Are these 4.6l V8s good engines?

[NitroDuck]

I had a few 5.0 fox's and I also had an sn95 5.0. I purchased an 03 GT with the 4.6 about a year and a half ago. At first I though the older 5.0s had more power down low. They make there power at 3k, versus 4k in the 4.6. If you push the 4.6 through its entire power band it will kill the older 5.0's. If you install some 373 gears or even some 4.10 gears you will def feel much more power down low!!!!

This sentiment is something I hear often repeated, but I've found it to be the opposite of the truth. My '98 4.6L performed best when shifted between 5300-5500 rpms, based on the old 10% over peak horsepower rule. In non-PI form, shifts at 4900-5000rpms were optimal.

Those last 500rpms are nothing but noise (and lost hundreths of seconds.)

 

[Deleted member 38176]

Its possible that there's something wrong with the car you're looking at (dirty MAF, clogged fuel filter, any number of things). A bone stock 99+ 4.6 will slaughter even a lightly modded 5.0 and even that 350 87 vette. It shouldn't even feel similar.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

On what planet are the Fox Body GTs low-mid 15 second cars? They are EASILY mid-low 14 second cars, stock, in proper tune, in good weather. I'm not talking about as driven by the grandma staffers at Motor Trend.

I think he's comparing automatic vs. automatic, since the '00 GT he's looking at is an auto.

...and he's right...automatic GT's were turds. They were a low-15-second car at best. I watched a bone stock automatic GT Vert run consistent low-16's one time.

Calling a 5.0L Fox body a low-14-second car is being very generous. Maybe a 5-speed coupe with no options in the hands of an expert peddler will dip into the low-14's, but otherwise mid/high-14-second car with a competent driver.

Seeing a stock 5.0L '87-'93 Fox dip into the low-14's is about as rare as seeing a stock '99-'04 GT dip into the high-13's. Someone always knows a friend of a fried that's done it, but few people actually get to see it.

 

[crazystang25]

2000 auto gt with jmod, stall, 4.10's, full bolt ons, cams will run pretty nasty. Just doing the gears will wake it up since the power comes in higher in The rpm range. But they have just as much torque or more as the old 5.0 + more HP. Put heads on it and u would be in the 11's.

 

[slayerripkdc]

Bone stock with off road mid pipe, my 03 GT with very hot 85 degree humid weather trapped 99mph in the 1/4. What do mainly stock Push Rod 5.0's trap?

 

[Flghtmstr1]

My automatic 2001 GT ran a 13.6 at 103 mph with just a K&N drop-in, weld-in flows, and a mail-order tune on all-season 245/45R17 rubber.

 

[N8Dogg98]

On what planet are the Fox Body GTs low-mid 15 second cars? They are EASILY mid-low 14 second cars, stock, in proper tune, in good weather. I'm not talking about as driven by the grandma staffers at Motor Trend.

On planet earth... ever heard of it? Find me a bone stock auto fox body 5.0 GT that runs even a high 14 sec 1/4 mile.

I'd say that a well driven 99+ GT is about on par with the Fox Body 5.0s.

Wrong again. Maybe a 96-98 stock GT is on par, but stock vs stock a 99+ GT will MURDER a fox body 5.0 GT in the 1/4 mile. With equivalent drivers there is at least a 1/2 second 1/4 mile time difference.

 

[crazystang25]

O and they can be made to handle very well. Mine does.

 

[slayerripkdc]

Mild H/C/I 5.0's make around 300 to the wheels. Full exhaust, cams make close to that with STOCK heads on a 99-04 PI 4.6.

 

[NitroDuck]

Gearbanger, good point about the automatic, I wasn't considering that. I had a '95 GT vert auto and it was a freakin dog. My '97 Maxima was quicker.

On planet earth... ever heard of it? Find me a bone stock auto fox body 5.0 GT that runs even a high 14 sec 1/4 mile.



Wrong again. Maybe a 96-98 stock GT is on par, but stock vs stock a 99+ GT will MURDER a fox body 5.0 GT in the 1/4 mile. With equivalent drivers there is at least a 1/2 second 1/4 mile time difference.

