And when Svt was making the 03/04 cobra they tried to keep it naturally aspirated. Only after exhausting all avenues to get the numbers they wanted with no avail did they decide on going with a supercharger .
2012 300C vs 03 Mach 1
- Thread starter 03SonicBlueGT
- Start date
And when Svt was making the 03/04 cobra they tried to keep it naturally aspirated. Only after exhausting all avenues to get the numbers they wanted with no avail did they decide on going with a supercharger .
You edited the post, and yet you still haven't stated where I was wrong? lol...
WTF does any of that have to do with the modern 5.7 still being nothing more than average at best?
Let’s look at some facts the 2012 Hemi Eagle 5.7 makes 363Hp and 394Tq so this equates to.
63.68Hp per liter
69.12Tq per liter
Here we have Ford's crappy 10 year old Mach 1 Dohc 4.6l motor Rated at 305Hp and 320Tq which equals.
66.30Hp per liter
69.56Tq per liter
So it looks to me Fords 10 year old technology is still ahead of Mopar.
More horsepower per liter is the ricer excuse for lack of horsepower. Seriously, more horsepower per liter is stuff you hear on the honda forums. Do you go around bragging and telling people hey I make 66 hp per liter what does your engine make? No. Why? Because no one gives a shit and the mustang until 2011 has always been underpowered no matter which way you justify it.
The 4.6 is anemic at best. Does not matter how much horsepower per liter it has. The mustang has always been an underpowered car until recently when competition started stiffening up.
And who the hell cares about engineering marvels. Big woopie freakin do. The point im making is ford and all their camshafts and valves and what not, produced a very complicated engine that still didn't put down respectable numbers. Doesnt matter if the 5.7 is an engineering marvel or not. It performs well, especially in cars that weigh 4300 pounds with light mods. The 4.6 has always been an underpowered piece of shit that is extremely expensive to build and really only wakes up when you use forced induction. Now ford built the 5.0, pretty nuch maxd out the horsepower and slapped on a tsb stating they'll void your warranty if you modify the drive train. So sure ford built an over engineered marvel and dodge didnt. Do you want a cookie?
The 4.6 is anemic at best. Does not matter how much horsepower per liter it has. The mustang has always been an underpowered car until recently when competition started stiffening up.
And who the hell cares about engineering marvels. Big woopie freakin do. The point im making is ford and all their camshafts and valves and what not, produced a very complicated engine that still didn't put down respectable numbers. Doesnt matter if the 5.7 is an engineering marvel or not. It performs well, especially in cars that weigh 4300 pounds with light mods. The 4.6 has always been an underpowered piece of shit that is extremely expensive to build and really only wakes up when you use forced induction. Now ford built the 5.0, pretty nuch maxd out the horsepower and slapped on a tsb stating they'll void your warranty if you modify the drive train. So sure ford built an over engineered marvel and dodge didnt. Do you want a cookie?
Last edited:
Jeeze, for owning a 2 valve ford, you're bashing it pretty bad :shrug:
Last edited:
The 2v is a very good reliable commuter engine. From a performance aspect it sucks. I love daily driving my 2v. To modify it would be a serious waste of cash. The only 4v worth a shit is the terminator. The mach 1 4v is only rated 2 tenths of a second faster in the quarter than an even more anemic 2v bullitt. What could I possibly be jealous about? I dont street race anyways. I buy v8 cars whether they are underpowered or not because the alternative is some sort of toyota or honda.
Why is this thread still going? The 300C got pulled pretty bad, the Mach 1 won. End of story. Proved those wrong that it was gonna be a close/neck to neck race.
Because of bench racers and wanna be engineering majors kol
lol you're right. I modded the piss out of my 2V, short of cams and a power adder. Such a waste of money.:kaboom:
Yea because bolt on 5.0's running 10's is something you see everyday. Please pass me whatever it is your smoking. And your comparing a 2 door 3600lb 5.0 to a 4300 4 Door Sedan that makes what 370hp? 11.3 from a H/C RT is impressive period.
I don't see anyone who said it would be close....not even me. We were disputing the times at the 1/4
didn't even watch the video, the outcome was pretty predictable from the first post.
not too sure why this thread is blowing up? however, I was at a car meet this last week and I did see a full bolt on 2V walk a SRT8 300. The 2v had H/C/I, and was on a drag radial, it was nasty from a dig. Roll race the 2v still had a good solid 5+ cars on him though.
not too sure why this thread is blowing up? however, I was at a car meet this last week and I did see a full bolt on 2V walk a SRT8 300. The 2v had H/C/I, and was on a drag radial, it was nasty from a dig. Roll race the 2v still had a good solid 5+ cars on him though.
"full bolt on" is way different than "H/C/I".. It should have walked the 300, if the 300 was stock/minor bolt ons..
the 300 had full exhaust, i do know that. Not exactly sure what the difference between "full bolt on" and "h/c/i". Being the 2v had heads/cam/intake theres not much else you can bolt on the damn thing.
you're right...they were thinking about going n/a with it. the 2000 cobra R has an n/a 5.4 with 385 hp (more like 430ish because most put down close to 385 at the wheels in stock form) so ford could have easily went that route and put a similar engine to the 2000 cobra R....when the cubes go up so does the power and the ability to make power. They choose not to go that route...they wanted the blower because of the massive low and midrange torque and the ease of modifying. They didn't go with the power adder because they "can't" make the power n/a, they went with it because of reasons stated above. and maybe they wanted the n/a 5.4 to be a cobra R only kinda thing? not really sure about that...just a hunch
Last edited:
HP per liter? GTFO
Lol this is far off from the truth it makes me laugh
Hmm that's funny last I checked the Mach 1 4v in my 98 with a Vortech has been a terminator killer, including ported eaton terminators. When it was all motor it was making 307 whp and 329 tq with no UD pulleys and no headers. Car would beat on LS1's all day. So tell me again why you think the terminator 4v is the only good 4v again?
Don't waste your time gentlemen...don't you know that this guy knows everything? He also apparently has unlimited time to troll the board during the day to argue his inane conclusions.
Users who are viewing this thread
