4.6 Vs 5.4 Engine - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars

loxxr6 · 07-26-2004, 22:55

In another thread there's talk of the 4.6L V8 being a preferred engine to our 5.4L V8.

From what I hear the 4.6L mustang supercharged puts out decent figures. Ok so its supercharged right? What potential would it have if it weren't ? How does it stack up against the 5.4L then ? If you were to compare it in supercharged form how much more potential can u wring out of it ? More than a 5.4L supercharged ?

Which is the better engine ? Which should we be happy with having in our local ford v8 cars ???

Pro's and con's please !!!

back2thefutura · 07-26-2004, 22:57

5.4 all the way, i highly doubt Ford will introduce ANOTHER new engine into the fold just yet anyway.

Steffo · 07-26-2004, 23:20

Mustang Mach1 uses the non s/c version of the Cobra's engine. 4.6 DOHC 32v V8. It is rated at 305hp 305ftlbs (228kW 413Nm). Despite this rating, they often put down 330rwhp 330rwtq (246rwkW 447rwNm). Mustang Mach1's also run 13.3s - 12.9s stock. HSV GTS like times. They weigh 3600lbs approx (1636kg). Does this answer the n/a 4.6s potential? FPV GT like rear-wheel power outputs... much faster then any BA...

Maybe its due to the fact that while its bore is 3.55 inch, so is its stroke. Its a "square" engine.. and can rev far higher then our 5.4 can, which shares the 4.6's bore, but has an overly undersquare 4.165" stroke. I do like undersquare engines.. but 3.55 x 4.165 is just shocking. They could have made a 5.4 by giving the 4.6 a .060" overbore, and a 3.750" stroker crank (they already exist in the aftermarket world, so Ford can make such a crankshaft easily). 3.610 x 3.750 = 330ci = 5412cc. That 5.4 would be a FAR better proposition then our 5.4, since it will not be hampered by stroke. 3.61 x 3.75 are acceptable dimensions. 3.55 x 4.165 aren't. My two cents.

chevypower · 07-26-2004, 23:26

F150
4.6L 2v = 172kw @4750rpm, 393Nm@ 3,500rpm
5.4L 3v = 224kw @5,000 rpm, 489Nm @3,750 rpm

Mustang Cobra
4.6L 4V = 240kw@6000rpm, 430Nm @ 4,750rpm
(still in production) replacement will be the 5.0L

F150 Lightning
5.4L 2V Supercharged = 284kw@ 4,750rpm, 603Nm@3,250rpm
(would be a killer with the Boss heads)

Remember that if the 4.6 can be bored to 5.0, the 5.4 can be bored to 5.9!

So, until the Hurricane 6.2, lets have a Boss 5.9!

Steffo · 07-27-2004, 00:53

Your figures are for the 2001 Mustang Cobra. The naturally aspirated one. The 2003/04 one is Supercharged. 390hp 390ftlbs (291kW 528Nm).

F150 Lightning makes 610Nm.

The Boss 5.9 would still have an awsomely poor bore/stroke ratio. What's the point if its still unable to rev past 6000rpm safely? Naturally aspirated engines utilise RPM to make power. If our 5.4 was Supercharged, I would have no problems with it being limited to 6000rpm. The E55 AMG revs to 6100 after all, yet makes 350kW 700Nm and runs mid 12s. I guess this is the car I believe the FPV GT should equal... well, any sports sedan should look up to is as a matter of fact.

If they want to use N/A.. what about the 5.0 "Cammer" ? That's an exisiting N/A engine that revs alot better then the Boss290 and makes in excess of 300kW... Wouldn't it be nice to have one of those in the GT?

T_Terror · 07-27-2004, 01:05

If prefer a 4.6 personally. A hard-revving screamer does it for me, but i suppose most GT/XR8 owners would prefer more low down torque than power up high.

Thats an interesting alternative Steffo, ive heard alot of people baggin the 5.4 for being so undersquare and no being able to rev.

Lets all hope the upcoming 6.2 is a little more rev friendly

XRated · 07-27-2004, 01:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by chevypower

F150
5.4L 3v = 224kw @5,000 rpm, 489Nm @3,750 rpm

F150 Lightning
5.4L 2V Supercharged = 284kw@ 4,750rpm, 603Nm@3,250rpm
(would be a killer with the Boss heads)

Remember that if the 4.6 can be bored to 5.0, the 5.4 can be bored to 5.9!

So, until the Hurricane 6.2, lets have a Boss 5.9!

How would these stack up if they were 4v?

And a 5.9L Boss?! That would be nuts!!

chevypower · 07-27-2004, 01:17

I certainly dont have a problem with not revving past 6000rpm if i dont need to, I just checked on the US Ford website, and there was no supercharged Cobra - are you sure this wasnt a Saleen or prototype? Dads LS1 doesnt rev over 6000 - i am sure they can make it so it does, but i am very happy with the way it is...
Boss 5.9 is the way to go, even the 5.4 GT can rev hard enough

IPhido · 07-27-2004, 01:28

The 4.6 would have killed Ford.. I don't know where you guys get dreams of Ford US givving us Aussies all the killer engines.. It wouldn't happen. We would be left with less powerful slugs..

Basic
Fords basic 4.6 is the 4.6 SOHC 16 valve as fitted to several cars. We would have got the same nail as used in the Crown Victoria. Ford US would figure a V8 Falcon and crown Vic should have same powerplants..

They got
167 Kw @ 4800
372 Nm @ 4000

We got
220 Kw @ 4750
470 Nm @ 3250

Then for the XR8 they would have dumped the full hiperformance powa onto us in the form of the mighty 4.6L SOHC 16V Higher Output V8.

They got
178 Kw @ 4900
389 Nm @ 4100

We got

260 Kw @ 5250
500 Nm @ 4250

Then finally for the FPV range they would have dumped the mustang engine for us.. The Full DOHC unit..

They got:

227.6 Kw @ 5800
433 Nm @ 4200

We got:
290 Kw @ 5500
520 Nm @ 4500

WHOOO YEE.. I doubt we would have got the Supercharged engine, thats part of SVO's range.. If we did it would be really pricey.. They wouldn't let us have it cheap!

There was talk about replacing the I6 with the mustang V6 engine!!! So lets take a look at that!

144 Kw @ 5500
305 Nm @ 2800

we got
182 Kw @ 5000
380 Nm @ 3250

So as you can see Falcon got a massive hit of power compared to what Ford in the US peddles. Yes our cars are now heavier and less fuel efficent, but atleast they are pretty quick..

As for boring it out.. If its not done in the US Ford OZ would have a hard time justifying doing it for our little audience. So it wouldn't happen.. Its not part of the plan..

Ford OZ had a hard time apparently to convice the US nut jobs, that bolting the DOHC head unchanged onto the 5.4 was a good idea.

Steffo · 07-27-2004, 01:56

SVT was going to let us have their DOHC 5.4, but as I said, there was no tooling for it left. Why would they have refused us the 4.6? More money for them...

XR8 would have gotten the Mach1's 227kW 4.6. Ford USA is not stupid enough to give Ford Australia engines that can't begin to compete with a Camry Sportivo.. let alone SS's and stuff. Sure they are stupid, they build cars like Taurus, but they're not THAT stupid. I don't see why the Supercharged 4.6 would be pricey either, considering a brand new 390hp Mustang SVT Cobra costs less then a Falcon XR8 here.. $50,130 = $35,780.61 USD. That's XR8's MSRP. Cobra's MSRP is $34,745 US. Add $625 Destination and Delivery charges.. $35,370. Still cheaper but $410.61. Not to mention that it will totally rape an XR8 in anything to do with performance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chevypower

just checked on the US Ford website, and there was no supercharged Cobra - are you sure this wasnt a Saleen or prototype?

LMFAO, where on Ford's site did you find the 2001 Cobra? The history section?

http://www.svt.ford.com/vehicleCobraSpecs.asp <-- click vehicle specs.. 390hp 390lb-ft Supercharged V8.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPhido

WHOOO YEE.. I doubt we would have got the Supercharged engine, thats part of SVO's range.. If we did it would be really pricey.. They wouldn't let us have it cheap

Why wouldn't we? Its a mass production engine. No development spending required (unlike Boss290). The Cobra is $400 US CHEAPER then a bloody Boss260 powered XR8! You haven't given a valid reason other than it belongs to SVT. Big deal, SVT is 100% Ford owned.. they don't go of and say "No." They never have. Hell, in EB Falcon days we had BETTER engines then SVT did. EB Falcon GT = 200kW 420Nm 5.0 Windsor V8 (268hp 310lb/ft). 1993 SVT Cobra R = 235hp 280lb/ft (175kW 379Nm). I thought you said Ford AUS has a hard time justifying doing thigs for our "little audience" yet their best Mustang at the time, was far less powerful then a Falcon GT. In fact, an XR8 was almost at Cobra R level (166kW 388Nm). There is absolutley no reason why they would not have given us the Supercharged 4.6. And it is a far better engine then out Boss 5.4 will ever be, unless they come to their senses and Supercharge it, like the 4.6, then maybe the Boss will be far better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by T_Terror

If prefer a 4.6 personally. A hard-revving screamer does it for me, but i suppose most GT/XR8 owners would prefer more low down torque than power up high.

SVT Cobra is rated to having 528Nm (390lbft) @ 3500rpm and 390hp @ 6000rpm. That engine makes more torque at lower RPM then our Boss 290.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPhido

So as you can see Falcon got a massive hit of power compared to what Ford in the US peddles. Yes our cars are now heavier and less fuel efficent, but atleast they are pretty quick..

You see, one thing though, US sports car engines, and most engines in these types of cars, tend to be UNDERRATED. See, a Bpss290 is rated at 290kW, and makes 240 - 250kW at the wheels. A Mustang Mach1 is rated to 227kW and makes 240kW at the wheels. Hence why it can outrun a HSV GTS with "only" 227kW. Our makers don't do this, they seem content with in some cases, lying about flywheel power, when it truley is lower. I can't wait until someone engine dynos a Boss290, and finds the final power reading to say "265.0kW" or "270.0kW" and be in total shock. I'd expect to see that, considering how slow our cars are. FPV GT = low 14s average. Its Holden competition is low 13s average. Its US equivalent is mid 12s average. What is FPV doing wrong here? Don't forget, that Supercharged 4.6 is rated at 291kW from the factory, put puts down 275kW at the treads.. I'd say its got a tad more then 291kW... wouldn't you? My friend in the states had a 2002 Ford SVT Lightning. Rated at 380hp stock. Put down 356rwhp stock. 305rwhp would have been a more appropriate figure for a 380hp car... He currently has a 1996 Impala SS thats rated at 260hp stock... yet puts down 260rwhp stock. Hmm...