No special motor mounts.  The difference between the regular 302 and the 5.0 HO is the heads, intake, firing order, and roller cam.  Nothing external.

TubbedCrapmaro, first off, the Clevland is not a big block.  It is a small block with large heads, so naturally some dumbasses think it's a big block.  And the Cobras that only made 260 horsepower were due to a computer problem that was later corrected, and corrected 99 Cobras made far more than 320 horsepower.

BTW: Need we even mention that most people compare the Ford 302 to the Chevy 350, with no mention of the boat anchor that is also known as a 305...

Good points.

However, I think it's CLEVELAND (like Cleveland, Ohio).   Further confusing the Chevy folks is the 351M/400 series engines. They use the 385-style bellhousing bolt pattern (like 429s and 460s) but take small-block Cleveland heads.  The taller deck height gives it almost big block proportions.

The '99 Cobra recall also involved extrude honing casting flash out of the intake and opening up the exhaust a tad (can't remember exactly what they did at the moment). The identical spec 2001 Cobras (post-recall) routinely belt out 290-300+ horsepower on chassis dynos (except apparently in Camaro Craft). 

Of course, all of this is old news with the "390-horsepower" (wink, wink, nod, nod) '03 Cobra . . . . (maybe 390 is rear-wheel h.p. . . . on a 100-degree day . . . in Denver . . . .)

I think he's going by the fact that balanacing made more power than porting in Gran Tourismo...  Maybe the PS2 jokes are directed at the wrong person here.  

I wouldn't bring up hp/L like the Honda ricers do.  So what, just because the Honda can make 100 hp/L where does that put them in your list?  At the top?  You still have to multiply it by how much liter it displaces.  Is the Viper slower than the cars you listed?  Is an Integra Type-R faster than all the cars you listed?

Cobra, jeez, it's blown and it's only slightly quicker than a naturally aspirated LS1.  The Cobra R should blow away the LS6 considering the valvetrain, but doesn't.

The ZO-6 has a significant weight advantage over the Cobra R. Plus the Cobra R could stand a valve spring upgrade and a few bolt ons to unleash a bit of power. The R is mildly tuned for a cammer.  If it had the same tuning and valve train as an Integra or an NSX, it would make over 500 h.p. "all motor."

The ZO-6 Corvette is a fine achievement by GM's engineers.  However, it is not proof that pushrod engines are "better"--which is my point.

Horspower per litre isn't a means of saying what's faster.  A mountain motor in a '23 T altered bracket car can have horrible Hp/l but be wicked quick and fast.  Horsepower per litre is merely a fair way to compare the EFFICIENCY of engines. 

Cubes, of course, are the easiest way to make big power.  I suspect an 800 cube flathead (none exist) would make more torque and power than mom's SBC 350. Not as much as an OHV 800, though.  But CUBES BEING EQUAL, a multivalve cammer generally has more rpm potential than an OHV pushrod engine.

It's all about getting air into the engine. NASCAR mills crank out 700 h.p. out of 5.8 litres. That's almost 200 more than 20 years ago. Why? RPM increases, mostly. If they had more revs with the same cubes (i.e. lighter valvetrains with overhead cams), and decent port designs, the power outputs would be significantly higher.

nascar doesnt run overhead cams i have no idea what your on but nascars new success i believe is the ability to make such wild solids stay together and the stronger and lighter parts made in aftermarket, and i believe it strongly to the efficiency of the new combustion chamber designs and the SB2 heads, its a carb engine with a single plane no injection, no turbos, no overhead cams, this isnt Indy this is American NASCAR

Dude!  You're missing the point.  Just because NASCAR's heavy-handedness keeps basic engine technology back in about 1979 (carbs, no roller cams, OHV pushrods, etc.)  that doesn't repeal the basic "laws" of engine dynamics.  It's about the amount of air you can "react" with fuel. Period.

