riddled with problems so their service departments can make lots of cash and modifications are difficult. Another thing to remember is nobody has made a classic in over twenty years,everything is wear dated and they lobby congress for legislation to destroy the old stuff. If you really think about it there's more quality in an old mustang radio nob or GTO headlight bezel or mopar pistol shifter than in the whole fleet they have created today, and if you don't believe me go to the boneyard and try to find parts for 82 to 90 cars most have gone off to the smelter from factory built in obsolesence I myself wouldn't even concider a 4.6 anything or a weak bodied 3rd or 4th gen camaro or firebird(started to do a T/A 3rd had to quit cause it wasn't worth the effort sorry for offending those who did)

 

[Studebaker]

Ill lean towards the Chevy because of reliability and performance, We have a fleet of Ford Crown Victoria's with the single overhead cam 4.6 and all the engines have started to develop severe oil consumption problems at about one hundred thousand miles. We also have had the Chevy Caprices and we still have a old one with a LT-1. This vehicle has very good performance with no engine problems, it also has excess of hundred thousand miles. The Fords also have experienced coolant leak problems at the intake manifold which is made of plastic. These problems have turned into costly repair bills. But in Fords defense, the Crown Victoria is a more comfortable car to drive and the interior has held up much better than the Chevy's. this is important when you drive about 150 miles a day. Both the Ford and Chevrolet fleet vehicles we have had no transmission or rearend problems. We recently purchased a new Chevy Blazer 4x4 S.U.V. with a 4.3 V-6 for a fleet vehicle and it has been in the shop more than we have used it. It has had numerous electrical problems.

 

[dmorris1200]

Good point Studebaker, Ford has come up with an updated intake manifold because of the coolant problems in the police cars. It's a combo. plastic/aluminum and seams to work better. They also used a 100% aluminum on some 4.6's with no problems. I'll say it again, I really believe the biggest faults are simply overeducated engineers that only know software programs and cost cutting parts departments. Almost all the problems we see at the dealership could be remedied by better guality parts and workmanship when they're built. We shouldn't have to fix their goofs later.

 

[JdOwNj]

To the defense of the Ford, we are going to have to learn to live with OHC motors, and I think the Ford is a very good one, It has bugs, but what brand new motor line doesnt... most of you guys dont remember, but when the first SBCs stared coming off the line, they had all kinds of troubles... The rear main seals always went, the Intakes would never seal, the early ones all flattened the cams at 70k... you get the idea... OHC reduces the valvetrain mass greatly for extended durability, When aftermarket manufactuers finally start making parts for it, it will be a truely great motor.

 

[Studebaker]

Reply to "dmorris1200", I have heard that Ford has come up with a solution to the 4.6 intake coolant leak problem by switching to an aluminum manifold. I actually think that the engineers for most of the major auto manufactures do have very good ideas and they do actually know how to engineer a part to work good and last. The problem is with the "bean counters" (accountants) that dictate to the engineers how to make a part cheaper to manufacture. Obviously, a plastic intake manifold (or other part)is much more cost effective to manufacture than aluminum. These companies are in the vehicle sales business not the engineering development business, however with ever increasing fuel economy and emission standards, this mentality is changing. A prime example of this is the early chrysler hemi (331, 354,392). It was stopped in production due to the high cost of machining parts such as combustion chambers and two sets of rocker shafts. The administrators for the company decided that a wedge design engine was cheaper to manufacture and still was able to get the vehicle down the road reliably and also increase profits for the company. And the rest is history!

 

[dmorris1200]

Very well said Studebaker, yes money is the root of all that is evil. But I would love to make a few engineers pull 4.6 engines out of new F-150's all day. Did they really need to stuff half the engine under the cowl. Is the truck really that much better because of it (in the real world). I just don't know, but I'm really enjoying this topic. Thanks for gettin it going mustang66, having much fun!

 

[Studebaker]

I know what you mean. Dodge does the same thing, ever look at a dodge truck with a V-10, half the engine is under the cowl. These are still easier than some other vehicles. Ever try to replace a water pump on a V-12 Jaguar! I did and I still have nightmares! And if you ever have a wiring problem on a Jag, forget it! Wiring by Lucas, Yea right. You know why the Brits drink warm beer? Because Lucas make refrigerators too!

 

[jimm]

you guys are having entirely too much fun!all good points though.the engineers do need to be made to work on the designs they stick us with! imagine what changes would be wrought!

 

[4 Jaw Chuck]

I think the thing that bothers me most is the idea of engineering right on the edge leaving no room for a safety factor. Extra thin wall castings, powder pressed con rods, plastic engine components etc. Overheat it once and you can kiss it all goodbye, turn it 100 rpm beyond redline and it all unravels etc. A good example is the 9" Ford axle, way overbuilt for the application but thank God they did. I like to have components a little heavier than required to account for the inevitable overload that will occur. Personally I could live with a car being a few pounds heavier if it was built to last and take some punishment. I think this is why trucks have become so popular, everyone is tired of buying disposable vehicles that can't take a 5 MPH hit in a parking lot without the steering wheel exploding in your face and the $1000 foam bumpers coming apart like a stuffed toy. I will rejoice in the day when I can actually buy a car that has chromed steel bumpers again. A non aerodynamic fin or two or stylish tailight wouldn't hurt either, really is this what we have to look forward to-jellybeans! You know my buddy has a 2002 Chevy ZR2 truck and it gets between 14-18 MPG with the 4.3, my 69 Mustang 351W tuned properly with the 3.0 axle got 16-18 even with the 290 duration cam and autolite 4 barrel. This is progress?