• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech

4.6 VS 5.0 Difference

  • Thread starter Thread starter COBRA |2
  • Start date Start date Apr 9, 2005
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
C

COBRA |2

New Member
Mar 31, 2005
3
0
0
Apr 9, 2005
#1
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #1
What is the difference in normal crusing around and actual drag,
which one would be better for tuning ?
which engine can last longer and drive better in harsh weather?
Im just trying to know the difference between the 2 engines
 
S

SuperDust22

The Power of Pixie Dust?!
Oct 19, 2003
1,821
0
0
Gilbert,AZ
Apr 9, 2005
#2
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #2
Let the war begin!

Dustin
 

302fordracer

New Member
Mar 27, 2004
738
0
0
Vancouver, WA
Apr 9, 2005
#3
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #3
yeah you have opened pandora's box with that one..there is a somewhat heated rivalry between the two groups even tho we're all mustang fans...the 4.6 can handle more horsepower but is much more expensive to modify..and there is no real power difference stock for stock unless you get to the 99 and newer ones...both are long lasting engines and serve as strong daily drivers...
 
J

jasonlee0704

New Member
Feb 3, 2004
219
0
0
Kansas City, MO
Apr 9, 2005
#4
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #4
COBRA |2 said:
What is the difference in normal crusing around and actual drag,
Click to expand...

They're pretty similar numbers at the flywheel between the 96-98 SOHC 4.6 and the 94-95 5.0 - the 5.0 makes a little more torque at lower RPMs, and the 5.0 also weighs less than one of the iron-block 4.6 SOHCs, so the 94-95 will have better numbers.


which one would be better for tuning ?
Click to expand...

Depends on your budget. If you need cheap, go with the 5.0.

which engine can last longer and drive better in harsh weather?
Click to expand...

The engine that's taken care of better and has better tires attached to the wheels.
 

WhiteStallionGT

Member
Aug 19, 2004
465
0
17
Northern VA / VT
Apr 9, 2005
#5
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #5
Haha this will be fun. Let the war begin. I wouldn't be surprised to see some random 4.6 owners come in here.
 

Stangfreak95

add a 4
Founding Member
Nov 4, 2002
3,571
0
0
In your sister. If none, your mom
Apr 9, 2005
#6
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #6
Easy one. 99+ 4.6 are a little faster but the 96-98 are slower then us. 5.0 is
 
C

COBRA |2

New Member
Mar 31, 2005
3
0
0
Apr 9, 2005
#7
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #7
5.0 it IS
 
M

MadHandle8169

Founding Member
May 5, 2002
432
0
0
Brick, NJ
Apr 9, 2005
#8
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #8
It goes 4.6SOHC(96-98)<5.0<4.6SOHC(99-04)<4.6DOHC

As Far as Modibility the 5.0 is cheapest but the 4.6 DOHC is a real stout motor and responds very well to mod. They are all great motors.
 

SWYZ721

Member
Aug 24, 2004
208
0
16
Ann Arbor, MI
Apr 9, 2005
#9
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #9
5.0 is MUCH MUCH cheaper to mod and the mods are EXTENSIVE. 99+ 2v are slightly faster, but besides bolt-ons all they have is power adders (which can be done to ANY car any way) the real advantage to the Windsor'd stangs is the All-Motor power and easily added cubes, via swap or bore, which while technically can be done to 96+ but is soooooooo much cheaper in windsor stangs, and there is a TON of information about the Windsor engine.
 

cavscout371

New Member
Mar 30, 2005
277
0
0
Apr 9, 2005
#10
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #10
pushrods
 

94Blue302GT

Member
Oct 20, 2003
704
3
19
Chicago
Apr 9, 2005
#11
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #11
5.0's have the displacement
BUT, the weak point of the 4.6's is their internals... so if you have to replace the internals, you're likely to get a stroker. So, i'd say it's better to get the 4.6 and stroke it to a 5.0 or better with good internals. there are more parts for the 5.0, but the 4.6 isn't really that far behind. Plus, the dual overhead cam (4 cams) motor is really wicked. So, with the more indestructable block from the factory (about 700 hp vss 500 for the 5.0) and then having to put new internals in it, the 4.6 is better.
In conclusion:
For sub 300 hp: 4.6
For 300-450: 5.0
For 450+: 4.6
Although, i'm gonna try and push 450+ from a stock block, stock internals 5.0 in about a month here.
Lee
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Apr 9, 2005
#12
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #12
What I don't like about the mod motors is their lack of low end torque.

They need more cubes IMHO.

