90mustangGT said:Stock for stock, if the 91's driver knows what he is doing and it's running right then there is no way the '96 has a chance. First of all the 96 if heavier, unless it's a '91 Vert GT against a base 96 GT. Second, the 91 5.0 has a wider, stronger powerband over the 4.6; 5.0 has much better bottom end tq.
tjm73 said:Froma dead start to the end of the 1/4 mile the 5.0 would win. But it would be close.
From highway speeds with a roll on race the 4.6 would take the 5.0, but it would still be close.
5spd GT said:The engine in 96-98 were fine...just they didn't have the 99+ PI heads and intake (and the cam...which didn't make that much more power over the 96-98)...you can add all that on there pretty quickly and cheaper than the mentioned h/c/i on a 5.0 and get a nice little ride...(about 250-260rwhp)...with some little bolt-ons here and there...the 4.6 aftermarket is catching up...we say that a lot...now it is time for people to believe it...
millhouse said:From a stop or a roll...stock for stock, trunk to trunk, equal drivers...the 5.0 will win, no if's and's or butts.
5spd GT said:and same running condition...the reason why a 98 gt can run with the 5.0 is because it is usually based on condition also...
millhouse said:Both though can be out of tune and need some tlc. The 5.0 just happens to be older. If the 5.0 isnt running well, it could be close...or perhaps the 4.6 could win. If the 4.6 is not running well while the 5.0 is...the 4.6 doesnt stand a chance.
I could spank 94-98 gt's no problem back when I was stock and I had 160k+ on the odo. Age doesnt necisarily mean slow.
5spd GT said:If you have read what I have put in my posts...you will see that age is the only definative reason...but it contributes...and in the most extreme case (87 vs. 98)...the 87 has 11 more years of POSSIBLE...wear and tear on it...that is a reason why most people drive newer vehicles than older...because they USUALLY are in better condition...not always...the 4.6 does stand a chance with everything being equal in condition, gears, equal drivers and tranny...but the edge goes to the 5.0...I have drove all...93 5.0, 95 gt, 97gt, and 2000 GT...only owned the first and last one...and their is a chance...
millhouse said:Sure they stand a chance...at being OWNED.
Seriously though, if you take the driving factor out of the equation...and have 2 vehicles that are in a equal state of tune, then the only way the 4.6 is going to keep up is if the 5.0 is a fully loaded gt model. Both hatches and notches will put a hurting on the 4.6's. Even with the more miles and wear and tear, the 5.0 is still going to come out .5 seconds ahead on average in the 1/4 mile.
Now if the point your getting at is that there is going to be more run down 5.0's...I will agree with you there. Thats not to say that they wouldnt be quick with a nice tune and some new plugs/wires etc.
Since when has high-end torque ever been something to consider for an engine period? Torque is mainly important downlow and somwhere in the middle of the RPM band the two trade off and the built-up hp takes over and builds until the engine starts running out of air. The 5.0 was kknow as a "stump puller" - it was a torque monster and made gobs of it. Any modular engine by history has not been known as torque monsters, but high-revving hp engines. This is the tradeoff by technology. Given an equal engine you should find a race between a pushrod and modular to be a little different. Wheras the pushrod will probably pull off of the line with its torque, when the modular starts revving it should catch back up when it begines revving higher and higher and builds hp (the only way ricers have anything whatsoever).Silver95Stint said:The 5.0 should take it stock for stock, but it would be a close race. The 4.6 is not known for it's low end torque, but on the contrary the 5.0 is not known for it's highend torque.
1fast94svt said:Well heres the thing. I have a 5.0, and i would love to say the 5.0 would take it. The thing is i used to have a 97 4.6 5spd GT w/ low miles. One of my best buddies had a 91 GT 5.0 We were both bone stock and i would ALWAYS take him by a car length or two. So with that said i would say 4.6 but a good driver could make the race very interesting. The 4.6 are now really weak motors.....they actually had a bunch of ringers some how. My other buddy had a 95 GT and holy Shlt is that a ringer...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?