will a stock 5.0 beat a stock 4.6?

[CanadaStang]

I think that was only for the '93 model year they used that rating system. After all was said and done, they had rated the '93 Mustang (which was of the same essential configuration as it had been for the last 6-years) at 205hp that year. In ’94 they went back to the old method of rating which brought the SN95 back up to 215hp….even after the intake and ECM changes.

Ratings have little to do with actual output in some cases though. It's common knowledge amongst the 5.0L crowd that the '87-'88 “Speed Density” Mustang were the fastest and most powerful of the '87-'92 Fox era, yet all were rated at 225hp/300lbs ft from Ford.

Ah Ok, I wasn't aware of that. I, for some reason, was thinking that the revised Hp figure was 205Hp and then they bumped it to 215Hp for 94', but ya car companies have been playing with the advertised Hp numbers for years.

 

[CanadaStang]

Yep... 87-88 were true 225hp... after that was 215-220 no matter the rating.

My 87', 89' and the 91' all ran roughly the same mph and time in the 1/4, with the 91' being slightly faster than the others. I never dyno'd the 89' but I did have the other two on the dyno [87' and the 91'] [same dyno but not the same day] and both put down in the 190's, I can't remember the exact hp figures as I'm at work but I'll check it out when I get home.

 

[QuickCapri83]

OKAY. Enough, civil war is'nt going to help. Most of us like to have an opinion, and, we're entitled to one. Lets be reasonable with one another and appreciate the points being made. I think everyone has made a good point. But, it comes down to this. I'm sorry to say to you 5.0 owners, ME BEING ONE OF THEM, the 99+ is gonna take down the fastest 5.0, the notch, probably by about 1-4 tenths. Trap speed, well, it depends how important it is to you, if you're in the process of building your car, then it matters more I guess, but, the 99+ produce a better trap noboby here will dare argue that point.

It's simple, the 99+ just pulls harder above 3krpm. All the work they did between the 98 and 99 4.6 was directed at the high rpm performance, and, anyone who knows the 4.6 knows, that below 3k rpm, there's really no difference between a 96GT and a 2004GT, but above 3krpm, it's [all the difference in the world].

Now days the 5.0's are rappin up miles and time, however, that cant be said for all, alot of owners keep them in tip top, and many have rebuilds etc etc, so none of us can really use age as an excuse, it comes down to every car being unique.

It's not even a big deal, but I know for a fact stock for stock, brand new, even with a time machine, go back and grab a 87 Notch (I prefer 87 as the best year of 5.0) and line it up with a brand new 99+ GT Coupe, you know which one is faster.

The only reason there's even any debate in here, IMO, is because some people just like to be heard, and they should be, we're all entitled to an opinion. I just dont get it tho, it should be common knowledge that the 99+ is quicker, I mean, it's not that big of a deal. The 5.0 is king, so what if it's a few tenths slower.

Note: Every 5.0 i've had has had issues in the top end, i'd always wanted more top end pull. When I bought my 99 Limited, with 100k on the clock, it was like a dream come true, finally some goddamn pull on the high end!!!!


I want to be an official member

:SNSign:

 

[LB0193]

The better q here is there really any stock 5.0's barely and the ones that are are grauge queen show cars

 

[CanadaStang]

The better q here is there really any stock 5.0's barely and the ones that are are grauge queen show cars

Ya some of them have had pretty hard lives, but there are a few out there that are pretty nice. My 91' LX has just under 29,000 miles [bought it from my uncle 10 years ago with 6000 miles on it] and has always had a soft life. My uncle always kept in the garage and so have I, so it still looks new.
Edit: Oh, the only mods it has is an off-road H-pipe and the air silencer removed.

 

[Keldog]

I owned a 91 LX coupe, 95 and 96 Cobra, '04 Mach 1 (like a fool traded it in so my wife could get an Expedition), and now a 01 GT. By far the fastest bone stock N/A I've owned is the Mach 1. The best gear option you could get with a 5.0 was a 3.08 and even with it the engine was not the quickest out of the hole. Even with the roughly 4-500 lbs. weight increase over a 5.0 coupe, I have to give the nod to the 99-. Now if two equal drivers were given only a $1,000 to spend on mod's on their cars, I would take the 5.0 because that money will go alot further.

 

[billfisher]

i owned an 80 that weighed 2700lbs stripped for racing.

an 83 notch weighed around 2500 race stripped.

i've driven countless stangs of most years. a typical 5 speed notch runs 9.4 here. that's a fast one. totally stock. most 99+ run about the same maybe 9.3. but essentially the same.

225hp and 2900 = 12.88 lb/hp
260hp and 3300 = 12.69 lb/hp

stripped notch 2500lbs
stripped sn.....3000lbs

hard to beat weight. same reason LS f-bodies a hard to beat. lighter than me.

 

[curtisimo81]

In the 4.6 forum? No.
In the 5.0 forum? Yes.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

hard to beat weight. same reason LS f-bodies a hard to beat. lighter than me.

More powerful (when you were stock) probably, but lighter......if it's any lighter, it's not by much....and only because you've not got the heavier 5.4L 3V under your hood.

2002 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 Coupe
Number of Doors: 2
Convertible : No
Length: 193.5 inches
Width: 74.1 inches
Height: 51.2 inches
Curb Weight: 3433-3574lbs.
Ground Clearance: 4.5 inches

 

[billfisher]

well there you have it. i didn'tbother to look up their weight. i read a bunch of different figures on their weight.

the few i have fooled around with lately don't have much on me. i still have useless stock cams. the target bar has risen here lately. a girl in my training class owns an 04 Z06, and i will kill her car if it's the last thing i do.

she talks a lot of trash.

 

[BurningRubber]

the target bar has risen here lately.

Ive noticed that too.

Seems like at first everyone was screaming bolt ons + longtubes = a fast GT. Now a ton of people seem to be jumping on the cam bandwagon, along with forced induction. Seeing a rash of PI swaps also, which is a good thing.

 

[Cory281]

Sorry to change the subject here. But Billfisher, Have you taken your car to the track yet? I'm really curious of what you run in the quarter

 

[01Steeda]

the target bar has risen here lately. a girl in my training class owns an 04 Z06, and i will kill her car if it's the last thing i do.

she talks a lot of trash.

a Z06 locally is about to get taken down a few notches here as well, he honestly believes a mustang cant beat him even with 500rwhp. I prolly wont see 500 but ill have enough to take down his 11.8 a$$

 

[1994Vib.RedGT]

Actually 87-93 for the 225 hp 5.0s and 94-95 for the 215 hp 5.0s

I think the reason the 94-95s were rated at 215 was marketing more than anything, although I am a little biased. I dyno'd my car bone stock and got 189 rwhp; thats around 220 flywheel, the different intake manifold explains the 5hp difference between the foxes and the sn's. But this is the way it went, in 92 when ford released the 93, they knew 96 was bringing the 4.6 sohc, which they were rating at 215hp; because of this they didnt want you losing hp if you bought a gt in 96 as opposed to 95, so they rated the 94-95s 5 hp lower than they were, and in 93 it was 205hp, because they knew they were taking a sales cut on the 93s with the new 94s coming out, and having a 10hp jump in ratings was a good way to promote the 94s even more. And they underrated the 93 and 94/95 cobras pretty badly, but thats another story.

anyways, hp ratings rant aside a 99+ gt would take a stock 5.0 of any year, and probably run fairly even if not lose by a hair to a 5.0 cobra, but a 96-98 GT would be taken by a stock 5.0 GT.

 

[CanadaStang]

I think the reason the 94-95s were rated at 215 was marketing more than anything, although I am a little biased. I dyno'd my car bone stock and got 189 rwhp; thats around 220 flywheel, the different intake manifold explains the 5hp difference between the foxes and the sn's. But this is the way it went, in 92 when ford released the 93, they knew 96 was bringing the 4.6 sohc, which they were rating at 215hp; because of this they didnt want you losing hp if you bought a gt in 96 as opposed to 95, so they rated the 94-95s 5 hp lower than they were, and in 93 it was 205hp, because they knew they were taking a sales cut on the 93s with the new 94s coming out, and having a 10hp jump in ratings was a good way to promote the 94s even more. And they underrated the 93 and 94/95 cobras pretty badly, but thats another story.

anyways, hp ratings rant aside a 99+ gt would take a stock 5.0 of any year, and probably run fairly even if not lose by a hair to a 5.0 cobra, but a 96-98 GT would be taken by a stock 5.0 GT.

My 87' dyno'd 191 and the 91' LX dyno'd 194, both were stock except for air silencer on both were removed. Granted they were dyno'd several months apart but it was the same dyno, either way they were both close enough to say they about the same. It's difficult to compare mine to yours b/c of the different dyno's used but still, it is interesting that they would be that close.
I've never seen actual numbers from the older Cobra's but are they not rated 10hp more than the regular 5.0's. From my experience it would take more than 10hp to beat a 99' up I'm also talking 1/4 mile not 1/8th, b/c as I had said before, my LX will give a 99' a good run in the 1/8th but not in the 1/4

 

[1994Vib.RedGT]

^ yea; 93 cobras are rated at 235hp, 94-95s at 240, and 95 R at 300. All three of these are underrated.

Dyno tests have shown that stock 5.0 cobras actually push about 285 or 290 to the flywheel, not the advertised 235-240. And the 95 r, definetely a bit underrated, only 300hp? yea right.

 

[billfisher]

if i can ever be in town when the wildhorse club i'm in goes to bowling green i will. i've missed a few trips. i go out a lot.

i'm in knoxville tn right now. no 1/4 tracks here.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

And the 95 r, definetely a bit underrated, only 300hp? yea right.

Ehhh, I don't think that rating is that far off. The '95 Cobra R was a high/mid 13-second car. That's abought right for 300hp at the flywheel. Keep in mind, the Cobra R utilized the same iron GT40 heads and aluminum intake as the standard Cobra. Not exactly the highest flow choice when trying to make 351ci of displacment breath to its full potential.

 

[billfisher]

stock 93 cobras ran in the 9.0 - 9.1 1/8th area. that's 275fwhp region.

 

[CanadaStang]

^ yea; 93 cobras are rated at 235hp, 94-95s at 240, and 95 R at 300. All three of these are underrated.

Dyno tests have shown that stock 5.0 cobras actually push about 285 or 290 to the flywheel, not the advertised 235-240. And the 95 r, definetely a bit underrated, only 300hp? yea right.

Check out the 1/4 mile times of the 5.0 Cobra's, seems about right for the rated HP :

http://www.ssmoparmuscle.com/speedcomp.htm

http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html