Mod Motor Box Madness

[P72Ford]

Cheap is nice, but winning is MUCH more fun than loosing. A Mod Motor holds the current record in Pro 5.0. There are NA 4.6 motors powering Mustangs into the 11s, 10s and even 9s.
The botton line is that most people reading this do not have the money to build a serious mod motor car. Most people will be putting a 302 in their box Panther. Thankfully, some of us are making different plans....

I will not be putting a 302 in my box panther. I will be leaving the 351.

And even if I had a really cherry box panther with a 302 in it, I'd probably swap in a 351 (not sure on carbed or EFI though). I guess the 351 just appeals to me more. There's nothing wrong with Mod motors; I'm just saying you can go just as fast (on the NA argument) for less money.

Also, I forgot to comment about nitrous and cheating (which I mentioned above). I may have used "cheating" incorrectly. What I mean is this: if the power isn't there all the time (and unfortunately nitrous does run out), then it really isn't something I want. If I don't get the same response everytime I mash it, then I really don't want it. Its personal opinion though; not cheating as I claimed earlier. I've driven in nitrous equipped vehicles (most notably an M715 w/ 400 chevy and a 125 shot) too; I really don't know why people claim its so great.

Oh yeah, what the hell is loosing?




J/K

[P72Ford]

2003 Mustang Cobra..... Ford GT... Shelby GT500 Super Snake........ Production cars passing emissions......try that with a stroked 351W.. I rest my case.......

I never read this post before.

Mercracer, you of all people should know better than to compare a late 1960's car with 2 modern day super cars. Really, if the chassis inadequacies of a late 60's Mustang don't put it at enough of a disadvantage, I don't know what would. You're comparing apples to oranges; retardedly old tech with very modern tech. I am scolding you for this too! That is a ridiculous comparison.

Aside from the chassis, consider this. Let Ford spend the same time they spent at developing the mod engines for the GT and Cobra on revamping the 428 in that late 60's Shelby 'stang. Let Ford use modern technology as well as modern materials and manufacuring techniques to "redo" the 428 in the Shelby. Then, since we're talking NA here, let them remove the blowers from the GT and the Cobra. Now, compare the engines. Its not hard to see which would dominate, is it? 428 cubic inches is a tough grade to climb.

Hell, I bet the late 60's Mustang, inadeqaute chassis and all, might even give a modern Cobra a run for its money with the theoretical engine described above. Now, if the Cobra had its blower, that Shelby would probably be dusted, though not from a lack of power.

But, we're comparing engines, and as such antiquated chassis should not be brought into the discussion.

This being said, I do not dislike modular engines, in fact, I really like them. I'm glad Ford is using OHC V8's in their new vehicles, I think its great. I do not doubt that the modular engines are durable (especially in stock) form. I think their downfall is their lack of displacement. The 5.4 as used in a truck is so inadequate when compared to a HEMI, iForce or 6L GM gas engine. It is basically underpowered. I think if the displacement was larger, the OHC engines would be unstoppable.


Mercracer, as someone who has an abundant knowledge of engines, what have you heard of Ford's latest experimental engine, as used in Don Bowles Mustang?

[Mercracer]

I never read this post before.

Mercracer, you of all people should know better than to compare a late 1960's car with 2 modern day super cars. Really, if the chassis inadequacies of a late 60's Mustang don't put it at enough of a disadvantage, I don't know what would. You're comparing apples to oranges; retardedly old tech with very modern tech. I am scolding you for this too! That is a ridiculous comparison.

Aside from the chassis, consider this. Let Ford spend the same time they spent at developing the mod engines for the GT and Cobra on revamping the 428 in that late 60's Shelby 'stang. Let Ford use modern technology as well as modern materials and manufacuring techniques to "redo" the 428 in the Shelby. Then, since we're talking NA here, let them remove the blowers from the GT and the Cobra. Now, compare the engines. Its not hard to see which would dominate, is it? 428 cubic inches is a tough grade to climb.

Hell, I bet the late 60's Mustang, inadeqaute chassis and all, might even give a modern Cobra a run for its money with the theoretical engine described above. Now, if the Cobra had its blower, that Shelby would probably be dusted, though not from a lack of power.

But, we're comparing engines, and as such antiquated chassis should not be brought into the discussion.

