Drove a 03

Swarzkopf · Jul 18, 2005

Stock to stock the 87-95 walks all over the 96-98 SOHC 4.6L...period.

5spd GT · Jul 19, 2005

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.

Swarzkopf · Jul 19, 2005

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.

From what I've seen, 94-95 5.0Ls are capable of high 14s stock, well driven. 96-98 GTs are not.

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.

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.

5spd GT · Jul 20, 2005

Swarzkopf said:
From what I've seen, 94-95 5.0Ls are capable of high 14s stock, well driven. 96-98 GTs are not.

Very funny...

Swarzkopf said:
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.

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:
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.

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:
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.

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:
Perhaps your friends 95 GT has seen better days? It's foolish to draw conclusions based on one example of each car.

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 · Jul 20, 2005

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.

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.

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).

I'm all into both of these cars and love delivering unbias info. My friends agree...many different examples. Many...

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 · Jul 20, 2005

5spd GT said:
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.

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 · Jul 20, 2005

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

black94gt50 · Jul 20, 2005

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

black94gt50 · Jul 20, 2005

that world products*** sorry for the typo lol

Swarzkopf · Jul 20, 2005

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.

black94gt50 · Jul 20, 2005

lol i have that book. I wasnt directing my statements towards you, i was directing it towards the people that just put the 4.6 down all the time.I agree with you lol they are a pain in the ass to work on.

5spd GT · Jul 20, 2005

Swarzkopf said:
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.

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 · Jul 20, 2005

That info is not specific enough - Was it the same driver? same trim? same conditions?

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.

5spd GT · Jul 21, 2005

General is just that: Too general...

No basis IMO.

Yes, I read the Cobra comments but they laid it off like it wasn't that much quicker - "read it again".

Swarzkopf · Jul 21, 2005

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.

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.

black94gt50 · Jul 22, 2005

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

5spd GT · Jul 22, 2005

Swarzkopf said:
I suspect that you just like to argue.

Correct.

Oh and E.T. doesn't mean you have the faster car. I look at mph (shows potential).

1slow95 · Jul 22, 2005

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?

black94gt50 · Jul 22, 2005

i think one reason the 4.6 low end torque is lacking a little is because the heads (stock) flow so good.little motor+good flowing heads+ohc design = squat on low end power thats my theory

1slow95 · Jul 22, 2005

I've always wondered why OHC=loss of torque? Or is that a myth?

Drove a 03

Swarzkopf

Member

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"

Swarzkopf

Member

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"

Swarzkopf

Member

WhiteDevil

New Member

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"

black94gt50

New Member

black94gt50

New Member

Swarzkopf

Member

black94gt50

New Member

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"

Swarzkopf

Member

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"

Swarzkopf

Member

black94gt50

New Member

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"

1slow95

black94gt50

New Member

1slow95

Similar threads

Drove a 03

Member

"the 5.0 owns all"

Member

"the 5.0 owns all"

Member

New Member

"the 5.0 owns all"

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

"the 5.0 owns all"

Member

"the 5.0 owns all"

Member

New Member

"the 5.0 owns all"

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency