Drove a 03
- Thread starter 215what
- Start date
Swarzkopf - You are mistakin on the 87-95 beating the 96-98Gt. Go drive both and go race both bone stock. They make the same rated hp (98 with 225hp) and they make the same torque but 100rpm higher. The 4.6L has a flat broad torque curve. My friends 98gt is faster than my friends 95gt. I raced both...me being the driver. You are sadly mistaken. It is a driver's race. The foxes can beat them because a bit lighter weight is presence on their unibody.
I never talked about which was cheaper to mod. Just because the selection of intakes is limited doesn't mean the 5.0L is superior because of a broader selection.
I never talked about which was cheaper to mod. Just because the selection of intakes is limited doesn't mean the 5.0L is superior because of a broader selection.
Swarzkopf
Member
From what I've seen, 94-95 5.0Ls are capable of high 14s stock, well driven. 96-98 GTs are not.
Superior is a term up to individual interpretation. Having owned both a 99 4.6L Mustang and 95 5.0L Mustang I find the 5.0L to be superior for me, as I enjoy being able to set my timing by spinning my distributor and am not scared ****less to pull the heads off my 5.0L (as I would have been with my 4.6L), among other things.
Irregardless, my point was that the 5.0L is cheaper and easier to modify than the 4.6L, and I stand by that as I have also experienced both.
I actually owned a pre-PI 4.6L also, but it was in a 96 Thunderbird LX/4R70W. High 15 second car at best due to the 3700+lb curb weight; still, it gave me a feel for the pre-PI 4.6L, and as others have mentioned on this site, it didn't wake up until higher RPMs. The car was equipped with factory 3.27s so it wasn't a matter of high gearing either.
Perhaps your friends 95 GT has seen better days? It's foolish to draw conclusions based on one example of each car.
Swarzkopf said:
Very funny...
Swarzkopf said:
Superior isn't based on the ability for someone to be able to spin their distributor is it? What about pulling heads? Yeah your average consumer does those things often
Especially numerous times 
The 4.6L base handles better and are just as equal in performance in the sn95 platform.Swarzkopf said:
It might be cheaper and easier to modify...but despite an enthusiast forum...how many modified 5.0L's do you see besides one with flows and a K&N...that is my point. Your point is on the end of the spectrum and doesn't concern the consumer reports every year
Think more broadly on this...not just the ability to undo a bolt and spin.Swarzkopf said:
Thru a 4r70w the 3:27's could hurt...with the electroniclly geared auto. I doubt it would hit high 15's...for the weight and the slight difference in detuning. They aren't the exact engine. I've drove one...slow
Much different than the 96-98 Gt's I've drove.Swarzkopf said:
Absolutely not...I know these cars well. We have a nice club/group down here. I keep asking him when he is going to sell it to me because I love the condition of it both externally/internally.
So it is foolish for me to draw conclusions off of what I have seen but yet in your first quote you said "From what I've seen, 94-95 5.0Ls are capable of high 14s stock, well driven. 96-98 GTs are not."
Make it even here...play fair
It isn't about cubes no more...
I'm all into both of these cars and love delivering unbias info. My friends agree...many different examples. Many...
Swarzkopf
Member
This is an argument that can't be won. I never said one was "superior", I said that the 5.0 is superior for me to own.
The 96-97 Thunderbird V8 had the exact same Romeo pre-PI 4.6L as came in the 96-98 Mustang GT. It ran mid-15s on the Gtech; take that for what it's worth, but my 95 GT ran 14.4 on the Gtech and at the track (off the juice).
My information is not biased. I sold my 4.6L because I wanted to modify a Mustang and bring home a 12 second timeslip. If that would have been possible cheaply and easily with the 99 GT I would have done it.
You have your opinion, I have mine. I am not going to post the same things over and over again.
The 96-97 Thunderbird V8 had the exact same Romeo pre-PI 4.6L as came in the 96-98 Mustang GT. It ran mid-15s on the Gtech; take that for what it's worth, but my 95 GT ran 14.4 on the Gtech and at the track (off the juice).
My information is not biased. I sold my 4.6L because I wanted to modify a Mustang and bring home a 12 second timeslip. If that would have been possible cheaply and easily with the 99 GT I would have done it.
You have your opinion, I have mine. I am not going to post the same things over and over again.
WhiteDevil
New Member
When i was stock i got set up on several races with 96-98 4.6s and i never lost. I ran 14.80s stock in my GT which was just as fast if not faster than any 96-98 gt.5spd GT said:
WhiteDevil - Drivers change a lot...
I have beat 94/95 gt's and foxes with that 98 Gt...but does that mean that they are slower than me? Nope, not necessarily...and this goes vice versa.
I've did my track studies/driving with both cars in question in different cars...I know
I have beat 94/95 gt's and foxes with that 98 Gt...but does that mean that they are slower than me? Nope, not necessarily...and this goes vice versa.
I've did my track studies/driving with both cars in question in different cars...I know
i believe 5 spd gt has got this discussion won.My best bud has a 2002 gt with 3.73, cold air intake , and o/r h pipe with flows.I own a 94 gt with a b303, afpr, o/r h pipe, cold air intake,1.6 roller rockers, and a hurst billet plus shifter.I have driven both of these cars, and i agree the 4.6 lacks low end but boy of boy does it make up for it 4500+ rpm. any of u guys that have a 5.0 know well that in stock trim they start falling off and struggling around 5200 rpm, while the 4.6 breathes right up to the 6200 rpm redline.Once again i agree that the 4.6 isnt as fun from a dead stop because of the super smooth less torquey motor, but once u get them moving they will run.I think alot of u guys are underestimating these motors.I love the 5.0 and its my favorite motor, but the 4.6 is coming along and believe me in 5 or 6 years you hardcore "4.6 l motors are gay, suckass etc. are gonna be in trouble. I just seen the other day in a muscle mustangs magazine the world has come out with 4.6, and 5.4 blocks that are capable of 380 some odd cubic inches, now look at how some of these 4.6's are running with cams and ported heads, just wait till some of these guys get a hold of these blocks all hell is gonna break lose and there are gonna be some serious n/a 4.6l running around that will pull 350-375 horses at the wheels like its nothing. So all u that wont give the 4.6l credit and look down upon it better watch out because they are just about to get really damn fast
Swarzkopf
Member
I never said I think 4.6s suck. I owned two. I liked them. I do think that they are a pain in the ass to work on for the amateur mechanic/gearhead like myself.
Interesting quote:
The GTs new 4.6, although smoother and more fuel efficient than the 5.0, was no faster: 0-60 and quarter-mile times were down a half second or more. The twin-cam version was another story, and the '96 Cobra was .2 second quicker to 60 mph and a half-second faster in the quarter-mile that it's pushrod predecessor.
From Mustang, Publications International, Ltd., 1999. Page 126.
I don't believe the difference is quite as drastic as half a second, but the point is clear.
Interesting quote:
The GTs new 4.6, although smoother and more fuel efficient than the 5.0, was no faster: 0-60 and quarter-mile times were down a half second or more. The twin-cam version was another story, and the '96 Cobra was .2 second quicker to 60 mph and a half-second faster in the quarter-mile that it's pushrod predecessor.
From Mustang, Publications International, Ltd., 1999. Page 126.
I don't believe the difference is quite as drastic as half a second, but the point is clear.
Swarzkopf said:
That info is not specific enough - Was it the same driver? same trim? same conditions?
I know for a fact the 96-98 Cobra will take a 5.0L without question...I have 3 friends with them (two are the Mystic's
)."half a second or more"
Hmm...yeah I ask the same questions...You have to think when in a race where are the rpms at? Does it matter that your below 3,000rpm for a second? Not that much. You spend it 3500 rpm and up for 95% of the race. Just do the "power math"
black94gt50 - Good Point...they are coming of age
Swarzkopf
Member
Since it's from a documentary type book, I don't think they were referring to one race, I think they were speaking of the cars in general.
The author agrees with you about the Cobra, read it again.
Swarzkopf
Member
Laid off as not that much quicker? A half second is a pretty big deal to me.
I suspect that you just like to argue.
lolol this has been a pretty good discussion, ive kept up with it over the last couple days.Stop and think for a second, what the **** does it matter as long as its a v8 mustang??? It's the coolest and only pony car that has stuck it out throught the years, every mustang diserves props in my eyes
The 4.6 has a 3.550 bore and 3.550 stroke, where the 5.0 is 4.0 bore and 3.0 stroke. The longer stroke is good for torque, right? So my question is, why does the 4.6 lack low end torque? Is it just the smaller cubes, or is it something in the heads/cam/intake?
Similar threads
Progress Thread
zeth194 - New Guy on the Block
