91 5.0 VS. 96 4.6

[Gearbanger 101]

Yes, you are correct, the weight penalty has quite a bit to do with it and although horsepower and torque aren't that far apart, the earlier 5.0L still made slightly more and you also have to remember that it also makes it at 1000rpm lower than the 4.6L

Don't get me wrong. I love the 4.6L, I'm actually selling off my 5.0L in favour of a 4.6L powered car, but the obvious inferiority that the earlier 4.6's had against the Fox Mustangs both at the strip and on the street, can't be denied.

 

[87'GTstang]

So glad to see we all agree on one thing at least: the horse/pony needs to go on a diet - that settles that then.

 

[mattkimsey]

this threads been beat to death

 

[NeVeRLiFt]

this threads been beat to death

 

[millhouse]

I'm curious as to what the 96-98gt's trap in the 1/4. I've seen many stock 5.0's trap 97+ mph...and several more trap 98+mph stock. The quickest I see the 96-98's traping is 94-95mph tops. 3mph is quite a large difference.

 

[NeVeRLiFt]

I'm curious as to what the 96-98gt's trap in the 1/4. I've seen many stock 5.0's trap 97+ mph...and several more trap 98+mph stock. The quickest I see the 96-98's traping is 94-95mph tops. 3mph is quite a large difference.

People really under estimate how much lighter the notches are over any other mustang. And hatchback foxes are still lighter than newer sn95's.

I posted some curbweight stats and going by that alone you can see the foxes are .25 -.5sec faster just because of the weight difference.

 

[TITAN STANG]

5.0 IS GOD!!! ALL 4.6s WILL HAIL (UNTIL 99 THAT IS)

 

[TITAN STANG]

LET'S MAKE IT ON THE GUINESS RECORDS BOOK FOR LARGEST THREAD!!

 

[5spd GT]

People really under estimate how much lighter the notches are over any other mustang. And hatchback foxes are still lighter than newer sn95's.

I posted some curbweight stats and going by that alone you can see the foxes are .25 -.5sec faster just because of the weight difference.

Yeah but those curb weights are inaccurate...and to prove that a vert does not weigh under 3000lbs...

In actuality mustangs are light compared to other cars in their class...whether it be the notch or 96-98gt...

5.0 is not God...they just have a slight weight advantage to the 4.6...

 

[Damein17]

stock 96-98 4.6 shows a 15.1 1/4 mile time all stock off show room floor

 

[FastDriver]

The best running bone stock 5.0 LXs ran 13.8s right off of the factory floor. I've never heard of a 96-98 GTs getting anywhere near that, ever. Average non-vert 5 speed GTs would go mid 14s.

Also, you guys talking about high-end torque isn't as important as HP, really need to go read a couple of physics books on the subject.

I had a lot of personal experience with GTs from 96-2000 vs. my 89 LX 5.0 (with a K&N filter, stock timing, air-silencer in place). Not a single stock mustang from 94-98 ever outran me, and that includes at least 30 races. I only ran 3-4 99+ GTs with that LX, and also outran all of them including one race from a highway-speed roll.

FWIW, my little LX went 14.2@98 mph during the only night I had it to the track, and that was on street tires (Radial T/As).

Chris

 

[FastDriver]

a car (5.0) with a lower torque powerband and being in a lighter car will get him off the line and the 4.6 has to play catch up and doesn't quite have the power to catch up...

The 4.6s SOHC before 99 all played get left behind on the high end, too, not catch-up. The 5.0's hp to weight ratio had them beat, which means that at no point on the track did the 4.6 have the advantage.

The 99 GTs are quicker than the average 5.0. Mind you, the fastest 5.0s (optionless, notch, 5spd, 3.08 gears) would still run every bit as well as the quickest 99 GTs. (I can't wait for you to call BS on me )

Chris

 

[FastDriver]

No, actually I didn't realize it was a month old. I was doing a search on the curb weights of mustangs, and this one came up, but I became engrossed in it. I can't count the number of time this argument has come up in my 3 years on this site and 4 years on corral.