Sure, my buddy's '91 GT Vert ran CONSISTENT 14.8s/14.9s with an AOD trans. STOCK. When he converted it to a 5spd, it ran consistent 14.5s. This is in good weather (DA at about sea level.)

You use these bench racing terms like MURDER, DESTROY, etc. Show me the physical numbers that support this hyperbole.

I'm by no means an expert, but I've seen my fair share of LX 5.0s and Fox GTs that run low low 14s and high 13s, stock, in good weather. This of course is at east coast tracks that are close to sea level. I'm not talking at LACR or in Denver.

These numbers I'm citing are for healthy 5.0L engines, not ragged out 250k junkers. In the eighties, the high 13 second capability of Foxes is what made them famous. Ever heard of Neil Van Oppre and the "10-minute tuneup"? Tony DeFeo and his mid 13 second stock LX 5.0? Sure, a stripper LX isn't apples and oranges, but its close enough for the sake of argument.

Calling them mid-high 14 second cars just ain't true. They're both low 14/high 13 second capable in good weather with the right driver. (EDIT: For clarification, we're talking 5-speed equipped vehicles at these E/Ts.)

 

[Gearbanger 101]

To be fair....I'm betting a lot of these time trial variations between the old Fox's are due to each person’s interpretation of what stock is and what it isn't. Everyone adds some sort of cold air intake, pullies, gears, exhaust, etc in some form or another to these cars. Little mods make a big difference to a point at these levels. Minor bolt ons can account for as much as a full second in some cases.

Running these cars in truly stock trim...right down to the stock air filter and 10-degree's timing is where a lot of these real world stats are from.

Hell, the guy I bought my car from told me it was stock except for a Cold air intake and Ford Racing coil and it turned out to have a cat back on it. "Oh yeah, I forgot about that" he said.

 

[sneaky98gt]

You use these bench racing terms like MURDER, DESTROY, etc. Show me the physical numbers that support this hyperbole.

Ok, according to Ford:

'93 Mustang GT: 1/4 mile: 15.1

'01 Mustang GT: 1/4 mile: 14.1


Now I'm sure that you are going to come back with something to the tune of, "Well, Ford is just basing those times from numbers and blah, blah, blah, a good driver would make this kind of difference and yatta yatta yatta." That may be true, but in my personal experience over the last few years is that those numbers are pretty close. I've personally seen quite a few stock 99-04 Mustangs run 14.0-14.1 (although none in the 13s), while most of the stock Fox Bodies are in the low-mid 15s. I've seen a few mostly stock 5.0s run in the mid-upper 14s, but they were definitely the exceptions.

 

[LarsD]

My 91 ran a best of 14.95. It has 3.55's, CAI, O/R H, cat back. This was with a full tank of gas and no weight savings. Now I probably can't drive that great, the engine has 150K on it, and 90psi avg cylinder pressure. So there are lots of factors.

On the flip side, I worked with a guy in 2000 that had an 89 hatch, with a cat back, pulleys, E-fan, CAI, and 3.73's. His best (iirc) was a 13.9X. But he hammered on that car like a madman, and had 140K on the stock long block. So it can vary wildly.

 

[N8Dogg98]

Gearbanger, good point about the automatic, I wasn't considering that. I had a '95 GT vert auto and it was a freakin dog. My '97 Maxima was quicker.




Sure, my buddy's '91 GT Vert ran CONSISTENT 14.8s/14.9s with an AOD trans. STOCK. When he converted it to a 5spd, it ran consistent 14.5s. This is in good weather (DA at about sea level.)

You use these bench racing terms like MURDER, DESTROY, etc. Show me the physical numbers that support this hyperbole.

I'm by no means an expert, but I've seen my fair share of LX 5.0s and Fox GTs that run low low 14s and high 13s, stock, in good weather. This of course is at east coast tracks that are close to sea level. I'm not talking at LACR or in Denver.

