LS could use more power...

Dutch said:
4.6L is a POS. When you talk money, don't forget that, although the sticker may say $42k for a V8, you shouldn't have to pay more than maybe $33k to buy one.

That being said, more power would still be good, just not through the awful 4.6L. Better choices would be the naturally aspirated or blown 4.2L Jaguar engines. They would actually fit under the hood (unlike a 4.6L) and would bolt up to the tranny (unlike a 4.6L). Lincoln should at least try offering the blown 4.2L on a limited number of LSes. Because everything would (seems like it should at least) bolt right in, it would probably be pretty cheap.
Click to expand...


The 4.6 SOHC is debatably the BEST engine Ford ever produced! I have no idea where you got your info from but I suspect that person didnt know what they were doing or talking about. I have seen SOHC 4.6's with the stock longblock push out 420+ rwhp on a Kenne Bell 1.7 supercharger @ 9# boost and hold up to it for a long long time with a good tune. The 3.9 DOHC engine in the LS's is a good engine but I would rather have a 4.6 anyday. The reason being is that there is a TON of aftermarket out there and we all could be pushing 500+rwhp in no time(we wont mention the tranny trying to hold up to that). I checked allot of engine rotating assembly manufacturers a while back for these LS's to see if there was anything offered in the form of forged or billet pistons or connecting rods. I got a quote from Oliver, whom is expensive anyways, that totally turned me off to even trying to forge the 3.9 anytime soon. I am no expert when it comes to the LS, but it is my understanding that they wanted to be able to bottom load the engines into these cars to keep production speed up. They needed an engine that would easily fit into the engine bays of these cars and slide into the bottom. If they were top loaded like I think the one from the One Lap of America car(or whatever its name is) was then they could fit a bigger engine. Bottom line is that I would take the 4.6 SOHC purely for its design and moddability anytime over the 3.9 DOHC. Of course I would be singing a different tune if there were any aftermarket actually available for the 3.9...
 
4.6 Is definatly one of the best engines ford has ever made. I work on these things every day and I've only seen 2 4.6 engines fail. One 54,000 miles on factory oil and filter, and the other in a police car with a loose drainplug driven with no oil until lockup, then cooled and driven to the dealership with no oil later that day.

Now, while working on both engines, I almost wonder if the 3.9 isn't loosley based off of a 4.6 if not entirely...? To me the eng config looks like a severely destroked 4.6 4v with a shorter deck and a more expensive intake.
 
rocket5979 said:
I have seen SOHC 4.6's with the stock longblock push out 420+ rwhp on a Kenne Bell 1.7 supercharger @ 9# boost and hold up to it for a long long time with a good tune.
Click to expand...
I've seen a stock 3.8L V6 do the same thing with turbos...Yes, there are kids running around with 10 second V6 Mustangs.

Anyway, my comments toward the 4.6L aren't based solely on reliability, but on having a crummy torque curve with no bottom end. When my V6 Mustang was in the shop once, the dealer gave me a GT loaner. I'm sure it was a lot faster than my V6, but it sure didn't feel it. The problem was the lack of torque. Same thing with the Marauder. I've driven Crown Vics and Grand Marquis, and a handful of Mustangs with the 4.6L, and I just can't stand that engine.

Also, regarding the reliability issue, they were really bad the first several years. They had lots of problems with valve stem seals or something, and you do see quite a few smoking older Crown Vics/Grand Marquis/Town Cars. I think they fixed this problem before they starting putting the 4.6L in Mustangs, because I haven't seen one of them smoke.
 
Putter-GLHT said:
4.6 Is definatly one of the best engines ford has ever made. I work on these things every day and I've only seen 2 4.6 engines fail. One 54,000 miles on factory oil and filter, and the other in a police car with a loose drainplug driven with no oil until lockup, then cooled and driven to the dealership with no oil later that day.

Now, while working on both engines, I almost wonder if the 3.9 isn't loosley based off of a 4.6 if not entirely...? To me the eng config looks like a severely destroked 4.6 4v with a shorter deck and a more expensive intake.
Click to expand...

The 3.9L is a Jaguar engine.

http://www.jagweb.com/aj6eng/v8_performance.html
 
Dutch said:
I've seen a stock 3.8L V6 do the same thing with turbos...Yes, there are kids running around with 10 second V6 Mustangs.

