PDA

View Full Version : 4.6 in a 5-speed SC



Ty Whutaker
10-11-2005, 09:34 AM
I asked a tranny question in a different thread, but it may have been buried too low and fell off the radar, so am gonna ask again.

i am planning a 4.6 swap into my 89 5-speed SC due to engine being cooked. any experience along the lines regarding the likelihood of the 89 5-speed adapting to the 1997 t-bird 4.6 v8?

thanks for any comment

racecougar
10-11-2005, 09:58 AM
As I said in your other thread, the stock M5R2 will not bolt up to a 4.6L. The 3.8/5.0L bellhousing bolt pattern is different than the 4.6/5.4L bolt pattern. The only exception is the 92 4.6L from the Crown Vic, which had the 3.8/5.0L bolt pattern.

-Rod

Ty Whutaker
10-11-2005, 10:12 AM
certainly there is a bell housing available from a mustang, is there not?

4cefed
10-11-2005, 10:26 AM
First, how many mustangs run around with m5r2's in them? I've never heard of any. Second, the m5r2 doesn't use a bolt-on style bellhousing. It is cast with the rest of the tranny case... The only thing you are going to bolt an m5r2 up to is a 5.0 or 3.8. What's wrong with pushrod motors? Cams too cheap? Too many options for heads?

On a side note I've been pondering a v8 swap also... I was thinking somewhere along the lines of a forged 331 with afr heads, and to keep the SC an SC, some boost.

Ty Whutaker
10-11-2005, 10:53 AM
i wanted the 5.0, but was having trouble finding one, the 4.6 is way more common. thanks fopr the input. i wonder if there is an adapter.......

Jacob_Royer
10-11-2005, 02:00 PM
More common??? agghhh 4.6 suck get a 5.0 they are so much better in the long run and so much more available for them plus they are so much cheaper! My buddy's 2000 mustang gt ate the 4.6 at 50k miles! and he was not very hard on it! plus a mild 5.0 would smoke him anyday...



i wanted the 5.0, but was having trouble finding one, the 4.6 is way more common. thanks fopr the input. i wonder if there is an adapter.......

ThunderTurkey
10-11-2005, 03:16 PM
More common??? agghhh 4.6 suck . . . get a 5.0 they are so much better in the long run and so much more available for them plus they are so much cheaper! My buddy's 2000 mustang gt ate the 4.6 at 50k miles! and he was not very hard on it! plus a mild 5.0 would smoke him anyday...
:eek: ~"I forget .... WHY do all the cop cars have CrownVics with a 4.6 ??? I thought I read that a 4.6 can sit idling at a donut shop for HOURS, not overheat, and then when STOMPED, can outrun a 5.0 easily in a high-speed chase!!"

68COUGAR
10-11-2005, 03:38 PM
:eek: ~"I forget .... WHY do all the cop cars have CrownVics with a 4.6 ???
Because that's the only engine offered in them!

68COUGAR

4cefed
10-11-2005, 07:19 PM
Are cams too expensive for a 5.0? It is much easier to build a 5.0 than a 4.6. After all the 4.6 doesn't even have aftermarket heads available for them...I know fox lake yadda yadda... but wouldn't you rather have the extra torque of the additional displacement to get your conservatively weighed 3800 pound sc moving.
Or is it that you like changing plugs from the fender wells? As far as I am concerned the only 4.6 that would ever grace my engine bay would be a DOHC m112 monster... and it would still be an sc, kinda. Oh yeah... and the t-56 thing is cool too.

seawalkersee
10-11-2005, 11:51 PM
No way hoss...I like the 4.6. They benefit GREATLY from an overbore. It helps the heads flow a lot better. The bad part is, the NPI heads have the potential on the intake and the PI heads have the potential on the exhaust. With a STOCK engine and an AED. Steve W. made like 348 HP and 390 Ft lbs. with his 4.6 combo. You can wrap em till the cows come home and they are not harder to build. Just cheeper for the moment.

Chris

Jacob_Royer
10-12-2005, 05:12 AM
The only reason cop cars have 4.6's is the 5.0's arent available anymore besides i thought the police crown vics have 5.4's??? the early 4.6's are crap slow i dont even see how one could move a crown vic let alone chase down anything considering i've watched a 96 GT with mac intake offroad h pipe and flowmaster's get beat in a drag race by a bone stock 4.0 jeep with 31" tires on it at that!

XxSlowpokexX
10-12-2005, 09:33 AM
Here is the deal

A modular will be more expensive to build. Believe me I know

A 5.0 cheap

The modular motor in PI form has more power then a 5.0 HO

The modular motor in non PI form has less then a 5.0 HO

If you plan on keeping the motors stock get a 4.6 PI motor

If you plan on working the motors with bolt ons..Get a 4.6 PI motor

If you plan on doing a whole engine performance rebuild get a 5.0 HO(Cheaper)

If you plan on supercharging get a 5.0 HO(Very expensive to build a forced Induction 4.6)

ANy questiosn ask....There is a guy on TCCOA that has a 4.6 and a t45 from a stang..Look there

seawalkersee
10-12-2005, 11:29 AM
And no Crown Vic has come with a 5.4.

