missing cam

[StangerBanger96]

thrash;185729 wrote:
this is the 4.6 engine right? is it 100% metric hardware now ?

5.0 = Pushrod
4.6 = OHC

5.0 = Easy to work on and fairly small dimensionally...note the room to work with in his engine bay
4.6 = Bitch to work on and picky as hell with mods, also larger than many big block engines.

His Engine (5.0)

My Engine (4.6)

[MisterCMK]

4.6 = simple shit

5.0 = awesome shit

[SPANISH-RICE]

MisterCMK;185753 wrote:
4.6 = shit

5.0 = shit

fixed

[StangerBanger96]

MisterCMK;185753 wrote:
NA 4.6 = faster than NA Honda

NA 5.0 = faster than NA Honda

Boosted 4.6 = faster than Boosted Honda

Boosted 5.0 = faster than Boosted Honda

Double Fixt for you Brandon

[MisterCMK]

I got the accessory brackets bolted up and I started gasket matching the intake manifold. I have to go back to Home Depot to buy a different pipe for the damn EGR though. Maybe by this weekend it will run.

[thrash]

Ford engine bays are a complete nightmare. Those pics make me squeamish. I had a 85 Bronco II with the V6 and that thing sucked something fierce.

Here's the engine bay of the 1991 BMW M5

3.6 liters, 24 valves, 6 throttle butterflies, 310hp, ~270ft/lbs, 7000 rpm, DOHC, shim-over-bucket.

[StangerBanger96]

thrash;185977 wrote:
Ford engine bays are a complete nightmare.

You can say that again.

[MisterCMK]

Hmm, I haven't had a problem with Ford engine bays. The Expedition with the 5.4 is a little on the tight side, as is the Modular SN95 'Stangs, but other than that they really aren't that bad. I have a 92 Explorer with the 4.0 V6 (basically the same as the truck you had) and there is LOTS of room in there.

[thrash]

The issue is about the rats nest of wires and hoses. Yeah, there's plenty of room in the mustang -- and its all filled with shit.

Look how clean the layout of the M5 engine bay is. Everything is routed logically and cleanly. It's easy to tell what everything is and what it connects to.

[MisterCMK]

Meh, its the same way with the Fords too

[StangerBanger96]

MisterCMK;185996 wrote:
Hmm, I haven't had a problem with Ford engine bays. The Expedition with the 5.4 is a little on the tight side, as is the Modular SN95 'Stangs, but other than that they really aren't that bad. I have a 92 Explorer with the 4.0 V6 (basically the same as the truck you had) and there is LOTS of room in there.

Modular 4.6's and 5.4's are some of the biggest (dimensionally) engines Ford has ever made. They are way too big and way too underpowered.

[MisterCMK]

I agree with that. Never said that they weren't.

[StangerBanger96]

MisterCMK;186017 wrote:
I agree with that. Never said that they weren't.

Yeah I'm not sure why I hit the quote button on you there, meant to just say what I said and nothing else.

[dubbsy]

MisterCMK;185996 wrote:
I have a 92 Explorer with the 4.0 V6 (basically the same as the truck you had) and there is LOTS of room in there.

Lots of room my ass..

not when you need to change plugs from the god damn wheel well on the passenger side....

I can actually SEE where the plug wires end on the Tahoe...

[Parker]

MisterCMK;185753 wrote:
4.6 = Still a gay Ford

5.0 = Still a gay Ford

Fords new emblem

[D S ohM]

:lol:

[MisterCMK]

I got the lower intake bolted on today and found out that I now need an intake spacer to run fox valve covers. fuck.

[97lt1]

You guys have never worked on a LT1 f-body. If you can work on one if these you can work on anything.

[dubbsy]

97lt1;186143 wrote:
You guys have never worked on a LT1 f-body. If you can work on one if these you can work on anything.

I think you'd say the same thing about a Supercoupe.

I remember a buddy showing me pictures of the only real easy way to change spark plugs... the heads were on the work bench.

[MisterCMK]

97lt1;186143 wrote:
You guys have never worked on a LT1 f-body. If you can work on one if these you can work on anything.

Word.

Plug wires in an LT1 suck.

On another note, I will be starting the car tonight.