![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:09 • Filed to: 5.0, TROLL, WIKIPEDIA | ![]() | ![]() |
As a Ford guy, calling a 302 a 4.9L is sacrilege.
Some wise ass Chevy guy went around and changed them all to 4.9 or for the detailed guy (as referenced in screengrab for 3rd gen Mustangs (aka Fox Platforms) changed it to the message:
302 cu in (4.9L) Windsor V8 (marketed as a “5.0" model)
I want to hate you troll. But your dedication makes me give you some credit.
At the end of the day though:
I’m not going to stop calling it a 5.0 though.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:16 |
|
Rollin’ in my 4.948893, got the ragtop down, everyone can see.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:17 |
|
This has been quietly and reasonably discussed before. I’m firmly on the 4.9 side, if only because I’m a devout follower of numbers.
It’s 4942cc. For that to accurately be described as 5 liters, you would have to omit any decimal. It’s a 5, but never a 5.0. That’s not how significant digits work.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:17 |
|
302 cubic inches DOES convert to 4.948 Liters. 5.0 is better marketing.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:18 |
|
Because the 305s were sooooo much better >:|
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:18 |
|
There are three types of people in the world.... Those who can add and those who can’t.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:18 |
|
Yet a 305 can be mathematically correct at 5.0L, what a difference 3ci makes
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:20 |
|
What a difference
the actual number makes.
A 302’s a 4.9 no matter how many 5.0 badges they plaster on it.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:20 |
|
See above GIF
Take your math and get outta here
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:20 |
|
Came here to say this. I actually came here to ask, Do we think this difference is intentional? Because then Chevy makes a 5.7 and Ford goes to 5.8
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:20 |
|
I like how the 3.3L inline 6 makes one less hp than the 2.3L inline 4 lol
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:20 |
|
:)
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:21 |
|
I just wanna say 302CI = 4.94889L.
So giving it the 5.0 name is like giving a 2,940CC BMW 3 series the 330i designation.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:21 |
|
I didn’t realize in math “rounding up” was no longer allowed.
4.948893 is a pretty safe round. 4.95 would be safer, but even if I didn’t own a 5.0 motor, I’d still round that up for an easier number.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:22 |
|
305, the incorrect combination of the number 3, 0 and 5 for a GM V8 haha
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:22 |
|
Actually, that wasn’t an attempt at humour... I was actually making a genuine, interested note of the fact that 3ci is all (heck, 1ci is all) it takes for it to be correct.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:23 |
|
Dodge recognised superiority when they saw it and dropped from 5.9 to 5.7 :)
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:23 |
|
you take your math and get outta here
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:24 |
|
Rounding up is only allowed if it’s 4.950000000 or higher. It’s not, so you have to round down.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:24 |
|
True, but what I want to see is what the actual bore size of the engines as produced really is. Nominal 4.000", but if they are even three and a half thousandths over in the mode... it rounds as a 5.0.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:24 |
|
Wonderful
The best line is “I’m in total control”. so many mustang jokes.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:25 |
|
lol
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:26 |
|
What if it’s under-bored? Ford QC can go both ways.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:27 |
|
Close enough
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:27 |
|
Nevermind. Comment unrelated. Thanks kinja.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:28 |
|
Please feel free to measure your individual bores and crank length, and get back to us. Don’t forget to account for the volume of any scoring.
If you do all that, I think you can call it whatever you want.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:28 |
|
ok let’s keep on rounding then. Because at the 4.94889 mark, it would round up to 4.95 which could then round up to 5
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:29 |
|
He *did* fuck up the correct order to correspond to the rest of the table (L, ci) by swapping the two positions, and ruined the formatting with his note. Defacement - time to revert the edit. >neckbeard emoji<
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:30 |
|
Rounding rounded numbers now? You have to pick one. You can round to 4.95 if you’d like. I’m fine with that. Don’t round up the rounded up number to 5.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:31 |
|
If you say 4.9, no one will know what you’re talking about
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:34 |
|
I bet not. I’m not aware of pistons being typically made in anything other than nominal and + thousandths sizes for anything but special purpose sleeving applications. If you can’t underbore and have the pistons fit, and you have makeup pistons for anything that’s an overshoot, then when you have is a +xx/-0 tolerance - besides which, you can always bore out until you reach your target, whereas no block anywhere close to factory size will be sleeved back down. Average size will thus be fractionally over 4.000: QED.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:35 |
|
Actually, for grades 1-7 I would have rounded that to 5.0, just because I grasped the concept wrong.