Chris

Jacob_Royer
10-12-2005, 02:08 PM
The 4.6 might be rated at higher HP than a 5.0 ho but i do not see how they could possibly have better tourque.. Seemed to me that you have to rev a 4.6 alot higher to get the power out of it than a 5.0... .And speaking of the 4.6 what the hell was ford thinking when they put them in extended cab 4x4 f150's??? I drove a couple of those while truck shopping what the hell??? My 300 6 f150 has more power! i drove one that had a CAI flowmaster exhaust a chip and some other crap done to it and it wouldnt even hardly pull a hill! To much truck and not enough engine!

4cefed
10-12-2005, 03:57 PM
Maybe the reason I am so against the 4.6 is because all I ever hear about from my buddy with a sho and an rx7 is RPM... neither of his cars has beat the SC yet... In fact the rx7 has never had a motor in it...But, "Torque is for amatures and people on a budget." (Quoted from Mr. SHO/ Wankle Boy) Well he nailed the budget part on the head, and both of my cars run. What ever happened to the cars that made ungodly amounts of torque? Remember the 455's that Pontiac had? That is what a good street motor should be like. Anyways, to go away from the bread and butter of what the SC motor was originally meant to do would be down right hypocritical. Is it not fun to have too much power down low? Who cares if you make XXX power at 8 grand...a true SC would be chirping second and leaving the rev to the frikkin moon motor.
In reply to the bone stock 4.0 jeep with 31's comment... My 02 with a 5 speed and 31's is a lot of fun to get ricer kids girlfriends to laugh at them.

Justin89SC
10-12-2005, 04:16 PM
The 4.6 might be rated at higher HP than a 5.0 ho but i do not see how they could possibly have better tourque.. Seemed to me that you have to rev a 4.6 alot higher to get the power out of it than a 5.0... .And speaking of the 4.6 what the hell was ford thinking when they put them in extended cab 4x4 f150's??? I drove a couple of those while truck shopping what the hell??? My 300 6 f150 has more power! i drove one that had a CAI flowmaster exhaust a chip and some other crap done to it and it wouldnt even hardly pull a hill! To much truck and not enough engine!

Myabe you havnt heard of Steve Dugan aka 1Mtncat? He is the fastest STOCK MN12 with a 4.6 PI motor with bolt ons. I know because my 89 SC is sitting as his house and have ran his car at the track several times.

OH....yeah. 5.0 would be cheaper to build than a 4.6. BUT if you MUST build a 4.6, go with a PI.

Just my 2 cents

Dirk SC
10-12-2005, 11:24 PM
He is the fastest STOCK MN12 with a 4.6 PI motor with bolt ons.


Is this sentance not a contradiction in itself?

XxSlowpokexX
10-12-2005, 11:29 PM
Yes because PI motors arnt stock in Tbirds anyway..Regardless of boltons or not

seawalkersee
10-13-2005, 07:22 AM
He means stock internals....Show up to the next shootout and say that and people will laugh at you...espically Connie when she kicks the crap out of the class again.

Chris

Justin89SC
10-13-2005, 08:09 AM
Yes because PI motors arnt stock in Tbirds anyway..Regardless of boltons or not

Yes, but its STILL a STOCK 4.6 motor.

Jacob_Royer
10-13-2005, 02:07 PM
In reply to the bone stock 4.0 jeep with 31's comment... My 02 with a 5 speed and 31's is a lot of fun to get ricer kids girlfriends to laugh at them.

Same earlier mentionedd jeep is an auto cherokee and runs 10.5 in the 1/8th thats saying alot for what it is...

XxSlowpokexX
10-13-2005, 08:35 PM
My stock PI motor in my bird has a Supercharger..And that charger is a bolt on and well...Anyway hehe

seawalkersee
10-13-2005, 08:38 PM
You suck...well...actually, Im kind of jellous...well, actually, Im really jellous. Wish you were in OKC.

Chris

4cefed
10-13-2005, 08:51 PM
Same earlier mentionedd jeep is an auto cherokee and runs 10.5 in the 1/8th thats saying alot for what it is...

They are bullet proof motors that will run FOREVER (the 4.0's) I've seen a few come in to the shop where I work with well over 250,000 miles on them that still ran pretty decent.

Mine is an 02 wrangler that is pretty much bone stock with a recent tune up... some kid in a neon was trying to show off and the jeep took him down. It was grand, and then a second time... he said it was a fluke, so I told him I could go get my "V-6" T-bird. He turned right at the next light.

fast Ed
10-14-2005, 09:35 AM
The only M5R2 with a 4.6 bellhousing would be from a 97 - 04 F-150. But the rest of the housing wouldn't work. Check around on TCCoA. Most of the people there are using T-45 trannies with the 4.6.


cheers
Ed N.

1MTNCAT
10-15-2005, 07:37 PM
Is this sentance not a contradiction in itself?

Since I sort of got drug into this I'll just say this. I have no problems with the Super Coupes or the Community as a whole as some V8 folks have but let me assure you that the car (My Car 1MTNCAT) did do 13's with Typical bolt- ons with the FACTORY STOCK 4.6 NON-PI engine and not once but several times. If there is any doubt there is video out there and Mike Siska, was there with his bird when it did it. Not only that, Jerry W of SCT was also present at the time. All in all that day the car made 21 passes morning and afternoon, all on the motor. Best of 13.89-worst of 14.07, so much for the 4.6 theory! Here's the real kicker, it had 116K miles on it when it did it!

The current PI set up, FACTORY STOCK Shortblock with Stock Untouched PI heads and PI cams, has gone a best of 13.3 @ 102.2 at the MN12 Nationals in North Carolina last September.

The arguements may remain but those are facts. With the only power adder being a ZEX nitrous system, the FACTORY STOCK shortblock has gone low-low 12's @ 109 MPH. BTW the STOCK 116 K motor went 12.89 @ 105 MPH before I swapped in the PI Version.

On the Dyno at Amazon racing Last August 2004, Jerry W of SCT tuned the car, it showed 257HP @ 317 TQ at the wheels on the motor, and 347HP @ 503 TQ at the wheels on the juice.

I Just wanted to relay the facts as they are. Next year I hope to Have the heads ported and polished and possibly aftermarket cams to see what it will do on the same set-up.

I've run at Hagerstown with Coy Miller on Occasion. If you don't believe me speak with him. He's seen it on more than one occasion a year or so ago.

Just wanted to pass this along.

Good luck in your modding!!!! :)

seawalkersee
10-15-2005, 09:28 PM
I think Jonny Langton is running 12s on his NPI setup. He has ported heads and such but no power adders. I for one LOVE the 4.6. I wish it were cheaper to get more cubes in the same package but I guess that goes with the deal.

Chris

1MTNCAT
10-16-2005, 09:22 AM
I think Jonny Langton is running 12s on his NPI setup. He has ported heads and such but no power adders. I for one LOVE the 4.6. I wish it were cheaper to get more cubes in the same package but I guess that goes with the deal.

Chris


That is a true Statement. Johnny is running mid 12's on his set-up which is exceptional. However, unlike mine, its a FULLY BUILT 4.6L NON -PI ALUMINUM block Fully ported and polished heads, Aftermarket cams, etc, etc and possibly bored (Big Bore) set-up. The last Im not sure of nor does it really matter. The point being is the talk of the longevity of the 4.6 or its performance potential here is unfounded by some of the comments that have been made.

Again I'm not trying to stir anything up, just stating facts for those that seem not to know. I hope this helps clarify some thing.

Good luck on you modding.

seawalkersee
10-16-2005, 09:34 AM
His is not a big bore motor. He wants to keep it stock size. Thats his thing. I would like to go big bore with mine AND a supercharger. BTW...we dont usually start pissing matches on this site...It happens on occasion but not as often as it does on TCCoA.

Chris

XR7 Dave
10-16-2005, 10:29 AM
Regardless of how quick those 2 4.6 cars are, it needs to be pointed out that numbers racing is only relevant on the internet. We are not comparing apples and apples here, so it does no good to paint pictures of greatness for newbies who don't understand what it takes to get to a certain performance level.

Before we talk about the 1-2 fastest 4.6 MN12's in the country, we should talk a little more about the average modded MN12 from both arenas.

Lets start with 257rwhp / 317rwtq. I dyno tuned a 1990 SC with an entirely stock 140K mile 3.8 yesterday and it made 255rwhp / 380rwtq. This car had only basic bolt ons (UD pulleys, CAI, TB, 95 SC w/pulley, and exhaust). That's it. What does it run in the 1/4 mile? Don't know. But if we are talking only about engines here, you just can't show me how a 4.6L will make more power than a stock SC engine. I CAN show you that a stock 4.6 weighs a whole lot more than a 3.8L SC engine. So where is the advantage? What is the benefit? Help me out here.

Then lets talk about the rest of the equation. What tranny does the 4.6L MN12 have? How much of an advantage is the tranny? Will I be able to use it in my 1990 SC? What will be involved in that swap? How much of your performance is a function of tanny mods (programming), torque converter, and suspension setup? 13.3 @ 102 reflects a very good launch and excellent traction. Most lightly modded 4.6L birds I've seen run 14.5 @ 97, not 13.3 @ 102

There are many variables that should be considered when giving advice to someone who knows nothing about the amount of work needed to get a particular result from a combination. Should I go on and on about how I ran [email protected] with only ported heads/cam and bolt ons? Because I did it on a 190K mile 3.8L motor. Currently the car runs a very un-optimized 12.1 @ 115 on the same stock engine.

All I'm saying is that waving the 12 second flag in front of the nose of someone who has visions of granduer is not being of any service to them. You have to remember, you took a 4.6 car and spent a lot of time and effort optimizing it and proving to people just what could be done with the package. It is a totally different thing entirely to take a foriegn powertrain application, graft it into the SC, make it all run and work, and then try to make it quick. For all that expense and effort you could be faster with your SC.

Or better yet, just get rid of the SC, get a 4.6L LX and mod away. You'll be much further ahead. One person whom I admire a lot did just that. He has a 4.6L bird with a 5spd and a supercharger. His car makes over 300rwhp and runs almost as fast as my car. You know who I'm talking about. Ask him how much work he has put into that car and how much it cost. It's a beautiful car and I think it was worth every ounce of effort he put into it.

However, unless someone has a lot of patience and some deep pockets I see a 4.6L / SC swap as nothing other than a deep pit. Show me otherwise, I'm all ears. :)

This isn't an anti 4.6 post. I personally don't like them and have good reasons for that, but that is just my opinion. My biggest comment is that if someone really wants to do a v8 swap you ought to stay with something that truely bolts in like the 5.0. Both V8's have plenty of potential but you need to keep in mind that exceeding the performance of your V6 is going to cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to get it working to your satisfaction. Just keep that in mind.

seawalkersee
10-16-2005, 02:29 PM
I am not going against the SC here. I was stating that there ARE 12 second 4.6 cars. I think that the MTNCAT is defending himself from an onslot of naysayers. I actually love the 4.6. It is less tempermental (now) then my SC. It is indeed a heavier car and the drivetrains are completely different. I agree with the start with a v-8 car too. However, it costs just as much money to get the SC running fast as it does for the 4.6. How you ask? Gears cost the same. Exhaust will be ABOUT the same. Upgrades to the tranny will cost more for the AOD if you need the 4r gearset but other then that it will be the same. Bolt ons anyone? U/D pullys and MAF sensors? Air tube? T-Body? You can now purchase intakes (acutal intakes) for both cars. However, the one for the SC is custom built. If you step up to a SC for the 4.6 though...dont think that wont cost you more. We will see what happens when the M112 kit is complete for them but then as for the SC car....there is the cost of the tune. This is by no means an argumentative post. Read it for what its worth and dont think for an instant that I am biased. I have one of each...Thats how I roll. I knew the possibilities of doing the swap and almost went into it with a SC where the 4.6 was. The cost was CHEEPER by just buying a new car. In fact...I think the Kenne Brown car in CA is now for sale for under 7 grand AND it is supercharged.

Chris

1MTNCAT
10-16-2005, 03:58 PM
Regardless of how quick those 2 4.6 cars are, it needs to be pointed out that numbers racing is only relevant on the internet. We are not comparing apples and apples here, so it does no good to paint pictures of greatness for newbies who don't understand what it takes to get to a certain performance level.

Before we talk about the 1-2 fastest 4.6 MN12's in the country, we should talk a little more about the average modded MN12 from both arenas.

Lets start with 257rwhp / 317rwtq. I dyno tuned a 1990 SC with an entirely stock 140K mile 3.8 yesterday and it made 255rwhp / 380rwtq. This car had only basic bolt ons (UD pulleys, CAI, TB, 95 SC w/pulley, and exhaust). That's it. What does it run in the 1/4 mile? Don't know. But if we are talking only about engines here, you just can't show me how a 4.6L will make more power than a stock SC engine. I CAN show you that a stock 4.6 weighs a whole lot more than a 3.8L SC engine. So where is the advantage? What is the benefit? Help me out here.

Then lets talk about the rest of the equation. What tranny does the 4.6L MN12 have? How much of an advantage is the tranny? Will I be able to use it in my 1990 SC? What will be involved in that swap? How much of your performance is a function of tanny mods (programming), torque converter, and suspension setup? 13.3 @ 102 reflects a very good launch and excellent traction. Most lightly modded 4.6L birds I've seen run 14.5 @ 97, not 13.3 @ 102

There are many variables that should be considered when giving advice to someone who knows nothing about the amount of work needed to get a particular result from a combination. Should I go on and on about how I ran [email protected] with only ported heads/cam and bolt ons? Because I did it on a 190K mile 3.8L motor. Currently the car runs a very un-optimized 12.1 @ 115 on the same stock engine.

All I'm saying is that waving the 12 second flag in front of the nose of someone who has visions of granduer is not being of any service to them. You have to remember, you took a 4.6 car and spent a lot of time and effort optimizing it and proving to people just what could be done with the package. It is a totally different thing entirely to take a foriegn powertrain application, graft it into the SC, make it all run and work, and then try to make it quick. For all that expense and effort you could be faster with your SC.

Or better yet, just get rid of the SC, get a 4.6L LX and mod away. You'll be much further ahead. One person whom I admire a lot did just that. He has a 4.6L bird with a 5spd and a supercharger. His car makes over 300rwhp and runs almost as fast as my car. You know who I'm talking about. Ask him how much work he has put into that car and how much it cost. It's a beautiful car and I think it was worth every ounce of effort he put into it.

However, unless someone has a lot of patience and some deep pockets I see a 4.6L / SC swap as nothing other than a deep pit. Show me otherwise, I'm all ears. :)

This isn't an anti 4.6 post. I personally don't like them and have good reasons for that, but that is just my opinion. My biggest comment is that if someone really wants to do a v8 swap you ought to stay with something that truely bolts in like the 5.0. Both V8's have plenty of potential but you need to keep in mind that exceeding the performance of your V6 is going to cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to get it working to your satisfaction. Just keep that in mind.

Dave. I'm painting no pictures of greatness here so get that straight from the get go. Just stating what I've seen. I agree a total swap over will be a lot work and effort.

The issue is not the power numbers its the fact everyone thinks the 4.6's make no power and have a bad name. That is what started this. All I did to OPTIMIZE the car as you put it was basically the same mods you did. Your stock set-up, you had plus the mods listed ith ported and polished heads and cams went 12.50's. I'd say thats great but it also was optimized. My FACTORY STOCK 4.6 with the same mods, Less the Headwork/cams etc went 12.8's. No Aftermarket Cams, No Headwork no nothing but the power adder. No doubt about it. I know of at least 4 PI motored cars locally on our boards that run 13's on just the motor. Like I said mine did 13's on the stock one. Internet numbers mean nothing to me. Time slips and track video, etc mean something to me.

I know your cars and the numbers they are capable of but I have a question for you, exactly what is your set-up on those. I also notice you are building a 347?? The whole point is there is no reason to attack the 4.6. Yeah I realize we have 2 more cylinders, you have V6's with Power adders.

