P71_CrownVic Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 You are? Whew!! At least we don't need to worry about your spawn showing up here. :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue II Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Something I posted back in Jan. Coyote and Bobcat http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...t=0&start=0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Something I posted back in Jan. Coyote and Bobcat http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...t=0&start=0 Your linked post mentions a NA 5.4 with 400 hp, did you mean 5.0 or 5.4? The "Bobcat" blown 4.6 with CGI block sounds interesting too!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 Your linked post mentions a NA 5.4 with 400 hp, did you mean 5.0 or 5.4? The "Bobcat" blown 4.6 with CGI block sounds interesting too!!! yeah I'm a little confused now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 yeah I'm a little confused now... Aussie built 5.4 4Vs are making those numbers today but suffer in bottom end torque compared to the 6.0 and 6.2 GM V8s. If Ford fixed up the 4V cam drives so VCT was possible, a huge lift in bottom end torque would happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunder road Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 Aussie built 5.4 4Vs are making those numbers today but suffer in bottom end torque compared to the 6.0 and 6.2 GM V8s.If Ford fixed up the 4V cam drives so VCT was possible, a huge lift in bottom end torque would happen. Thats where the GDI comes in better low end torque, along with a cooler intake charge allowing higher compression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 (edited) Thats where the GDI comes in better low end torque, along with a cooler intake charge allowing higher compression. That's all well and good but in another thread Blue II said they tested the engine already with DOHC VCT and PFI for 420 hp. Edited May 14, 2008 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 That's all well and good but in another thread Blue II said they tested the engine already with DOHC VCT and PFI for 420 hp. PFI? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosetang Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 PFI? Port Fuel Injection. AKA: Not Direct Injection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 A 5.0L based off the monstrous 5.4 block would be retarded, and the only aluminum block they have for the 5.4 is the expensive GT block. I can't imagine them doing something like that.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 A 5.0L based off the monstrous 5.4 block would be retarded, and the only aluminum block they have for the 5.4 is the expensive GT block. I can't imagine them doing something like that.. From everything I've been reading, I think that the 5.0L is going to be sharing the 8.94" deck height with the 4.6... or at least something close to it. Destroking the 5.4 to 5.0L would make no sense whatsoever, talk about dead weight and wasted space. I remember reading the 5.0 bore is going to be larger than the 4.6s at roughly 92mm (3.625") and that longer cylinder liners would be incorporated to support a slightly longer stroke, probably something close to a 3.675" stroke if the 92mm bore diameter is accurate. A 3.625" bore x 3.675" stroke gives us a 5.0L (4972cc) and 303 cid. It also seems like it would still be a very stable setup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 (edited) Did I miss something? :boring: You said: LLN does a story with months old info and yet they still screw up the numbers... I then said: Well, what are the correct numbers then? Which caused Ford150 to say: burn.... Edited May 14, 2008 by rmc523 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 I think it is funny they cover up the Mustang badges with black tape as if no one is going to suspect it is a Mustang with them covered up... Most companies do that. Another example are BMW spy shots: with BMW's signature dual kidney grille, there's really no point in covering up the emblem, but they do anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 You said: I then said: Which caused Ford150 to say: And that means what exactly? Speak English, not ebonics.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 And that means what exactly? Speak English, not ebonics.. do you even know what ebonics is? if you think his English is ebonics, then you need to get out more, when you see a lifted panther on huge rims....ask them what size they are and what year their car is. then you will understand how you can't understand ebonics oh and you get points for such a stupid come back! ASS AWARD! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 (edited) And that means what exactly? Speak English, not ebonics.. I'll try to explain this in perfect english (even though it already was).....again. You mentioned the story was written with "months old" info and that they didn't use the correct numbers. I then asked you what the correct numbers were, Which caused Ford-150 to say "burn..." because I pointed out that you likely don't know any correct Coyote numbers. Now, if you have numbers and proof to go along with them, by all means, share them, but if not, you don't have to say they screwed up something that you don't even know the correct figures to. I hope that english made sense to you. Edited May 15, 2008 by rmc523 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 do you even know what ebonics is? if you think his English is ebonics, then you need to get out more, when you see a lifted panther on huge rims....ask them what size they are and what year their car is. then you will understand how you can't understand ebonics oh and you get points for such a stupid come back! ASS AWARD! You're just the type of retarded troll that should be banned, you must be no older than 15. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 You're just the type of retarded troll that should be banned, you must be no older than 15. I'm sorry i couldn't resist. but seriously I'm the troll? