missing cam
-
MisterCMK;185561 wrote:
Yup, they have that little pinch in them.I have both heads off and the pistons/block surface cleaned up and ready for the heads. I am working on tapping the block holes and will probably bolt the heads on tonight. Fucking autozone shit taps breaking off blow ass BTW
i hope you are not runing a tap:nonono: , you need to use a thread chaser all you are doing is cleaning your threads on the block, you may not see it but taps take a little amount of material off, and thets going to fuck with your torque numbers on your head bolts or studs.
-
Actually what you want to use is a bottoming tap. It does not have the taper to it. The thread sizes are the same. It will let you reach the bottom of the hole.
Ngige is correct when he said it does affect torque values as you still have material at the bottom of the threads. -
thrash;185729 wrote:
this is the 4.6 engine right? is it 100% metric hardware now ?5.0 = Pushrod
4.6 = OHC5.0 = 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;185753 wrote:
4.6 = shit5.0 = shit
fixed
here a psht, there psht, everywhere a psht psht
PVC SQUAD MEMBER #2- 95 CIVIC EX- DD 320whp on a mustang dyno
-
MisterCMK;185753 wrote:
NA 4.6 = faster than NA HondaNA 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
-
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.
-
thrash;185977 wrote:
Ford engine bays are a complete nightmare.You can say that again.
-
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.
-
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;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;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.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login