• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

91 5.0 VS. 96 4.6

  • Thread starter Thread starter Josethespic
  • Start date Start date Aug 15, 2004
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • …
  • 9
Next
First Prev 4 of 9 Next Last

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash
20+ Year Stangneter
Aug 10, 2002
9,457
1,377
234
Ontario, Canada
Aug 17, 2004
#61
  • Aug 17, 2004
  • #61
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.
 
8

87'GTstang

New Member
Feb 16, 2004
1,025
0
0
Aug 17, 2004
#62
  • Aug 17, 2004
  • #62
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

I've compiled a list to recap this thread:
Jan 22, 2004
346
0
0
Bessemer City NC
Aug 17, 2004
#63
  • Aug 17, 2004
  • #63
this threads been beat to death
 

NeVeRLiFt

Founding Member
Sep 29, 2002
63
0
6
In the shadows of the Megacorporations
Aug 17, 2004
#64
  • Aug 17, 2004
  • #64
mattkimsey said:
this threads been beat to death
Click to expand...

 

millhouse

Founding Member
May 14, 2002
1,985
0
46
Simpsonville, SC
Aug 18, 2004
#65
  • Aug 18, 2004
  • #65
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

Founding Member
Sep 29, 2002
63
0
6
In the shadows of the Megacorporations
Aug 18, 2004
#66
  • Aug 18, 2004
  • #66
millhouse said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

New Member
Apr 15, 2004
74
0
0
Aug 18, 2004
#67
  • Aug 18, 2004
  • #67
5.0 IS GOD!!! ALL 4.6s WILL HAIL (UNTIL 99 THAT IS)
 

TITAN STANG

New Member
Apr 15, 2004
74
0
0
Aug 18, 2004
#68
  • Aug 18, 2004
  • #68
LET'S MAKE IT ON THE GUINESS RECORDS BOOK FOR LARGEST THREAD!!
 

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"
Founding Member
Aug 7, 2002
9,516
6
99
Arkansas
Aug 18, 2004
#69
  • Aug 18, 2004
  • #69
NeVeRLiFt said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
D

Damein17

Member
Jul 26, 2004
123
0
16
Lexington, Kentucky
Aug 19, 2004
#70
  • Aug 19, 2004
  • #70
stock 96-98 4.6 shows a 15.1 1/4 mile time all stock off show room floor
 

FastDriver

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet
SN Certified Technician
Sep 5, 2001
6,113
2,726
224
Vass, NC
Sep 18, 2004
#71
  • Sep 18, 2004
  • #71
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

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet
SN Certified Technician
Sep 5, 2001
6,113
2,726
224
Vass, NC
Sep 18, 2004
#72
  • Sep 18, 2004
  • #72
5spd GT said:
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...
Click to expand...

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

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet
SN Certified Technician
Sep 5, 2001
6,113
2,726
224
Vass, NC
Sep 18, 2004
#73
  • Sep 18, 2004
  • #73
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

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet
SN Certified Technician
Sep 5, 2001
6,113
2,726
224
Vass, NC
Sep 18, 2004
#74
  • Sep 18, 2004
  • #74
It appears that my replies are posted above yours, even though you posted before me, Gearbanger101.
 

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash
20+ Year Stangneter
Aug 10, 2002
9,457
1,377
234
Ontario, Canada
Sep 18, 2004
#75
  • Sep 18, 2004
  • #75
Wow....you must have been bored resurecting a thread that's over a month old.
 

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"
Founding Member
Aug 7, 2002
9,516
6
99
Arkansas
Sep 18, 2004
#76
  • Sep 18, 2004
  • #76
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?
 
8

85/96gt

New Member
Mar 27, 2004
131
0
0
Sep 18, 2004
#77
  • Sep 18, 2004
  • #77
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

10 Year Member
Feb 28, 2003
904
5
39
CT
Sep 18, 2004
#78
  • Sep 18, 2004
  • #78
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 5.0 owns all"
Founding Member
Aug 7, 2002
9,516
6
99
Arkansas
Sep 18, 2004
#79
  • Sep 18, 2004
  • #79
FastDriver said:
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
Click to expand...

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...
 
2

2002BLGT

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2003
2,945
4
59
Bedford VA
Sep 18, 2004
#80
  • Sep 18, 2004
  • #80
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 ....
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • …
  • 9
Next
First Prev 4 of 9 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Engine Tuning...?
  • justadude07
  • May 30, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
7
Views
231
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jun 6, 2026
Blown88GT
9
91 LX 5.0 getting hot when a/c is running
  • 91lx14gt5.0s
  • Jun 29, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
14
Views
246
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 4, 2026
manicmechanic007
Z
Gauge cluster swap
  • Zeke1995
  • Jul 14, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
11
Views
294
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 16, 2025
Noobz347
B
Electrical Why does my fox body keep frying eecs
  • brandyn200
  • Jun 20, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
8
Views
298
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jun 25, 2026
AeroCoupe
W
Electrical 91 GT Alternator Replacement Question
  • willrh111
  • Oct 22, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
6
Views
379
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Oct 23, 2025
nickyb
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang 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?