I’d have gone 3 rounds down, 4.94889, 9 goes up 4.9489, 9 goes up 4.949, 9 goes up 4.95, and so on...
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:35 |
|
Oh god, good thing the 90's are over. But hey, he’s got a manual!
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:36 |
|
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:36 |
|
Yeah, you can’t sleeve back down, but the piston doesn’t take up the entire cylinder. That’s what rings are for, so if the car came out slightly underbored, it would still work.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:36 |
|
FINE THEN I WILL. *makes plan to tear down engine of any 5.0 he gets just to measure bores*
But seriously, I’d bet roughly a third to half of the 5.0s that came out were actually 5.0s.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:39 |
|
I don’t know what the tolerances in an SBF are - that would make or break that approach. Probably enough to allow a -.002 undersize, but who knows? I know that a MEL (which is a tighter tolerance engine) has an intended piston to bore total clearance <.005". Losing two thou on a MEL would fuck it up right good and proper.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:44 |
|
...they’re right.
Ducks behind parapet
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:45 |
|
oh just have some fun man
Like I said take your math and get outta here
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:46 |
|
you better duck!
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:47 |
|
make it happen ramblin!
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:51 |
|
Rollin, in my 5.0
with my ragtop down
so my hair can blow
————————————————
Rollin, in my 4.9
All you bitches looking fine
wanna get in your vagine
Why am I not a signed rapper? :D
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:52 |
|
Nah. But seriously, he could have covered it perfectly well with “4.9L (302 cu in) “5.0" Windsor V8". Keeps the passive aggression concise, clear, doesn’t fuck up the formatting.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:54 |
|
no
![]() 07/08/2016 at 11:58 |
|
Jumps into getaway Austin-Healey 3000
(actually a 2.9l)
and roars off down the road.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 12:00 |
|
it IS in fact a frustrating destruction of the chart.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 12:00 |
|
Smallbear wants a modern Syclone pictured:
![]() 07/08/2016 at 12:01 |
|
HA
![]() 07/08/2016 at 12:01 |
|
Yes they are. Everyone knows it’s the Cleveland you want anyway.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 12:02 |
|
Can confirm. But with more deer in the headlights look. Also, glasses.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 12:05 |
|
Picture corrected:
![]() 07/08/2016 at 12:18 |
|
You gotta remember. Ford is about as ‘MURICAN as one could get. We don’t fully get math.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 13:10 |
|
As the owner of a 302, I strategically avoid calling it a “5.0". I just say “three-oh-two”, even though it doesn’t have quite as much catchy street cred as “five-point-oh”.
But if someone else calls my car a 5.0, I let it slide.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 13:13 |
|
Some might assume a Ford 300 straight 6 was transplanted into it.
![]() 07/08/2016 at 14:44 |
|
I just roll with 5.0
![]() 07/08/2016 at 22:07 |
|
A Chevy 305 is the most 5.0.
![]() 07/10/2016 at 18:05 |
|
Never said it wasn’t, except the Ford 302 is a drastically better motor than the GM 305. If you want a GM v8 you need to flip the 0 and the 5 to get a 350 or don’t bother.
![]() 07/13/2016 at 09:58 |
|
Oh, it got even more pedantic.
![]() 07/13/2016 at 10:01 |
|
yeah the marketed as a “5.0" model was obnoxious.
![]() 07/26/2016 at 13:26 |
|
ROLLIN, in my 4.9
![]() 07/26/2016 at 13:27 |
|
TROLL
![]() 08/04/2016 at 15:26 |
|
Ok but only the fuel injected 302 engine was sold as the 5.0L. The 302 Windsor engine is a 4.9L. I think the pic you posted is correct, and is how it should be shown on Wikipedia.
![]() 08/04/2016 at 15:29 |
|
Is this how you bided your time to try and get back at me?!
![]() 08/04/2016 at 15:32 |
|
Nah this I do for fun.
![]() 08/04/2016 at 15:55 |
|
Salty bastard