 

[FastDriver]

It appears that my replies are posted above yours, even though you posted before me, Gearbanger101.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Wow....you must have been bored resurecting a thread that's over a month old.

 

[5spd GT]

FastDriver - So you said the fastest stock 5.0 to ever run was a 13.8 and then you said the average 5spd 96-98 Gt runs mid 14's...your going to have to be more consistent...984.6gt ran a high 13 with some sort of exhaust and drag radials I beleive...and that is just one guy I remember off hand...

A 99+ Gt will beat any stock 5.0 coupe vs. coupe...no questions asked...you got to have equal driver skill though...so your wrong...

Quit looking at E.T's to determine the faster car...look at the mph...go over to the 4.6 forum and start spreading this " " and they'll laugh you right out of there...

The simple fact is that I have owned both...drove every newer model mustang from 87+ (lx's to gt to cobra's) except a 03/04 Cobra and have owned both a 5.0 and 99+ GT...the 99+ Gt beat it modified with gears, full exhaust, and couple bolt-ons...with the same driver (me)...

The 5.0 can never lose huh?

 

[85/96gt]

well i own a 96 4.6...
i hvea 96 gt with onroad x pipe flows and dumps ''only mods
and my freind own a 92 lx .50 aod with a shift kit and some sort of offroad full exhaust we race all the time we are litterally exactly even untill the high rpm's i start pulling him...as we go faster i pull slowly but keep doing it
i guess its not a 5 speed but maybe that will help

 

[5.0 Nostalgia]

I have had both. My 91 coupe with 3.55's would beat my old 96 GT with 4.10's. Both cars were pretty much stock besides gears. In fact, my 96 GT had a couple more bolt on's than the coupe. You can see the mods list in the link on my signature.

 

[5spd GT]

The best running bone stock 5.0 LXs ran 13.8s right off of the factory floor. I've never heard of a 96-98 GTs getting anywhere near that, ever. Average non-vert 5 speed GTs would go mid 14s.

Also, you guys talking about high-end torque isn't as important as HP, really need to go read a couple of physics books on the subject.

I had a lot of personal experience with GTs from 96-2000 vs. my 89 LX 5.0 (with a K&N filter, stock timing, air-silencer in place). Not a single stock mustang from 94-98 ever outran me, and that includes at least 30 races. I only ran 3-4 99+ GTs with that LX, and also outran all of them including one race from a highway-speed roll.

FWIW, my little LX went 14.2@98 mph during the only night I had it to the track, and that was on street tires (Radial T/As).

Chris

Don't compare the best time (5.0) to the average time (4.6)...

Actually I think you need to take Physics again...a pure torque car is not track king...nor is a pure horsepower car...you have to have a nice even powerband...torque don't mean squat without horsepower...

Well sure stock for stock you should be able to beat the 94-98 gt's stock...you have a very slight weight advantage...

About you beating the 99+ Gt's...I believe you beat the drivers...not the car...a stock 5.0 is no match for a stock 99+ GT...

14.2 @ 98mph... ...stock 99+ GT 5spd's run 13.9's @100-101...and there was a guy here on stangnet that ran a 13.7 w/ welded in flowmasters through an automatic (it was a 99)...

Just because the 5.0 is bigger than the 4.6 doesn't mean it is going to beat it...That "muscle car- bigger is better" attitude doesn't apply here...

No the 4.6 SOHC (96-98 gt) did not play catchup on the top end to the 5.0...

Yes this argument will always come up as long as their are mustang forums...got to get used to it...that is why it is a forum...

And it sad that you provide this misleading info in these threads...

 

[2002BLGT]

I had a 87 LX hatch , factory ordered with NO OPTIONS but 5.0 and 3.08 ring gear , car ran 9.07 eighth mile with only the air silencer removed at 120K miles , stock tires , exhaust , paper air filter , some girl has it now , she was up at the track few weekends ago , car now has pulleys , exhaust , and fiberglass hood and 175K miles on it , she drove it to a 9.25 with a slightly fatter tire on it ....... that car was a torque monster and only weighed 2950 lbs on the scales ..... fastest stock 96-98 4.6 GT I have seen went 9.45 eigth mile with catback ....