Take Mike Siska's car for example. A built 4.6 with an Allen Race Set-up on it that has gone 10.5 at 130 this year with a single power adder on Drag tires. Coys car has gone 10's at near that MPH with whatever mods he has done to his and the dual power adders. BOTH are great cars. Its got nothing to do with which is best.

The point is a properly build engine of either design will make excellent power.

I have no problem with the cars. You are right, it take time and patience to build one or changeover and it gets costly. But after it is done, it is very satisfying to the owner if it all works as it should.

For those on here that are new to this should understand that huge numbers and excellent track times do not come overnight. It takes good parts, good tune, and lots of driving experience to get there. Its that simple.

I must say those power numbers you listed on the 90 was excellent. I suppose there is some truth to the 90 SC having somewhat better motor/cams than the later ones then installing the later SC as a mod does help. It all makes sense to me. However, that must be some special beast cause I've yet to see those kind of numbers from Stock SC's and having quite a few in our group dyno, I've never seen STOCK numbers that high. Someone is doing something right.

Good luck in your build and hope to meet you sometime. :)

XR7 Dave
10-16-2005, 06:27 PM
I know your cars and the numbers they are capable of but I have a question for you, exactly what is your set-up on those. I also notice you are building a 347?? The whole point is there is no reason to attack the 4.6.

I'm not building a 347, but I HAVE done several v6-v8 swaps so I know what is involved. Remember the thread started out with a guy wanting to put a 4.6 in front of his existing 5spd. Speaking from experience, I am letting the guy know that if he put half of the effort into his existing v6 he would have as much power and a lot more torque than a 4.6 will provide. Even so, it's not really about comparing the v6 to the v8 as much as it is about the impracticality of swapping motors and particularly the 4.6. The entire wiring system on the SC is different than the 4.6 uses and consequently it 's going to be a wiring nightmare to try to integrate the systems. Some people have done it and they have far greater than average electrical and mechanical skills. Ask anyone who has done the swap how much they'd charge to do it again.... ;)


Yeah I realize we have 2 more cylinders, you have V6's with Power adders.

This was never in question. Of course we have power adders, but being that they are stock and don't cost anything to "add", they don't factor into the equation insofar as cost and complexity of mods is concerned. It doesn't require any tuning to "use" the power adder since it was factory installed.


Take Mike Siska's car for example. A built 4.6 with an Allen Race Set-up on it that has gone 10.5 at 130 this year with a single power adder on Drag tires. Coys car has gone 10's at near that MPH with whatever mods he has done to his and the dual power adders. BOTH are great cars. Its got nothing to do with which is best.

I was never talking about the "fastest" cars either v6 or v8. Of course a V8 has more potential. What I was trying to emphasize with comments about my car is that yours and mine are not good examples of what a typical owner can expect, that's all. When you post that your stock 4.6 runs 13's people see that and may well expect their car to run 13's with a 4.6 out of a 92 Crown Vic (remember, that is the only one that bolts up to our 5spds). He won't be very happy when it runs low 16's and tips the scales 100-150lbs more than his SC used to.

What I did post is that 240-260rwhp is very easy from an SC. It can be achieved with minor bolt ons that are readily available and doesn't even require an IC upgrade. With a typical SC this translates to 14.0 @ 99. Many people have done this and they are not what I would call seasoned racers (like yourself).


I must say those power numbers you listed on the 90 was excellent. I suppose there is some truth to the 90 SC having somewhat better motor/cams than the later ones then installing the later SC as a mod does help. It all makes sense to me. However, that must be some special beast cause I've yet to see those kind of numbers from Stock SC's and having quite a few in our group dyno, I've never seen STOCK numbers that high. Someone is doing something right.

You are very politely calling BS to the numbers. No problem, I understand. However, I have witnessed many SC's make those numbers with minor mods. Before anyone says anything about tuning, tuning an SC really boils down to correcting errors created by parts installed by the owners and really has very little to do with "tweaking" extra power out of them. I've had quite a few SC's pull onto the rollers making 260rwhp and roll off making the same power albiet at safer AFR's and other corrected parameters. The fact that some of the fastest SC's in the country don't have any EEC tuning device is evidence of that fact. And success certainly isn't limited to one year or another. Any SC is capable of those numbers.


I am not going against the SC here. I was stating that there ARE 12 second 4.6 cars. I think that the MTNCAT is defending himself from an onslot of naysayers.

No one attacked MTNCAT at all. People were discussing the pros and cons of the 4.6 swap and a few were talking down about the 4.6 in general. You have to admit that for every 4.6 that runs, there are 1000 that are dogs. That's a fact and Ford is responsible for that fact. The 4.6 had to go through a couple of evolutions before it became a worthwhile performer. Everyone knows this. In the end it is still a very heavy motor at over 600lbs dressed. :eek: The V6 is less than 500 even after adding the sc and intercooler and a 5.0 with aluminum heads and intake is lighter than the V6!


I actually love the 4.6. It is less tempermental (now) then my SC. It is indeed a heavier car and the drivetrains are completely different. I agree with the start with a v-8 car too. However, it costs just as much money to get the SC running fast as it does for the 4.6. How you ask? Gears cost the same. Exhaust will be ABOUT the same. Upgrades to the tranny will cost more for the AOD if you need the 4r gearset but other then that it will be the same. Bolt ons anyone? U/D pullys and MAF sensors? Air tube? T-Body? You can now purchase intakes (acutal intakes) for both cars. However, the one for the SC is custom built. If you step up to a SC for the 4.6 though...dont think that wont cost you more. We will see what happens when the M112 kit is complete for them but then as for the SC car....there is the cost of the tune.

Come now, how fast do you think a 4.6 will be without a tune? lol


This is by no means an argumentative post. Read it for what its worth and dont think for an instant that I am biased. I have one of each...Thats how I roll. I knew the possibilities of doing the swap and almost went into it with a SC where the 4.6 was. The cost was CHEEPER by just buying a new car. In fact...I think the Kenne Brown car in CA is now for sale for under 7 grand AND it is supercharged.

That is the only point I have to make about this whole post. Why take an old, cracked, rusting SC and go to all the work of putting in a 4.6 that doesn't make HUGE more power than the v6 did? And if your SC is really that nice, then don't chop it up to put in a 4.6. ;) If you really want a v8, either put a 5.0 in (easy swap) or just get a 4.6 bird in nice shape and mod it out like MTNCAT has done.

That's what I'm trying to say.

:)

seawalkersee
10-16-2005, 11:15 PM
Whew...at least nobody was hurt in all that...Oh...I think the tune would be the most expensive part :eek:.

Chris

1MTNCAT
10-17-2005, 07:52 AM
I agree, each to his own. BTW I'm not calling BS on the numbers on that SC either, I'm just saying I"VE NEVER seen those kind of numbers out of them Stock. That doesn't mean I'm saying they DON'T exist!

I know a couple of my guys with SC's with a hell of a lot of work done that would die for the numbers that thing is putting out.

I again do agree, to do the swap would be a total Pain in the ~~~. You are correct, it would be better to just buy a V8 and do what you wanted to it or a Supercoupe, Besides thats what makes a SC a SC correct. I think we are both on the same sheet of music here just seeing things from a different perspective. We've all got valid points.

For the novice to even contemplate such a move/action would be rediculess, to say the least. If the pockets are deep enough and someone wants it done though, it can be done. I think I'd rather stick with whatever flavor it had in it originally and go from there. Sounds like a far better option that all the other work involved, at least to me.

Happy modding everyone!!!

Thunder427
10-17-2005, 08:41 AM
Hey I have a Gen 1 4.6 dohc, well sitting in my driveway haha. its for sale :)


dont bash the little 281's. 302s are great but come on, 4.6's are gaining popularity. besides alls you have to do is get a stroker kit to make it a 5.0, then you will have bigger displacement and better torque. THEN you can pop your hood and say, " ~~~~ someone put 4 cams on top of my valves". :p :confused: and hear what a V8 at 7000 rpms sounds like.

I wouldnt mind a 4.6/5.0 stroker with a KB twin screw in the SC im getting to replace the 3.8. hehe. but I like the 3.8 too.

hey whats the curb weights on SC's anyways, alot of people refer to them as "4000 pound cars" just estimating or what ? I know the weights for 94 or so MN12s are like 3550-3650 for V6, and 3700 for V8. Im getting a 90, im just curious so maybe I can get rid of some of it.

1MTNCAT
10-17-2005, 09:03 AM
Jason Millers SC with him in it weighed nearly 4200 lbs, Chris's car weighed in at 3850 I believe. His has been the lightest I believe of any of the SC cars in our club.

Mine was weighed at Richmond with the 4.6, Automatic with all the whistles and gadgets and interior, no lightening whatsoever and weighed in at 3760 with me in it. Thats with the Factory wheels, The MT Drags 275-60-15 on the rear that weigh 51 lbs each themselves (Tire and wheel Combo). Most of the V8 cars, dependant on options are in the the 3700- 3850 range from what I've seen at various locations.

With sunroofs and various other options I've seen some as high as 4000. I know Mike Siska's car is very near 4000 lbs.

BTW what are you asking for that engine. I know someone that may be looking for one.

XR7 Dave
10-17-2005, 09:16 AM
Whew...at least nobody was hurt in all that...Oh...I think the tune would be the most expensive part :eek:.

Chris

Ya, I got a little carried away with the responses, but I think it is important to understand that I'm not bashing the 4.6 either. There are reasons that I think the 3.8 offers plenty of performance for the car it came in and I hate to see people dump endless amounts of time and effort into a car only to get discouraged when things don't work out the way they had envisioned.

FWIW I am more baffled by how MTNCAT run 13.3's with so little HP than how MTNCAT is by baffled by the 250-260rwhp that we get from stock SC's. It just doesn't compute. According to my math a 257rwhp car that runs 13.3 @ 102 should weigh in at 3350 with driver. Is your car really that light? :confused: I know that a fully dressed SC weighs in at 3950-4150 with driver.

If case anyone doubts my math, Connie Baker made 261rwhp on Saturday at the dyno, which with her measured 3875 race weight, ran 13.90 on Sunday. According to my math that equates to 259rwhp. My math is darn close.

Either these 4.6 motors don't subscribe to the same math/physics as the rest of us or MTNCAT's car made closer to 300rwhp than it did 250rwhp. :)

MaddMartigan
10-17-2005, 09:32 AM
FWIW, I have a 347 stroker in my 1993 Thunderbird LX. The car weighs 3975 with me in it. With the crappy JBA Cat4ward headers that I have it has only run a [email protected] Those numbers usually befuddle ALL of the calculators out there. According to the datalog analyzer I have for my system, I have about 390HP/425TQ at the crank based on the datalogs from that run.