Later
Grady
 

dstanggt50

Founding Member
Sep 13, 2000
1,316
0
0
Woodinville, WA
Apr 9, 2005
#13
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #13
another vote for 5.0
unless its a 4.6 dohc, I've always wanted to play with one of those.
 

Engel

Member
Apr 2, 2005
219
0
16
Currently Fort Walton Beach
Apr 9, 2005
#14
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #14
I drool over 4.6 dohc, but I already have a 5.0 to work on. I would vote for the 4.6 dohc if you have the money to upgrade internals and were planning on big power.
 

DFG 5OH

Active Member
Aug 28, 2004
1,341
0
36
Louisville, KY
Apr 9, 2005
#15
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #15
hmm...i just like the simpleness of the 5.0 I'm 17 and have no problem working on them. They're easy (very easy) to make fast, and really pretty cheap.

Good luck, either way, get a stang
 

TrueBlue95GT

Member
Sep 29, 2003
966
0
16
Connecticut
Apr 9, 2005
#16
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #16
I heard that the 4.6 DOHC motors were poorly engineered in that the 2 exhaust valves have scavenging problems and that the 4.6 3-valve motor is the answer to their problems. This was from the guy who owns modular powerhouse in georgia.
 
J

jasonlee0704

New Member
Feb 3, 2004
219
0
0
Kansas City, MO
Apr 9, 2005
#17
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #17
My solution: get one Stang with a 5.0, and one Stang with a 4.6 DOHC.
 

Engel

Member
Apr 2, 2005
219
0
16
Currently Fort Walton Beach
Apr 10, 2005
#18
  • Apr 10, 2005
  • #18
TrueBlue95GT said:
I heard that the 4.6 DOHC motors were poorly engineered in that the 2 exhaust valves have scavenging problems and that the 4.6 3-valve motor is the answer to their problems. This was from the guy who owns modular powerhouse in georgia.
Click to expand...

No idea but those twin turbo 98 cobras are sickkk
 

89Stang

Founding Member
Jul 7, 1999
4,178
0
66
Savannah GA
Apr 10, 2005
#19
  • Apr 10, 2005
  • #19
If you want something simple to work on your driveway with huge amounts of aftermarket be it heads crankshafts rods even blocks and you want it cheaper than pushrod is the way to go.

With that being said I still want to see what kind of power I can get out of an 8 cylinder sohc style mod motor naturally aspirated!

But that 4.6 DOHC is a very nice motor. Have an old Mustang magazine where someone built a 5.4 dohc for their mustang and built it to rev to 8 grand and said it was trying to rip the tires off all the way through 3rd. NICE!!!!!
 

Ruffrider

Founding Member
Mar 15, 2001
1,018
0
0
Citrus Springs, FL
Apr 10, 2005
#20
  • Apr 10, 2005
  • #20
I've had a 5.0 and currently have an 4.6 so heres my opinion.

The 5.0 is a better motor if you want to mod. like H/C/I and not get reemed in the A$$hole with bills. The 302 is also MUCH easier to work on. It was my first mustang and I don't think the '03 GT will ever be as much fun as the '88 GT just for the fact that I was 16 when I got the '88 and was just so excited to have a fun car.

The 4.6 is in my mind a better motor all around if you are using the car for a daily driver. Not that the '88 GT wasnt a good daily driver, but the 03 is smoother, more comfortable, and a lot better on gas than the 302 was. Only downside to the 4.6 is the amount of money it cost to mod the car, and the fact that I don't trust the internals for a second and I'm saving for a new shortblock at this very moment. Also didn't like the lowend but a set of 3.90s cured that .

If it was up to me I'd have both motors, the 5.0 to mod the hell out of and the 4.6 to just drive around and enjoy myself.
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Ford 460 swap
  • Ford460
  • Sep 13, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
6
Views
444
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Sep 14, 2026
Ford460
F
E
Chasing Vacuum leak 99 GT
  • EBNS_2005
  • May 2, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
2
Views
255
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- May 3, 2026
X-cam34
X
X
VE Table Not Dialed? Send Me Your Datalog.
  • X-cam34
  • Feb 8, 2026
  • Digital Self-tuning Forum
  • 2 3
Replies
49
Views
2K
Digital Self-tuning Forum May 1, 2026
X-cam34
X
A
1987 5.0 speed density Foxbody crank no start
  • Alan2204
  • May 23, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
10
Views
551
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech May 30, 2026
Mcmahst
X
Free VE Table Corrections — Drop Your MSQ and a Datalog, I'll Do the Rest
  • X-cam34
  • Apr 12, 2026
  • Digital Self-tuning Forum
  • 2 3
Replies
49
Views
2K
Digital Self-tuning Forum Aug 26, 2026
X-cam34
X
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?