5.0 vs 4.6

5spd GT · Apr 20, 2006

emagdnim said:
I just want to add one point before the thread gets locked.. there is a difference in the seat of the pants feel between the 5.0 and 4.6 even if your above 3k. I just took my buddy for a ride in my car tonite and he says "Wow I just rode in a 2005gt and I swear this car will kick its ass". I know this isn't true but it was the low end tourqe and the seat of the pants feel that makes him think this.

Yep, the 4.6L (newer cars) have a smoother transition in power...

Oops, I just did another "copy" post...since I have been saying that for 2 years roughly...

The sotp isn't strickly engine...a lot of older cars have squeeks, old seats (lean), rough suspension. Upon wot, the feeling grows due to these factors...it isn't as smooth as newer vehicles...in all aspects really...

Mustang5L5 · Apr 20, 2006

Damn, post counts don't go up in talk?

irvgotti · Apr 20, 2006

my friend has a car with MM suspesion....and he's not stupid enough to say that he can throw that on and go on a peroformance trip with the ford gt and lambo ,viper, M3 and all those other supercars metioned...do you seriously think that MM suspension is that gangsta

5spd GT · Apr 20, 2006

Mustang5L5 said:
Damn, post counts don't go up in talk?

That is why I don't mind the AIM type post that go on in talk...cuz they don't count...

emagdnim · Apr 20, 2006

Haha I was just about to edit and delete that post about copycat posts owell ..
Well your right I could be off by a couple of mpg during my tests but its close.
This site has the 87 auto rated at 27mpg hw which is higher then the 2002 4.6 which the best they rate 26mpg so the 5.0 wins in something!!!!.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1987_Ford_Mustang.shtml

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2002_Ford_Mustang.shtml

I dont think its impossible for a 5.0 to get 30mpg on the hwy if a stocker auto can get 27. Free up the exhaust and intake a bit and that should net you a couple mpg.

Mustang5L5 · Apr 20, 2006

irvgotti said:
my friend has a car with MM suspesion....and he's not stupid enough to say that he can throw that on and go on a peroformance trip with the ford gt and lambo ,viper, M3 and all those other supercars metioned...do you seriously think that MM suspension is that gangsta

Who said slalom numbers meant that it could hang on a road course??

5spd GT · Apr 20, 2006

irvgotti said:
my friend has a car with MM suspesion....and he's not stupid enough to say that he can throw that on and go on a peroformance trip with the ford gt and lambo ,viper, M3 and all those other supercars metioned...do you seriously think that MM suspension is that gangsta

What does he have? The strut tower brace?

Mustang5L5 · Apr 20, 2006

emagdnim said:
I dont think its impossible for a 5.0 to get 30mpg on the hwy if a stocker auto can get 27. Free up the exhaust and intake a bit and that should net you a couple mpg.

The thing is i never got 27MPG with my stock AOD w 2.73's (back when it was stock)

I used to see 22-23MPG on the highway when cruising. Then again that was back when gas was 0.99 cents/gallon so i wasn't all that concerned so i may not have been trying to wring out any more.

5spd GT · Apr 20, 2006

emagdnim said:
Haha I was just about to edit and delete that post about copycat posts owell ..
Well your right I could be off by a couple of mpg during my tests but its close.
This site has the 87 auto rated at 27mpg hw which is higher then the 2002 4.6 which the best they rate 26mpg so the 5.0 wins in something!!!!.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1987_Ford_Mustang.shtml

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2002_Ford_Mustang.shtml

I dont think its impossible for a 5.0 to get 30mpg on the hwy if a stocker auto can get 27. Free up the exhaust and intake a bit and that should net you a couple mpg.

Never said it was impossible...but you aren't going to find it, if you do it will be very few and far between...just show me someone (besides you) that claims it and has the correct speedo gear in the tranny and into the tranny, that way the readings aren't thrown off.

irvgotti · Apr 20, 2006

he has all but a new k-member

irvgotti · Apr 20, 2006

Back to the argument of how small the differences is between the two..and for 10 plus years technolodgy it isent much ...the fact of the matter is the fox does as well as the newer stangs and those cars are older FOR NEWER CARS LIKE I SAID BEFORE THEY DONT EXCELL WITH ATHORITY .....sales has no bearing in PERFORMANCE.....

5spd GT · Apr 20, 2006

irvgotti - So he has an old k-member?

Yeah, why does the auto get 3mpg more than the 5spd on the highway...kind of flipping around what I have known, atleast in the 5.0L's...

Mustang5L5 · Apr 20, 2006

irvgotti said:
he has all but a new k-member

The k-member actually does play a pretty significant role. It moves the control arms slightly forward to improve weight distribution and changes the angle of the control arms to reduce brake dive during heavy deceleration. Not to mention it chops about 50-75 pounds off the front of the car depending on if he has the match a-arms as well

irvgotti · Apr 20, 2006

STOCK K MEMEBER HE EVEN HAS NITTO 555 RUBBERS ON IT..and he does have a k memeber brace i forgot whats it called

Mustang5L5 · Apr 20, 2006

irvgotti said:
Back to the argument of how small the differences is between the two..and for 10 plus years technolodgy it isent much ...the fact of the matter is the fox does as well as the newer stangs and those cars are older FOR NEWER CARS LIKE I SAID BEFORE THEY DONT EXCELL WITH ATHORITY .....sales has no bearing in PERFORMANCE.....

What exactly are they better at? I want to know what exactly you are basing your opinion on??

irvgotti · Apr 20, 2006

not sayin there better..my point that they arent significantly better then the foxes...a car with 15 years tech advancement it isent much of a big deal where it would make 1 pick over another..and thats the problem with the 4.6's thats the foxes are still tho old are still in the same convo with it

irvgotti · Apr 20, 2006

stock kmemeber with the brace i forgot what its called

Mustang5L5 · Apr 20, 2006

irvgotti said:
not sayin there better..my point that they arent significantly better then the foxes...a car with 15 years tech advancement it isent much of a big deal where it would make 1 pick over another..and thats the problem with the 4.6's thats the foxes are still tho old are still in the same convo with it

I disagree, but that's my opinion

25thmustang · Apr 20, 2006

Want to know how much better they are, drive both back to back. The fox is worse in every category. The fox handles, breaks, feels, and yes is slower (on average). It sounds like your basing claims here in the best foxs, verse the average 99+ cars. lets compare averages...

Straight Line performance: 99+ GT is faster.
Handeling: 99+ GT handles better.
Braking: 99+ GTs weigh more, yet brake much better.
Gas mileage: The 99+ GT will get better mileage.

I understand that YOU think the 99+ cars arent that much better, but the truth is they are. They are much better than the 94-98 cars and yes much better than the 87-93 cars as well. It sounds like you have NO experience with a newer car and are just ratteling off what you think. Im talking averages from the tons of Mustang owners I know, and on average the new 4.6 cars are much better.

Also DONT confuse a car feeling faster and being faster. My car when stock felt faster than a 98 Formula I drove. The reasons being, the broad, flat application of torque on that car. My low 15 second car felt faster than that mid 13 second car.

Also to note even when talking about modded, the 4.6s can be faster. I have known a few GT owners with all the bolt ons, Bullitt intakes, and suspension going low 12s. Try that with a stock motor, intake and bolt ons on a 5.0... Just isnt going to happen.

Mustang5L5 · Apr 20, 2006

25thmustang said:
Also to note even when talking about modded, the 4.6s can be faster. I have known a few GT owners with all the bolt ons, Bullitt intakes, and suspension going low 12s. Try that with a stock motor, intake and bolt ons on a 5.0... Just isnt going to happen.

The 4.6L motor takes VERY well to mods. It just has a better designed head than the off-the-shelf E7 truck heads ford used on the 5.0. They are choked on the intake and exhaust side.

I have friend's who installed a TB, plenum, LT's mid-pipe and cat-back on their 99+ dynoing 275HP to the rear wheels, Stock they put down 225HP to the wheels. Toss in a set of 4.10's and instant low 13 second car. Supercharging a stock 4.6L gives more results than supercharging a 5.0 due to the better flowing heads.

BUT, 4.6L mods cost slightly more than 5.0 mods although this price is slowly coming down and now there are more parts than ever available for it.

Now despite me putting the 4.6L on a pedestal for the last 3 pages everyone on this board who knows me knows i'm a 5.0 guy deep down. They are cheap to make fast, light, and respond well to mods.

PLUS everyone has 99+ GT's. Take a ride in a 5.0 and you get FAR more attention and response.

5.0 vs 4.6

"the 5.0 owns all"

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

New Member

"the 5.0 owns all"

Active Member

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

"the 5.0 owns all"

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

"the 5.0 owns all"

New Member

New Member

"the 5.0 owns all"

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

New Member

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

New Member

New Member

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

Mustang Master

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency