91 5.0 VS. 96 4.6

NeVeRLiFt · Sep 18, 2004

LOL

I just got an email stating someone replied to this thread

PhLoBuS · Sep 18, 2004

5.0 ho

FastDriver · Sep 19, 2004

5spd GT,

I don't have time to do it, now. When I get back tomorrow, though, I'm going to rip your ass apart.

Regards,

Chris

5spd GT · Sep 19, 2004

FastDriver said:
5spd GT,

I don't have time to do it, now. When I get back tomorrow, though, I'm going to rip your ass apart.

Regards,

Chris

Okay

Gearbanger 101 · Sep 19, 2004

FastDriver said:
5spd GT,

I don't have time to do it, now. When I get back tomorrow, though, I'm going to rip your ass apart.

Regards,

Chris

I......uh......nah, to easy.

mattkimsey · Sep 19, 2004

sounds freaky

FastDriver · Sep 19, 2004

5spd GT said:
Exactly...except I believe it would be almost a tie up top...

Why's that? 5.0 makes more HP, more torque, and weighs significantly less? Where does the 4.6 get this magical boost in top end? (I can't wait for you to start talking about HP vs. RPM curves)

Now let me requote something...

"The "bottom line" is that (looking at this from the most extreme angle- '87 vs. '98)...that your possibly looking at an 11 yr. old difference between the cars and technology of how the engine actual works...a considerable difference between a pushrod engine (minus the ls1 pushrod ) and the SOHC design of the 96+ 4.6...your looking at a car (1987) that is more likely out of tune and has some rust or just some worn out parts...compared to the 98...but this is not always true...and this is why you see that the races would be VERY CLOSE...because the age defining difference..."

Gimme a break... Your answering a performance comparison by saying one might be worn out? This would make the race "VERY CLOSE?" That's a ridiculous answer, and obviously not the point of this conversation.

What's faster a 65 shelby cobra or a 2004 maxima?.... This would be a very close race based on the rust and tune of the Shelby..... Doesn't this argument seem a bit retarded to you?

the torque is not that big of a difference to reason why it would win...

It's a major contributing factor. Comparing the engines, the stock 5.0 from 87 all the way through 93 flat outperformed the 4.6 SOHC between 96-98. The 5.0 had the advantage all the way through their respective powerbands, and it weighed less. That's not even getting into the weight of the cars. Put the same motors in the same cars, and the 5.0 still wins.

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)...

So, the engines were fine, except for how they were built... Nice point...

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...

I hate playing aftermarket what-if games, but how in the hell do you get that a h/c/i swap on a 4.6 is cheaper than on a 5.0? Sure, you paid big bucks for your h/c/i combo (nearly identical to the way I built mine), but there are SO MANY cheap powermaking combinations out there for the 5.0, and 250-260 rwhp is absolute crap for a h/c/i 5.0.... Shame on you...

Hell, I've run more than 250 rwhp with a cobra intake, stock non-touched heads, junkyard shorties, and a cat back exhaust system.

FastDriver · Sep 19, 2004

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...

Is this your entire point, or is it just a fall-back for your ludicrous initial assertion?

FastDriver · Sep 19, 2004

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...

Why do you keep falling back on this crap argument of run-down 5.0s? Nobody is interested in that debate. No one cares if you can outrun a Dodge Viper just because it's running like crap.

FastDriver · Sep 19, 2004

5spd GT said:
Half a second is owned?...look at the mph...is their 5mph difference?...no... ...I look at mph to show true power and potential...not the E.T....though it provides a good comparison...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...so the 5.0 is usually declared the winner...but they both provide equal mph numbers...

In response to the weight...my freinds 90 gt weighs less than my hatch...Gt's weigh on average no more than 80-100 lbs more...

Again it would be close...with the edge going to the 5.0...

Half a second is owned, because at the far end of the track that's more than 5 car-lengths. The 4.6 will lose off of the line, and will never even begin to run the 5.0 down. The 5.0 is going to ET and trap better, too.

FastDriver · Sep 19, 2004

5spd GT said:
With your mods...you will lose to a 99+ GT as long as it is a 5spd...race to a 100 and see what happens...not to 40...I've owned both...I know what they both can do stock...and race somebody that knows how to drive better...because it appears you can drive pretty good...

This guy is in an LX coupe, which is as light as they come. He's got exhaust from the long-tube headers through the cat-back system. He's got a ten-minute tune-up, and K&N filter. What makes you think he isn't capable of outrunning stock 99+ GTs?

99+ GTs routinely make around 235 rwhp bone-stock, and weigh how much? 3400+ lbs? 5.0 coupes like his routinely made around 190 rwhp and weighed 2900 lbs bone stock. Does 400-500 lbs make up for 45 rwhp? maybe not.... What happens when you add in his exhaust mods? Damn sure sounds to me like he could easily have what it takes to hand it to a 99+ GT.

FastDriver · Sep 19, 2004

5spd GT said:
I still can't believe the guys that think a 99+ Gt will lose to a stock 5.0 ...or even a slightly "boltedon" car...

To anybody that believes that...LOOK AT THE MPH...it shows the true power...not stoplight to stoplight races...

What to 99 5spd GTs trap again? I've seen 5 speeds on good runs go from 98mph all the way up to 102 (at least he said he was stock). I hear you preaching the "true power" of trap speeds. I agree, this is true to an extent, but once you're within a few mph, you can't assume which one has more power. Simple gearing changes can make 4-5 mph differences because it changes the rpm at which you cross the traps. Gearing, despite changing trap speeds, does not change the "true power" of the car. The gearing would have a negligible effect on a race from highway speeds, where power/weight is the most important factor until, of course, the race exceeds ~130 mph (depending on the aero) where aerodynamics is becomes more important.