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHV 16V Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Back on topic... I guess what's amazing to me is how some folks around here find the new 5.0-liter's output so unfathomable. Most on here would agree that when Ford lets the boys in the powertrain dept. loose, they can match engines with anyone. That being said, 400 hp and 360-400 lb.-ft is entirely possible. A lot of folks on here love to bash Toyota, but look at the 5.0-liter V8 they have created for the Lexus IS-F: 5.0-liters(303 cu. in.) DOHC 32V 416 hp/ 371 lb.-ft. I certainly think Ford is capable of matching Toyota on that front, especially since Lexus got their 5.0-liter by enlarging guess what?.... Their corporate 4.6-liter V8. And about those torque numbers: Obviously, 360 is a doable number, but I would think they could achieve around 400, given the fact that Saleen already got 390. That doesn't sound like a wet dream with today's tech... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 I'm sorry i couldn't resist. but seriously I'm the troll? Yea you dumbass, you started flinging insults and taking the thread off-topic for no reason, that's what trolls do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Back on topic... I guess what's amazing to me is how some folks around here find the new 5.0-liter's output so unfathomable. Most on here would agree that when Ford lets the boys in the powertrain dept. loose, they can match engines with anyone. That being said, 400 hp and 360-400 lb.-ft is entirely possible. A lot of folks on here love to bash Toyota, but look at the 5.0-liter V8 they have created for the Lexus IS-F: 5.0-liters(303 cu. in.) DOHC 32V 416 hp/ 371 lb.-ft. I certainly think Ford is capable of matching Toyota on that front, especially since Lexus got their 5.0-liter by enlarging guess what?.... Their corporate 4.6-liter V8. And about those torque numbers: Obviously, 360 is a doable number, but I would think they could achieve around 400, given the fact that Saleen already got 390. That doesn't sound like a wet dream with today's tech... but those could be screwed up numbers :rolleyes: the only way i couldn't see the Mustang's 5.0L matching the Lexus's 5.0L is becuase the Lexus IS-F costs a shit load more than the Mustang GT but I know that those numbers are doable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 (edited) Yea you dumbass, you started flinging insults and taking the thread off-topic for no reason, that's what trolls do. LOL i guess for this one time that I am a troll because i tried to point out your comment that was posted pessimistically, now if I said that this engine was a wast of time and nobody cared then i would be as mush of a troll as you but i don't consider you a troll....you like Ford....we just don't see eye to eye on many things, so we(or just I) insult each other Edited May 15, 2008 by Ford-150 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 LOL i guess for this one time that I am a troll because i tried to point out your comment that was posted pessimistically, now if I said that this engine was a wast of time and nobody cared then i would be as mush of a troll as you but i don't consider you a troll....you like Ford....we just don't see eye to eye on many things, so we(or just I) insult each other Ok....end of argument then? Good, back to topic.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 (edited) I'll try to explain this in perfect english (even though it already was).....again. Yet until now you have not explained anything. You mentioned the story was written with "months old" info and that they didn't use the correct numbers. Correct. I then asked you what the correct numbers were, And before I could answer... Which caused Ford-150 to say "burn..." I didn't even get a chance. because I pointed out that you likely don't know any correct Coyote numbers. And you'd be wrong, they were discussed in detail in the thread about the 4V 5.0L engine, so nobody here should not know the facts surrounding this engine yet, excuse me for not knowing everybody here hadn't been beaten over the head with them yet. I've been told "details" about the 2010-11 Mustangs by an insider, and I don't think he was lying either since much of that info has been accurate so far. I ran into a Mazda designer last year who told me some things about the 09 M6 that turned out to be spot on, so it can happen if you're at the right place at the right time. Hell I talked to John Colletti years ago at the Knott's Ford show for a long time and learned some very interesting things, stuff you don't read about in magazines. Now, if you have numbers and proof to go along with them, by all means, share them, but if not, you don't have to say they screwed up something that you don't even know the correct figures to. There's about a 20 page thread around here somewhere with exact numbers, you've probably got about 70,000 posts in it, do you seriously not remember this huge and recent debate? And proof? Do you think ford mailed out official documents to people? Do you expect me to start naming names so people get fired? I am a Mustang nut, and I got lucky, that's all there is to it, I have no clue what ford is doing on any other project, but I do know some interesting details about the new Mustang. Of course, Ford could change lots between now and 2010, but it's doubtful. And another thing, throughout the years, nobody has had worse info than car magazines and now car blogs, nobody. They print every wild rumor or many times just stuff they made up to sell magazines, or generate traffic, this is pretty well known. Back in the early 90's Motor Trend ran a little article about how the 94 Mustang was to get a 320 horse 4V 4.6L mod, and it got a 215 horse pushrod 5.0L, they always screw up! Look at this month's Car and Driver, they have a photoshopped Mustang on the cover, and they are claiming it's getting the 6.2, I take everything they say with a grain of salt. I hope that english made sense to you. I hope you understand that the word "burn" doesn't mean anything when someone asks about an engine's power numbers. Edited May 16, 2008 by Blueblood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I'm sorry i couldn't resist. but seriously I'm the troll? Yes, now stop trolling and posting your little emo pictures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.