Anyway, my comments toward the 4.6L aren't based solely on reliability, but on having a crummy torque curve with no bottom end. When my V6 Mustang was in the shop once, the dealer gave me a GT loaner. I'm sure it was a lot faster than my V6, but it sure didn't feel it. The problem was the lack of torque. Same thing with the Marauder. I've driven Crown Vics and Grand Marquis, and a handful of Mustangs with the 4.6L, and I just can't stand that engine.
Click to expand...


Well heck if we were talking turbos on the stock bottom end 4.6 then I have seen some pushing more than 600rwhp. I would have to admit that they were probably goign to give up the ghost in a season or less. Comparing a turbo to any other type of FI like centrifugal supercharger or positive displacement supercharger is in some ways comparing apples and oranges. All are blowers, all force air into the intake but the turbo gets its power from a totally different source which really mixes things up quite a bit. So that was our debate on stock for stock engine.

Now lets compare moddability... Well the 3.8 V6 and pretty much any other engine Ford made, except the 302 and maybe the 351W, are nowhere near the level of the aftermarket offered for the 4.6 SOHC and DOHC. That counts for a HUGE piece of the pie! The crummy torque curve can be taken care of with anything from gears to move the powerband lower in the rpm curve, higher stall TC, cams, and so on. I dont mean to pick at you or the 3.9 V8 or anything but it is a surprise hearing that comment about lack of low end torque coming from an LS owner.

BTW- I know that Jaguar made an engine that also displaces 3.9 liters, but is it really the same engine as the 3.9 LS engine through and through? I tried to look that info up about 5 months ago but didnt come up with alot of information.
 
rocket5979 said:
BTW- I know that Jaguar made an engine that also displaces 3.9 liters, but is it really the same engine as the 3.9 LS engine through and through? I tried to look that info up about 5 months ago but didnt come up with alot of information.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's the same engine.
http://www.jagweb.com/aj6eng/v8_performance.html
The LS 3.9L is a slightly cheapened Jag 4.0L that has had the bore reduced .05mm for marketing (so Jag buyers get a bigger engine). Also, the Jags have variable valve timing, which the LS didn't get until '03.

On the lack of bottom end, I hear you when you say it's ironic for such a comment to come from a 3.9L owner. However, the LS's 5-speed tranny does a great job at compensating for that. What's 1st gear on a 4R70W? 2.4? 2.4 x 3.27 rear = 7.85 torque multiplication in 1st gear. For an LS, it's 3.25 x 3.31 = 10.76.

The 3.9L in the LS feels a lot bigger than it is. I'd like to see a dyno chart of it. It'd be interesting to compare area under the curve to a Mustang 4.6L.
 
Dutch said:
Yeah, it's the same engine.
http://www.jagweb.com/aj6eng/v8_performance.html
The LS 3.9L is a slightly cheapened Jag 4.0L that has had the bore reduced .05mm for marketing (so Jag buyers get a bigger engine). Also, the Jags have variable valve timing, which the LS didn't get until '03.

On the lack of bottom end, I hear you when you say it's ironic for such a comment to come from a 3.9L owner. However, the LS's 5-speed tranny does a great job at compensating for that. What's 1st gear on a 4R70W? 2.4? 2.4 x 3.27 rear = 7.85 torque multiplication in 1st gear. For an LS, it's 3.25 x 3.31 = 10.76.

The 3.9L in the LS feels a lot bigger than it is. I'd like to see a dyno chart of it. It'd be interesting to compare area under the curve to a Mustang 4.6L.
Click to expand...

I hear ya about the 5 speed tranny helping things. In my 2003 4.6 explorer it really keeps the engine pulling while in the powerband pretty nicely. Gotta love it when a vehicle weighing 4,500 pounds goes 15's stock and can tow a trailer, and have the ability to carry 5 adults and alot of gear comfortably. I really love the 5 speed trannies, I really hope that someone in the aftermarket really gets serious with these things and starts offering more than just an input shaft for these things. Crossing my fingers in hopes that I wont have to do the 4R70W swap.
 
nope - the program was in development for almost a year before Jag found a use for it.
 
Yea, I feel it should have much more power that the 252 my '02 has. At the very least they should of given it close to 300, that would have made me very happy. I'd rather have that '99 gs400 back here at my place and have bought that, it weighed more I believe, but had awesome power bringing it into the low 14's.
 
well - the LS was targeted between the 540i and the 530i - of the day (circa 1999)

it out powered the 530i and out handled the 540i.

there wasn't any of these cars in the category that had 300hp.

the M3 had 333hp - but that wasn't the competition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 149 (members: 0, guests: 149)
Back
Top