If NASCAR allowed Robert Yates to run DOHC modular engines . . . even with an archaic Holley fuel leak on top instead of EFI (something he's proposed to NASCAR because at least it would be an engine with SOME tie to what Ford actually sells in the showroom),  I have no doubt that routine engine speeds would climb rapidly.  Lap times probably would also.   And Chevy would be whining for a DOHC head (SB3?).

IMHO, modern  PRODUCTION engines (including DOHCs) limited to-- say-- 290 cubes and no restrictor plates would make for much better racing than what we've been getting from Talladega and Daytona lately.

BTW, who was fastest at Daytona and Talladega before restrictor plates . . . Yup, you guessed it FORD.  

Speaking of Indy--Curious that  "all motor" DOHCs, chip limited to less than 11,000 rpm, and giving up 140 cubes to NASCAR engines, are only down about 50 horsepower to the NASCAR mills (albeit on methanol instead of lead-spiked race gas).

It's all about the airflow!

I don't agree at all that DOHC 290 CI modern engines would make NASCAR better..  To me the only thing that makes that sport interesting is the engines that they use now.  Just something about 800 horsepower worth of old school smallblock that isn't all that much different from the engines that are in everyone's street rods...  If they allow EFI and DOHC in NASCAR they may as well allow *** cars.

Plus, Carbureted engines make more top end power for much less headache.  Holley fuel leak?  My 360 Dart sucking fuel through a 4 barrel Demon gets twice the gas milage that my old '91 EFI Grand Marquis got, and you can bet it's a tad more fun too 

like i said this is america, not Germany, we all know those technologies work better but do you think there going to allow million dollar engines? i strongly believe that when NASCAR first began there rules were directed so that anyone could be a part of it, not just millionaire racing teams even though that became the trend over the few years

I guess you haven't heard about Toyota coming into the Craftsman Truck Series . . . .

Restrictor plate engines don't make anywhere close to 800 h.p.  More like about 450 h.p.  Modern 290s would allow "real racing" to return to Talladega and Daytona.

I agree with NASCAR that close racing is "interesting racing."   But watching a giant pack of cars run nose to tail because nobody can "slingshot" isn't too interesting (I saw the spring race at Talladega in person this year, so I know).

I've got both carbs and EFI now.  I'm sentimental about good 4bbls, but realistic enough to admit EFI beats 'em hands down in torque, driveability, reliablity and average power.  Properly set up, EFI is at least as good as a carb on the top end.  And EFI is at the heart of the 5.0 Mustang revolution!

I like that Camaro Craft keeps the old school way alive, but I won't delude myself into thinking its somehow better than technology.

A $35,000-$45,000 NASCAR engine is almost as different from some crate motor putz at the NSRA Nats as John Force's Hemi is from grandma's 392 Imperial plant.  Same basic layout, way different parts inside.

Stock car racing was originally about racing what you could buy in the showroom. Somewhere that idea was lost.  

I guess you haven't built a competitive NASCAR engine lately. 

Most teams are spending over $500,000 on restrictor plate programs.   I heard that Yates thinks that the modular engines would actually be cheaper because more stock parts could be used/required.

At first, the rules were "directed" so that you could buy a showroom stocker and make a few bolt-ons for racing.  That's more what NASCAR should be going back to (not clinging to 1979 technology) IMHO.

I was working on a F150 today with a 4.6. The motor blew a spark plug out of the head, threads and all. I have to say that is the stupidest looking intake I have ever seen, what did spiderman make it. And the heads they are just rip offs of the old Mercedes V8's. The whole motor is basically a rip off of a Benz V8. The way the intake goes down into the "V" of the block, and then the long intake runner to the head, that is totally Benz, even the way the heads are designed is almost the same way that benz designed there heads. Basically the 4.6 and 5.4 are just cheap knock offs for old Mercedes V8's. And  what is with that casting shroud around the intake valve for, to me that would restrict air flow. I have to say I'd rather work on a Benz motor than this piece of Sh*t.  

Moral: Don't overtighten the plugs.  On any engine.

The "Spiderman" intake uses heimholtz tuning principles to build more low end torque (just what Joe Citizen wants in a light truck when he's hauling 1000 pounds of sand home for the kids' sandbox). 

The casting shroud promotes swirl.  It's not a feature of 2V "PI" heads.

I'd guess that most techs would rather wrench on Mercedes because of the higher pay in Benz dealerships.  Otherwise, your comments prove nothing but unfiltered bias.

I guess you haven't seen an LS1 intake, because it has plenty of "spider man" looks to it as well...

And even if the 4.6 is similiar in design to a Mercedes V8 (and I don't know wether it is or not) that doesn't mean it's a "knockoff" of said engine.  If a certain design works good then somebody else is gonna eventually realise that.

Ever look closely at a Caddilac Northstar engine?  I'd swear it's a 4.6 DOHC Ford with a Caddy logo on it.  But last I checked, it wasn't around in the late 80s when the modular Ford first appeared in concept.

dr511scj, with slightly used NASCAR parts one can build a streetable (lowered compression/smaller cam) clone of a NASCAR smallblock for about 10 grand.  I don't see anyone with fire breathing high tech all aluminum dual cam 4 valve EFI wonder engines in their street cars.

I am not saying GM is the only one who makes good engines.
GM makes good pushrods.  They blow the competition away (since there isn't any).
Compared with other OHC with superior valvetrains, it can kick butt, so they don't make good pushrods, but great ones...pushrods that is.
GM also makes some decent OHC engines compared to other OHCs, imports included.
Comparing Ford's OHC to other OHCs...they kinda suck.  A number of engines with smaller displacements make more hp than the 4.6L.
That's my point, they don't know how to build engines.
The Nissan 3.5 V-6 makes about 280 hp.  Honda's 3.2 makes about 250 hp.
Both use variable valve timing and the Honda also has variable lift.  Both are smaller than the 4.6L.  The 4.6 should have been making 300 hp+ from the start.  GM's Northstar makes 300 hp, and that was without variable valve timing.  The new RWD ones have VVT.

"The typical Chevy smallblock that has been around for 50 years may still be in produuction, but you can only get it in an ASTRO VAN.  Despite what a lot of people think, the LS1 series engine is in no way related to the old 350."

I know that.  Gen I, Gen II, and Gen IIIs.  But they all still have the same basic design.  Pushrods, cam-in-block, 2-valve heads... 
Gen II when introduced were rated 225 hp.  Gen III, 300 hp.  Gen III 1/2 (LS6), 405 hp.  That is a HUGE jump especially LS1 to LS6.  No change in displacement.  Am I saying pushrods are superior, no.  GM really knows how to build a pushrod...yes.

"And Mustang GTs ARE rated at 260 horsepower, well 265, and they obviously have no trouble at all selling.  That's why they're still in production, whereas the Camaro isn't."
More than 50% of Mustang purchases were female, and they were for the V-6s.  That is why the Mustang is successful.  It's a girl's car.  Nothing to do with muscle.

"Plus, the N/A 300 horsepower Mach 1 can run 12 second 1/4s all day for a lot less money than any new LS1 was."

I can give the Mach 1 credit.  But they should have been doing that with the GT or at least the Cobra and not on some special version. 
And Mach 1's don't do 12s all day.  Looks more like 13.2, and I'm being generous.
http://www.mach1registry.com/FAQ.htm#quartertimes

"You think that GM V8s get good emmisions eh?  How come the EPA is all over Chevy because their SUVs are by FAR the least efficient gasoline vehicles on the road, and if the don't design a more efficient engine by the time the new fuel milage laws take effect in 2005 we won't be seeing any more GM SUVs on the road (although i wouldn't complan if ALL SUVs were rid of)."

SUVs and trucks fall into a different EPA grouping (that will all change soon since everyone now treats SUVs like cars.)
The Corvette (and now dead F-bodies) are LEV (Low Emissions Vehicles).
The 4.6L Mustang is an TLEV (Transient Low Emissions Vehicle).  It doesn't meet the stricter LEV requirements.