You must be having a bad day..... Go to Dairy Queen, have a bannana split, think about what you just typed and start over with your post....
I mentioned 3 modern supercars. I didn't bring up anything from the 60s. I compared a NA 5.4 with a NA 5.8. The 5.4 spanked it. Ford has added superchargers to their engines to make power since the 80s. If my sister had a penis she would be my brother. She doesn't, she isn't, and Ford hasn't had a 400HP NA engine since 1971. Forget about the IFs and the woulda coulda shouldas. Ford does not have a big bore 427 cube inch V8 mod motor that makes 600HP NA. Don't hold your breath for it ever to happen. The FE series was obsolete and replaced by the 385 series. The 385 series heads have continued to evolve and the FE heads have been passed up as much less has been done to that design.

[P72Ford]

I have to eat now, I will reply to this later.

Also, WTF is a super snake? That was a term coined for special Shelby Cobras, like the one built for Bill Cosby (the only auto CSX ever).

[Mercracer]

Mercracer, as someone who has an abundant knowledge of engines, what have you heard of Ford's latest experimental engine, as used in Don Bowles Mustang?

I haven't heard anything really. I didn't make it to any NMRA races this year. All I have heard is that it is a big bore 7L motor.
I think that Ford has gone the wrong way over the past 18 years with its big stroke small bore motors. The shortcomings of the 5.4 and V10 have illustrated this. Hopefully this is a sign of change coming.

[Mercracer]

I have to eat now, I will reply to this later.

Also, WTF is a super snake? That was a term coined for special Shelby Cobras, like the one built for Bill Cosby (the only auto CSX ever).

Have you not picked up a Ford magazine over the past year? That is the latest and greatest Shelby Mustang coming out. Just google it dude......

[mrltd]

There are a few different Super Snakes, Unique performance also uses that name for their blown stroker GT500E, that are also endorsed by Shelby....

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/04/27/another-one-seriously-shelby-and-ford-to-produce-gt500-super-s/

http://www.uniqueperformance.com/supersnakeGT500E.aspx

[P72Ford]

I do not live under a rock, I know about the new GT 500 and all of its unimpressiveness. I know its overweight and is pretty slow considering the 500 hp it has. I get a Mustang rag and it has detailed accounts of the GT 500's performance. I have never read or heard one referred to as a super snake. Live and learn. I was very disappointed in the "super snake." I mean, it was supposed to cost less than 40k, and be something really special. I though it would be head and shoulders above the regular Mustang, but it really isn't. For 200 more horsepower its only marginally faster. Its heavy in the front, which obviously is a severe detriment to its handling capabilities. They are capable of grotesque (and I mean grotesque) horsepower with upgraded blowers and other bolt ons. I think it was lackluster on the part of the factory though.

I agree with you on the V10 and 5.4 (and there off square nature). However, I'm not hoping Ford delivers some new big bore huge displacement OHC engine. I just wonder if thats where part of their horsepower deficit lies.

You'll have to excuse me Mercracer, I have always been told that 385 series engines were turds. It all stems from my Father, a diligent follower of the 390, 427, 428 (He worked in a Ford dealer in the late 60's; thats where his influence is at). He has more 390 components squirrelled away than anyone; he has the market cornered. 390's and 9" Ford rears; they're all boat anchors to me (his parts). Even still, he admits that the FE series is very antiquated. Maybe the early 385 series engines were good; my experience with later ones has proved my Father's opinion. Fuel economy so ridiculous its almost funny; unless you're paying for the gas. No power whatsoever either. I'm not impressed. However, it is fair to say I have no experience with earlier 385 series engines. Maybe the 429 PI, and the 429 Thunderjet type engines were different. I'd suspect the 385 series went in the carpper after 1973 as emissions started to boom? My dad had a '73 Mercury station wagon with a 429. he said it would crap all over his '76(?) Lincoln w/ the 460.

I think my personal hang up with the 385 series engines is that I equate them to truck engines (at least the 460). But, the head design seems far superior to the olds school FE, what with canted valves and all.

BTW, I would go to Dairy Queen for the Banana split, but I make much better ones at home. Plus, I'd spend $30 in gas to get to the nearest DQ driving my pig. Its not that it isn't worth the $30 (I have a chronic addiction to ice cream), its just that its raining here, and I'm not going out again today.

[mrltd]

Anything after 73 and smog choking everything off was a joke.

I had a 68 429 2bbl and that thing would break the right rear loose at 65mph.

[interceptor1985]

I thought this was about engines...not the cars that they are in........And there has been a NA 400hp SOHC 4.6 like what come in the crown vics...muscle mustangs and fast fords did it....it was badass...look it up

[Mercracer]

I do not live under a rock, I know about the new GT 500 and all of its unimpressiveness. I know its overweight and is pretty slow considering the 500 hp it has. I get a Mustang rag and it has detailed accounts of the GT 500's performance. I have never read or heard one referred to as a super snake. Live and learn. I was very disappointed in the "super snake." I mean, it was supposed to cost less than 40k, and be something really special. I though it would be head and shoulders above the regular Mustang, but it really isn't. For 200 more horsepower its only marginally faster. Its heavy in the front, which obviously is a severe detriment to its handling capabilities. They are capable of grotesque (and I mean grotesque) horsepower with upgraded blowers and other bolt ons. I think it was lackluster on the part of the factory though.

The latest Super Snake is over 600HP (725HP option) and nearly 600 ft lbs of torque on the "base" model. The 2003 Terminator Cobra stickered for mid 30s. How would a GT500 be less than $40K? Look for Super Snakes being near $60K. These are the good days. These are the best times so far. Even in the 60s, Joe Burger Flipper couldn't afford a new Shelby, but he could pick up a used Mustang and make it quick. A new GT Mustang is over 300HP. That's more peak HP than a Boss 351 made as delivered from the factory.
Ford hasn't worried about as delivered 1/4 mile times in over 35 years. The factory didn't offer a drag pack from 1971 until now. Now you have to get it through FRPP.

[Mercracer]

I
You'll have to excuse me Mercracer, I have always been told that 385 series engines were turds. It all stems from my Father, a diligent follower of the 390, 427, 428 (He worked in a Ford dealer in the late 60's; thats where his influence is at). He has more 390 components squirrelled away than anyone; he has the market cornered. 390's and 9" Ford rears; they're all boat anchors to me (his parts). Even still, he admits that the FE series is very antiquated. Maybe the early 385 series engines were good; my experience with later ones has proved my Father's opinion. Fuel economy so ridiculous its almost funny; unless you're paying for the gas. No power whatsoever either. I'm not impressed. However, it is fair to say I have no experience with earlier 385 series engines. Maybe the 429 PI, and the 429 Thunderjet type engines were different. I'd suspect the 385 series went in the carpper after 1973 as emissions started to boom? My dad had a '73 Mercury station wagon with a 429. he said it would crap all over his '76(?) Lincoln w/ the 460.

Using truck smog engines to represent 460s is like using a NoPo Crown Vic 302 or the boring 5.8 Vics to represent the best in small blocks.
Look at the lates SCJ FRPP heads for the 385 engines. The 429 SCJ motors had many of the features that people pee their pants over when they dream about a 427. Big bore, short stroke, heavy duty block, healthy breathing ports, etc...

[Grandmarchris]

what do you use for a distributor?

This

http://www.msdignition.com/2006/06-20.htm

[P72Ford]

The latest Super Snake is over 600HP (725HP option) and nearly 600 ft lbs of torque on the "base" model. The 2003 Terminator Cobra stickered for mid 30s. How would a GT500 be less than $40K?

You obviosuly never read Car and Driver, Road and Track, Motor Trend, etc prior to the release of the GT 500. All of those magazines touted it as being less than 40K. They even interviewed that head of SVT (the asian guy) and he also claimed a sticker right below 40K. What happened to that? The stock GT 500 is still a lackluster piece. I'd take a stock Mustang GT base model) with 15K in cash over one of those.

As for the "Super Snake": way , way , way too flashy and gawdy. WTF, seriously?

I wonder how it will stack up against a far less noticeable ZO6.

[Mercracer]

I could care less about the Z06. The Z06 is a sports car. The Mustang is a pony car. The Mustang has no competition in its class.
I don't pay much attention to pre-production promises regarding price. The new 7 Litre mystery motor was supposedly talked about in the October issue of MM&FF.