So, the new 2003 Cobra has 390/390 out of a 4.6L 32V engine. How would a 4V 5.4L benefit over the current setup? Since both of theses engines are supercharged, why does the Cobra setup have a higher HP but much lower torque rating? How does displacement figure into the equation?

I guess I am really asking what the heck a 4 valve cylinder has over a 2V cylinder?

 

4v heads have an advantage over the 2v heads in their abilaty to get more air and gas into the combustion chambers which results in more power. The new cobras lack of torque is because it has about 50 less cubic inches. One of my next mods will be a set of 4v heads for my L should make some serious power.

 

you live in Anchorage? I went to Service and just moved to Seattle in June. Which L was yours? Please don't tell me you are one of those two guys last summer running a black or a white 01 with construction hazard lights! Also, I don't envy you at Cal Worthingtin in AK, those guys are the pits for serivce.

Later.

 

eoreilly I run a Silver 2001 and Worthingtin aint so bad they ordered me a new engine to replace the one I blew up on the highway. Won't happen again ordered new rods and ARP fasteners from JDM. If your up here this summer look me up I have the fastest L here and it will only get faster.

 

NCETRY,

I will be back in Anchorage for six weeks in July and August for a rotation at providence hospital; i'll look you up when I get there and watch you run at the track in the Valley.

 

A 4 valve engine will always produce less torque compared to another engine of equal size and total valve area.In other words 2 valves produce more Tq than 4 valves (more velocity)

 

I believe the Lightnings 105.6mm stroke versus the Cobra's 90mm stroke will make a torque difference. The 5.4 makes 80% of torque @ 2000 RPM's according to the propaganda literature.

 

Thats right too, 4drthndr. More displacement(mainly stroke) always = more tq. I was referring to the 4 valve issue.

 

What do you all think (assuming everything BON is saying is true) that the 2003 Mustang could run on radials, with a chip and pulley (4lb, 5lb or 6lb) -- I'm guessing that if everythings equal (ie, suspension setup) and accounting for the huge weight difference between our trucks and that car... we are looking at 11.8-11.9 or so on radials.

Anybody think I'm smoking crack?

 

I don't believe there is a radial street tire made that can support those times.That was Steve Saleens problem with the 96 blown 351 he made.It would have beaten the Viper in a sprint if he only had traction. (the big 335's could not fit under the stangs wheelwells, and they the only prod. street radials that could handle that power)

 

With a 1.8 60' I think those times are realistic. Remember, there is rumor that the 2003 Mustang will be a live axle, not an IRS (our TRUCKS have cut 1.8 60's on the stock goodyears) So believe it is possible for a car.

 

I thought about that too, but with that much H,P, with a 5 speed, 2nd gear is almost as much a problem as first.I just have never seen those times with radials ever before.Just my .02