These numbers I'm citing are for healthy 5.0L engines, not ragged out 250k junkers. In the eighties, the high 13 second capability of Foxes is what made them famous. Ever heard of Neil Van Oppre and the "10-minute tuneup"? Tony DeFeo and his mid 13 second stock LX 5.0? Sure, a stripper LX isn't apples and oranges, but its close enough for the sake of argument.

Calling them mid-high 14 second cars just ain't true. They're both low 14/high 13 second capable in good weather with the right driver. (EDIT: For clarification, we're talking 5-speed equipped vehicles at these E/Ts.)

Again my point was stock for stock with equivalent drivers the 99+ GT will beat a fox body 5.0 every time. I'd like to see what a 99+ GT would have ran on the same date you saw a bone stock fox run a high 13

Like gearbanger said some claim their cars are stock yet the timing has been changed, they have a CAI, and a cat-back exhaust. What do you consider a stock car? Bone stock right off of the showroom floor a 99+ GT will run low 14's with a decent driver. Bone stock right off of the showroom floor a fox body GT was nothing more than a low 15 second car.

I know it's hard for some of the fox guys to admit it, but just face it in stock form the 5.0 was impressive for its day but paled in comparison to the stock power offered by the 4.6 PI modular. Yes they can be modded and there is a much larger aftermarket for the 5.0's, but that's not the point.

The point was the OP said the 4.6 felt slower than the stock 5.0 and I was simply stating that the low end torque offered by the 5.0 feels powerful, but the 4.6 PI car will run away from it in a drag race.

 

[LarsD]

Again my point...

Talking bone stock.

New Edge > Fox > SN95

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Talking bone stock.

New Edge > Fox > SN95

I'm kinda of the beliefe that the Fox 5.0/SN95 5.0 and the SN95 pre-99 4.6 are all too close to call one a winner over another.

Where a stripped Fox will walk on a loaded SN95, so too will a stripped SN95 walk on a loaded Fox.

The comparison between the New Edge cars when stacked up against the others on the other hand, is really no contest no matter what the configuration. Remember....the '99-up New Edge was fast enough to run with the '96-'98 Cobra's and run away from the '93-'95 Cobra's of the earlier generation cars. That should give you some indication how powerful they are by comparison.

Not really a close comparison IMO.

 

[N8Dogg98]

Talking bone stock.

New Edge > Fox = SN95

fixed

 

[JymboSlice]

To answer your question: Are these 4.6l 2v engines good? Stock, no. N/A.. maybe with the right combo, but youll still be around 330-360rwhp with full bolt on's, heads, cams, intake, exhaust , etc. Boost is the only way to make good power on the 4.6L 2v engines. If you stay N/A you will need to rev the piss out of them to make some power. 4v engines N/A are going to be better, but you're still limited by the small cubic inches of the motor. If you want to make some power, forced induction is the only way to go.

Now the new 5.0.. whole different story. But same basic concept. You need to rev it to 6500 rpm to get the 412 crank horsepower. These aren't big block's. You gotta spin them to make the power.

 

[bigkeeko]

I rarely get involved with the whole pushrod vs mod thing as I like both but I will say this. The old 5.0s `feel` more torquey off the line than a new edge GT but they have less torque out of the box. And horsepower. And performance. I`ve driven a 94 GT 5.0 and it felt lifty enough but then went on to try a 2003 GT auto. On full throttle the newer car is faster. Sure the old pushrods respond better to bolt on over the PI modulars but think about it, the newer engine are already `improved` to start with.

Have a look at this.

The complete catalog of cars: automobile-catalog.com - compare cars

Check out the bottom data. I`d say thats about fair.

 

[RedFord96]

Have a look at this.

The complete catalog of cars: automobile-catalog.com - compare cars

Check out the bottom data. I`d say thats about fair.

That's a really cool site. Had to check the argument above that PI GT's keep up with 96-98 Cobras. Never thought they would before but the info makes sense... interesting to know they'd be pretty even stock vs. stock til past 100mph.