The 4.6L V8 was Ford's "modular" V8. The plan was that it would be the basis for several engine lineups, including V8 and V6 models. It never was really popular with Mustang fans. As someone else pointed out, this engine was used in everything from pickup trucks to taxis to police cars, so it was tuned for reliability and torque. The average car buyer in the US doesn't care for high revving screamer engines, and prefer high torque engines. The base engine was only a SOHC design with three valves per cylinder.
A little correction here--the modular motors came in 2V, 3V, and 4V versions (I have a 2V version myself). They also rev quite a bit more than you would think, much more than a small block Chevy (have one of those also). For a V8, they are fairly rev-happy. They did fairly well with the Mustang crowd, especially the 4V versions, but the return of the 5.0 (clean-sheet design) has been welcomed with open arms, certainly. Amazing engines, those new 5.0s. And they are very, very responsive to mods. 412/444 hp in bone stock form is nothing short of impressive, especially with the gas mileage they get. The sky really is the limit with those 5.0s.
Thats still only 444hp from a 5.0 V8 though. TVR was 440 from a 4.2 straight 6. I understand what you say about the low rev high torque but theres still quite a difference. Different cultures I guess?!
Bone stock, with lots of room for improvement.
I find the whole HP/liter thing a bunch of BS. It a nice stat and all to show the engineering of the engine, but at the end of the day it's useless. All that matters is performance and fuel efficiency. Getting 16 MPG city and 26 MPG HWY for the 'Vette with a 6.2 liter V8 making 436 HP is pretty well respectable considering it gets comparable fuel economy of the 2.0 liter 4 banger S2000( and will cream the S2000).
It just doesn't matter that Ford needs a 5.0 liter V8 to make 412 HP, BMW needs 4.0 liters V8 to make 414 HP, etc. At the end of the day, all that matters is what that engine does in the vehicle it is put in.
I agree, hp/liter is completely useless, and something Europeans always like to tout for some reason. It makes no difference, I look at the engine that's in the car, and how it performs and the numbers it puts to the wheels--that's what matters.
Speaking of V8s, don't assume they are gas guzzlers. Corvettes can achieve high 20s on the highway (although that's largely due to gearing).
This is so true, and it's something a lot of people really need to let go of. Just the other day in another thread here in CD, an STI owner was saying what gas guzzling POS cars the new Camaro and Mustang were, and then I posted stats showing that they still got better gas mileage than an '11 STI and that was the end of him. People need to realize the cars also handle too, and have for 25 years. A Camaro from over 20 years ago put down a .92G skidpad, bone stock. The new Mustang (just the base GT) stops better, accelerates faster, and runs the same time around the track as an M3. The Boss 302, built for the track, would embarrass the M3. The criticism of the M3 was that it lacked balance and mid-range torque, and suffered from understeer, none of which are easily fixed. The criticism of the Mustang was that it needed better shocks, which anyone/everyone would replace anyway when they lower the car. In other words, with the numbers the new cars put out, they are nothing short of impressive on all fronts, and it's time people realize that. American performance cars get good mileage and have handled well for the last 25 years. It's not 1968 anymore.
Here's the back-to-back comparison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOwSPccbzl4