How come? Also I was wondering why they would use a 2v head when the 3v and 4v flow so much better and make a hell of a lot more power? Is it cheaper or something.
2 valve beatdowns
- Thread starter whipplesnake
- Start date
How come? Also I was wondering why they would use a 2v head when the 3v and 4v flow so much better and make a hell of a lot more power? Is it cheaper or something.
DOHC heads cost A LOT more. More material, twice the valves, twice the springs, twice the everything.
The 2V head design is excellent. In the past the NPI / PI 2V heads were not designed very efficiently, so the power potential is not very good...in n/a form anyhow.
You take a redesigned OHC 2V head, and the sky is the limit. 3V and 4V of course can even be more efficient, but the cost is crazy. Ford knows they have to be pushing ATLEAST 375 HP with their next platform on the GT's, and their best route is to stick with a smaller, high revving engine to accomplish it. There are a lot of downfalls to mass producing a 6.2L engine to put into many different vehicles. The OHC design is efficient enough to only utilize 300 or so CI to make "competitive" power (around 400hp)
If and when the 5.0 DOHC engine comes out...it will probably be around 375HP (detuned) and 400HP with an "aggressive" tune (an aggressive tune to Ford, is seriously lame) If you follow the past results from almost any performance car(engine).....most will easily lay down the same amount of power they come rated at, at the rear tires with bolt-ons /tune. A 400rwhp bolt-on Mustang will be pretty serious with some gear.
The 2V head design is excellent. In the past the NPI / PI 2V heads were not designed very efficiently, so the power potential is not very good...in n/a form anyhow.
You take a redesigned OHC 2V head, and the sky is the limit. 3V and 4V of course can even be more efficient, but the cost is crazy. Ford knows they have to be pushing ATLEAST 375 HP with their next platform on the GT's, and their best route is to stick with a smaller, high revving engine to accomplish it. There are a lot of downfalls to mass producing a 6.2L engine to put into many different vehicles. The OHC design is efficient enough to only utilize 300 or so CI to make "competitive" power (around 400hp)
If and when the 5.0 DOHC engine comes out...it will probably be around 375HP (detuned) and 400HP with an "aggressive" tune (an aggressive tune to Ford, is seriously lame) If you follow the past results from almost any performance car(engine).....most will easily lay down the same amount of power they come rated at, at the rear tires with bolt-ons /tune. A 400rwhp bolt-on Mustang will be pretty serious with some gear.
Last edited:
02GTP
Banned
u guys need to stop jizzing over the 6.2. its a truck motor thats not going into the mustang. its a SOHC that might make 400hp. and the bmw M5 has a 5.0 L that makes 507hp so 400 is nothing to fret about. and the LS3 is making 500+whp with untouched heads, just cam and bolt ons so time will tell. the new ford motor has to prove itself, the LS stuff has already proven itself time and time again.
Can I ask, why are you on a FORD site, when all you seem to do is bash it? lol.
LS1's will go 11's with just bolt ons? Maybe with suspension, weight reduction, and a slick...MAYBE.
this thread is epic.
run whatcha brung
Trevor has a quick 2v.
run whatcha brung
Trevor has a quick 2v.
With bolt-ons, big n littles, and some shocks they will go 11.5's @ 3450 lbs. :beer:
You aren't very bright are you?
Who keeps a motor stock?
Does a 5.4L come in mustangs?
You are smart....a bored/stroked 6.2L with ported heads, cams, intake work....will only make 400 HP. Hopefully your parents had more kids, so the world can be blessed with smart people for a change!
02GTP
Banned
when did i ever say a "bored/stroked 6.2L with ported heads, cams, intake work" will only make 400hp? can u show me where? i said they motor STOCK MIGHT make 400hp. it wont be any better than a LS7 when they are both modded. and i like when u guys talk efficiency and how a out of the box LS7 head outflows a ford GT head by about 50cfm lol.
And my point is, we are not talking STOCK engines here. If we were, this site and many others wouldnt be around.
So, efficiency is based on CFM?? Really?? So...whatever engine has the heads with the highest CFM # is better and makes the most "efficient" power? AWESOME! You need a new hobby.
If you want to stay on the nutswinging rampage, let's do it in an educated way.
So, efficiency is based on CFM?? Really?? So...whatever engine has the heads with the highest CFM # is better and makes the most "efficient" power? AWESOME! You need a new hobby.
If you want to stay on the nutswinging rampage, let's do it in an educated way.
Last edited:
02GTP
Banned
yes but cfm like i said is a large part of it. thats y 2v mustangs suck so much, 190cfm is not good. obviously not 100% of the reason but a big one. thats like the LT1, same size as the LS1 but its headflow is no where near the LS1 and look what happened.
You're right.
How fast is your car?
How fast is your car?
02GTP
Banned
my car is slow. just your typical bolt on 3v, no headers n stock gears for now.
Good talk guys. Post a video so we all can see what happens.
I dont have a 2 valve, but I have a n/a 360hp pushrod gt, not to shabby with a little 5liter n/a 
SkeetSkeetSkeet
Banned
I dont have a 2 valve, but I have a n/a 360hp pushrod gt, not to shabby with a little 5liter n/a
Last time I checked, the 5.0's were 2V's
I dont have a 2 valve, but I have a n/a 360hp pushrod gt, not to shabby with a little 5liter n/a
Its technically a 2 valve, since you have 2 valves :lol1::thumbsup:
Last time I checked, the 5.0's were 2V's
I meant 96+ modular 2 valves like there talking about...
I meant 96+ modular 2 valves like there talking about...
Users who are viewing this thread