With that being said, let's look at some facts here:

Q. Will a 4.6 bolt up to a M5R2 out of a Supercoupe?
A. No.

Q. Will a 5.0/5.8 bolt up to a M5R2 out of a Supercoupe?
A. Yes.

Q. Can a stock 4.6 be made to be as fast or faster than a stock 5.0?
A. Yes.

Q. Can a 5.0 be built to outperform a built 4.6 for less money?
A. Most likely yes.

Q. Are 4.6's bad engines?
A. No.

Q. Are 5.0's bad engines?
A. No.

Q. Is there any point to this discussion beyond telling the original poster that a 4.6 won't bolt up to his M5R2?
A. NO.

David Neibert
10-17-2005, 09:40 AM
Unless your going to do something really cool like an 03/04 cobra motor...just mod the 3.8 or install a 5.0 and mod it. Doing the 5.0 swap and a power adder is enough of a pain.

David

XR7 Dave
10-17-2005, 10:24 AM
FWIW, I have a 347 stroker in my 1993 Thunderbird LX. The car weighs 3975 with me in it. With the crappy JBA Cat4ward headers that I have it has only run a [email protected] Those numbers usually befuddle ALL of the calculators out there.

Someone pointed out above that the 92 Crown Vic used the 3.8/5.0 bellhousing. This is helpful info if someone is bent on the conversion.

As for your car, I come up with an ideal 1/4 run of [email protected], or [email protected] This means that your car is falling on it's face up top for some reason. It launches hard, but then can't keep up with itself. Maybe lack of fuel?

Anyway, if I use your mph for HP calculation I get 275rwhp, and if I use your ET I get 300rwhp. If it makes 300rwhp, then 390fwhp would be believeable. I'm betting you have some more performance in there just begging to get out.

MaddMartigan
10-17-2005, 10:32 AM
Someone pointed out above that the 92 Crown Vic used the 3.8/5.0 bellhousing. This is helpful info if someone is bent on the conversion.

As for your car, I come up with an ideal 1/4 run of [email protected], or [email protected] This means that your car is falling on it's face up top for some reason. It launches hard, but then can't keep up with itself. Maybe lack of fuel?

Anyway, if I use your mph for HP calculation I get 275rwhp, and if I use your ET I get 300rwhp. If it makes 300rwhp, then 390fwhp would be believeable. I'm betting you have some more performance in there just begging to get out.

I almost positive that the headers are killing me. They have a 2" collector and 1 1/2" primaries with 14ga. steel so they are really lacking in flow. I am working on getting a set of long tubes to fit.

1MTNCAT
10-17-2005, 07:27 PM
Ya, I got a little carried away with the responses, but I think it is important to understand that I'm not bashing the 4.6 either. There are reasons that I think the 3.8 offers plenty of performance for the car it came in and I hate to see people dump endless amounts of time and effort into a car only to get discouraged when things don't work out the way they had envisioned.

FWIW I am more baffled by how MTNCAT run 13.3's with so little HP than how MTNCAT is by baffled by the 250-260rwhp that we get from stock SC's. It just doesn't compute. According to my math a 257rwhp car that runs 13.3 @ 102 should weigh in at 3350 with driver. Is your car really that light? :confused: I know that a fully dressed SC weighs in at 3950-4150 with driver.

If case anyone doubts my math, Connie Baker made 261rwhp on Saturday at the dyno, which with her measured 3875 race weight, ran 13.90 on Sunday. According to my math that equates to 259rwhp. My math is darn close.

Either these 4.6 motors don't subscribe to the same math/physics as the rest of us or MTNCAT's car made closer to 300rwhp than it did 250rwhp. :)

Dave, The 1MTNCAT weighs in at 3760 with me in the car. I go about 170 myself. I have weighed the car at various tracks and its always within about 25 lbs one way or the other of those numbers. A whole flock of us weighed our rides at Richmond FFW this past June. The V8 cars all weighed less than the SC's. Mike Siska car was right at 3970 If I remember correctly. BUt it also has a cage, the intercooler, all the Allen stuff on it plus Mike is Heavier than I am so that all comes into play. My car is not a stripped street version, it has everything on and in the car that it came with and thats how I run it. I bought this car new in 1996 for My Birthday and have had it ever since so I know there is nothing different about it. It was on the track the first time at 900 Miles and has been there ever since.

As far as the HP numbers and such, It was dynoed at Amazon racing last year in August and Tuned by Jerry W. It was tuned on a Mustang Dyno. It is a factory stock 96 shortblock with the PI heads and PI cam coversion only so its basically a Factory PI with just a slight increase in Compression due to the Head swap. It does have the Bullitt intake and TB on it as well and a 90 MM Maf. It has only underdrives, FP regulator, JBA SHorty Headers, 4.10 gears, and a converter in the 4R70W with the J-mod. Exhaust is still the 2 -1-2 design but diameters have been changed to 2 1/2-3"-2 1/2" pipe. Thats the story on the car as it is. Suspension is stock except for the airbags in the springs, and a set of custom Subframe bars underneath that weight about 20 lbs each that I used to help stiffen the car. Larger fuel pump and the Nitrous power adder when I choose to use it are the only other mods. The car has run 13.5's on 245-60-15 BF Goodrich TA Street tires on many occasions and pulls 1.8's to low 1.9's 60 ft on those. It 60's at 1.61-1.7's on the juice.