FastDriver · Sep 19, 2004

5spd GT said:
On the 99+ v6 beating the 96-98 gt half the time...NO...it will run right with it though...but it will end up losing...you can't overcome the torque factor...even with the v6's having the 327's with the 5spd

I agree.............. Now that you are back up from falling off your chair, I'll continue.............. However, I do believe that a light 5 speed V6 would whoop an AOD 4.6.

Millhouse...your the exception ...your car don't count...or your driving skill...

No he isn't.

The 5.0 does not totally own the 96-98 4.6...it is a close race...with the 5.0 having the edge...

If you say it enough times, it might make it true.

To many people are also considering NOTCH vs. 96 fully loaded gt... ...GT vs. GT...should be considered...hence: equal trim...

Bull crap! Stop making up rules. There isn't a 96+ car that matches the LX coupe. So by making this crap up, you're eliminating the fastest stock 5.0s (disregarding the Cobra).

FastDriver · Sep 19, 2004

5spd GT said:
I think "people"...need to express the weight difference more than the 5.0 being the almighty engine and making tons of more torque and this and that...I think the weight between a notch vs. a loaded 96-98gt is more of a factor than the SLIGHT power difference...

Absolutely, of the 5 or so cars that the fox will put on the SN95, 3-4 of them are due to weight and 1-2 of them are due to the engine.

FastDriver · Sep 19, 2004

5spd GT said:
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...

Nope...didn't say that.

your going to have to be more consistent...

Two words: reading accuracy...

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...

Not very impressive in comparison with a notch 5.0 on DRs with a full exhaust system.

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...

What does the phrase "coupe vs. coupe" mean exactly?

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...

As I said before, once you get to within a few mph, your trap speed indicator is not accurate enough to determine which is the more powerful car. This does work great when you compare an LS1 running 109mph to a GT running 101 when they're running the same ET. This, however, does not work well, when a 5.0 is running 101 and a 99+GT is running 102. That's just too close to call, even if it were a couple mph difference.

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 "simple fact" that you've owned both means jack to me, bud. I hope you have some timeslips of for your 5.0 with full exhaust, gears, and bolt-ons running slower than a 99+ bone stock GT so I can laugh at you.

The 5.0 can never lose huh?

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Chris

Ray III · Sep 19, 2004

87'GTstang said:
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).

Engines make torque REGARDLESS of speed.

Horsepower is a result of torque and engine speed. Without torque, there is NO horsepower.

Ray III · Sep 19, 2004

87'GTstang said:
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.

I don't agree with that. Ford fixes the flimsy peice of trash that the 87-93 Mustang was built on, and all people can do is piss and moan about the extra 300lbs.

My car won't be good enough for me until it has about 500 pounds of chassis reinforcement.

Not to mention that the car actually stands a chance of getting around in the snow, when it weighs more than a cheese puff.

nmcgrawj · Sep 19, 2004

Fastdriver...i highly doubt a v6 will beat any GT. The 96-98 might have been dogs compared to the 99+ and 5.0s but a v6 will not beat it.

FastDriver · Sep 19, 2004

5spd GT said:
Don't compare the best time (5.0) to the average time (4.6)...

Why not? You seem to think that a 5.0 will not outrun a 99+ on the street. What heavenly law keeps mismatched cars from lining up?

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, I wasn't referring to you, and your statement is so vague that it doesn't add anything to the conversation. Based on what statement should I go back and take physics again? I don't recall ever saying anything in regards to torque and hp and their relationship to "track kings."

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

Yeah, now that's pretty obvious isn't it? It didn't seem so obvious in your first posts.

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...

Yeah, the only time I ever took it to the track.

...stock 99+ GT 5spd's run 13.9's @100-101

They all do? Do track conditions or weather conditions make a difference? Based on your laugh at my times without even knowing track and weather conditions, am I to deduce that the 99+ GTs would have run 13.9s and 100-101 mph? I know that this isn't always the case, because I've been to the track once or twice in my life, and I've seen them run slow in both ET and trap speed.

...and there was a guy here on stangnet that ran a 13.7 w/ welded in flowmasters through an automatic (it was a 99)...

That is impressive if it's true. I haven't seen a bone-stock 4.6 SOHC run a 13.7. Then again, I don't really go looking for bone-stock mustangs at the track anymore.

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...

Great argument. I hope this comment wasn't directed at me though because I don't recall saying anything regarding the difference in displacement.

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

Of course they didn't.

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...

I know, it's just annoying because I always get wrapped up in them.

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

If bone-stock 99+ GTs are running 13.7s and better, then I digress - the fastest of them will outrun the fastest of the 5.0s (possibly barring the Cobra). However, I don't believe I made any misleading statements, thus far.

Euphoric306 · Sep 19, 2004

bone stock notch lx running 13.8? that sounds VERY farfetch'd, especially when the 04 svt cobras are running 13 flat (13.1 vert). if that is true, props to that friggan driver.

oh yea, a couple pages back but ill still say it - "Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how far the wall goes with you." or something like that, anyways...

my dads new DD, an 03 3.8L 5spd will totally kill my 84 5.0 aod. now ive never driven a 5 spd 5.0 but i dont think a 99+ gt would have a problem handing a 5.0 its @$$ on a silver platter

91 5.0 VS. 96 4.6

Sponsors (?)

New Member

My dad had a bra

"the 5.0 owns all"

Straight Outta Locash

I've compiled a list to recap this thread:

My dad had a bra

My dad had a bra

My dad had a bra

My dad had a bra

My dad had a bra

My dad had a bra

My dad had a bra

My dad had a bra

My dad had a bra

New Member

New Member

Advanced Member

My dad had a bra

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency