I've been doing searches and found that the 4v gains on e85 were much greater than the 2v, with the information given. I compared two articles by 5.0 magazine with both work done at Anderson.
E85 Two-Valve Buildup - Tech Information - 5.0 Mustang & Super Fords Magazine
2004 Mustang Mach 1 E35 Mileage Test - 5.0 Mustang & Super Fords Magazine
The 2v n/a is completely built, but it doesn't specify whether it was tuned or what the compression numbers were. My guess is lower comp. for the blower put on in the same article. It gained 6 hp 9 tq.
The mach 1 is bone stock and was tuned for the e85. It gained 30 hp 38 tq.
My question is, is there more to be gained in a 4v vs a 2v? It's hard to figure given the lack of info. I'm sure some of the machs power gains were from stock tune to performance tune.
The 2v could have been compared using a perf. 93 vs perf. e85 tune.
I have a stock longblock 2v with aftermarket cams and all the bolt ons, n/a and wonder if e85 is worth it.
E85 Two-Valve Buildup - Tech Information - 5.0 Mustang & Super Fords Magazine
2004 Mustang Mach 1 E35 Mileage Test - 5.0 Mustang & Super Fords Magazine
The 2v n/a is completely built, but it doesn't specify whether it was tuned or what the compression numbers were. My guess is lower comp. for the blower put on in the same article. It gained 6 hp 9 tq.
The mach 1 is bone stock and was tuned for the e85. It gained 30 hp 38 tq.
My question is, is there more to be gained in a 4v vs a 2v? It's hard to figure given the lack of info. I'm sure some of the machs power gains were from stock tune to performance tune.
The 2v could have been compared using a perf. 93 vs perf. e85 tune.
I have a stock longblock 2v with aftermarket cams and all the bolt ons, n/a and wonder if e85 is worth it.