As far as the power equation, I cant answer that, it has always defied the calculator. I do believe that the calculator does not justify an Overhead cam motor though. You figure less valve train losses at Higher RPM so that may account for some, but who knows. I know I don't! I just take them as they come. I'm hoping I can get some headwork, cams, long tubes, etc etc done over the winter and see how she does on the motor and the juice next year. I suppose time will tell.

Thats about the best Information I can give you. Play with the calculator and see if you can gain anymore insight. If you can please let me know, I'd be interested too LOL!!

later guys/gals

J dot Miller
10-17-2005, 08:22 PM
Thats about the best Information I can give you. Play with the calculator and see if you can gain anymore insight. If you can please let me know, I'd be interested too LOL!!

later guys/gals

I think I will tune in on this one since I have a V8. I personally believe that it is less expensive to mod a SC to a higher HP number than a 4.6L.

I agree that the 3.8L is a higher maintenance engine than the 4.6L/ 5.4L. Heck all I did to my mod motor engine this year was to replace the oil and clean it a few times.

I saw Mikes car back when it was known as Broken bird. He was one of the pioneers for the bullet intake and I know for a fact that he spent some money on the tune.

I think the secrete to the fast V8's is the transmission. Years of research have allowed them to get the highest level of efficacy possible. Ranging from the original J-Mod to the latest and greatest state of the art Darrin and DirtyDog transmission with 3+ plate TQ's these machines are efficient. Combined with a computerized Tune at the optimal shift points it will be hard to shift as well with a 5-speed as one of the automatics can.

Just my 2 cents...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/JdotMiller/DSC01351.jpg

XR7 Dave
10-17-2005, 09:31 PM
Dave, The 1MTNCAT weighs in at 3760 with me in the car.

It was tuned on a Mustang Dyno.

The car has run 13.5's.

As far as the power equation, I cant answer that, it has always defied the calculator.

Play with the calculator and see if you can gain anymore insight. If you can please let me know, I'd be interested too LOL!!



Ok, a little more info goes a long way. ;) Most Mustang Dyno's read about 10% lower than the Dyno Jet that my calculations are factored around.

So we take 256 x 1.10 = 281 Dyno Jet rwhp (which btw is 1 rwhp/cubic inch, not too shabby at all).

Then using 13.3 ET along with 3760 race weight and I come up with 287rwhp (13.5 comes out to 275rwhp for you running on an "off" day). Your car and my calculator get along just fine. :)

Dirk SC
10-18-2005, 04:07 AM
Since I sort of got drug into this I'll just say this. I have no problems with the Super Coupes or the Community as a whole as some V8 folks have but let me assure you that the car (My Car 1MTNCAT) did do 13's with Typical bolt- ons with the FACTORY STOCK 4.6 NON-PI engine and not once but several times. If there is any doubt there is video out there and Mike Siska, was there with his bird when it did it. Not only that, Jerry W of SCT was also present at the time. All in all that day the car made 21 passes morning and afternoon, all on the motor. Best of 13.89-worst of 14.07, so much for the 4.6 theory! Here's the real kicker, it had 116K miles on it when it did it!

The current PI set up, FACTORY STOCK Shortblock with Stock Untouched PI heads and PI cams, has gone a best of 13.3 @ 102.2 at the MN12 Nationals in North Carolina last September.

The arguements may remain but those are facts. With the only power adder being a ZEX nitrous system, the FACTORY STOCK shortblock has gone low-low 12's @ 109 MPH. BTW the STOCK 116 K motor went 12.89 @ 105 MPH before I swapped in the PI Version.

On the Dyno at Amazon racing Last August 2004, Jerry W of SCT tuned the car, it showed 257HP @ 317 TQ at the wheels on the motor, and 347HP @ 503 TQ at the wheels on the juice.

I Just wanted to relay the facts as they are. Next year I hope to Have the heads ported and polished and possibly aftermarket cams to see what it will do on the same set-up.

I've run at Hagerstown with Coy Miller on Occasion. If you don't believe me speak with him. He's seen it on more than one occasion a year or so ago.

Just wanted to pass this along.

Good luck in your modding!!!! :)

I wasn't trying to say anything about the motor being stock. The sentence reads "STOCK MN12 with a 4.6 PI" therefore making it not a stock MN12. Damon got what I was saying anyway... it was just the way the sentence was worded. And I would be glad to have my ~~~ handed to me by Connie. :D Lighten up a bit here guys.

1MTNCAT
10-18-2005, 09:28 AM
I wasn't trying to say anything about the motor being stock. The sentence reads "STOCK MN12 with a 4.6 PI" therefore making it not a stock MN12. Damon got what I was saying anyway... it was just the way the sentence was worded. And I would be glad to have my ~~~ handed to me by Connie. :D Lighten up a bit here guys.

:) I am lightened up and have been from the beginning of my posts here. Just being informative and relaying the correct information. The Sentence should have read "STOCK MN12 with a FACTORY STOCK NON-PI 4.6L", Therefore making it what it was, a stock MN12. It is not a factory stock MN12 with a PI engine in it, I agree. However, this PI engine is still Stock itself just to set the record straight.

Just trying to clarify the statements so everyone understands.