• Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-

I thought V8's made their power down low...

  • Thread starter Thread starter American_Muscle
  • Start date Start date Jun 17, 2006
A

American_Muscle

New Member
May 9, 2005
189
0
0
Jun 17, 2006
#1
  • Jun 17, 2006
  • #1
Hey guys,

I've had my blown(vortech) 01 GT for about a week.

I had a STOCK 91 5.0 before this and it seems like it has more power down low even in stock trim.
Don't get me wrong....the top-end on this '01 is killer...once the SC kicks in, but why is the 4.6l so weak down low?

Is it the extra weight?Fewer cubes?
 
B

Black'02

Member
Mar 5, 2006
100
0
17
Rochester, NY
Jun 17, 2006
#2
  • Jun 17, 2006
  • #2
I think the biggest factor is the difference in engine type. Ohc engines tend to produce more power up top where as pushrod engines have alot more low end power.
 

mransr

Founding Member
Nov 3, 2000
1,188
36
98
Riverside, SoCal
Jun 17, 2006
#3
  • Jun 17, 2006
  • #3
or just perception...

I don't think there is anywhere in the torque curve where a 225HP '91 makes significantly more power than a stock 260HP '01...much less a supercharged one...it may be that because the 01 just keeps "pulling" more evenly through the whole power band
 

tjmaxx

Member
Jun 21, 2004
157
3
19
Jun 17, 2006
#4
  • Jun 17, 2006
  • #4
mransr said:
or just perception...

I don't think there is anywhere in the torque curve where a 225HP '91 makes significantly more power than a stock 260HP '01...much less a supercharged one...it may be that because the 01 just keeps "pulling" more evenly through the whole power band
Click to expand...

+1
 

03ghoststang

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,930
1
57
Los Angeles, California
Jun 17, 2006
#5
  • Jun 17, 2006
  • #5
mransr said:
or just perception...

I don't think there is anywhere in the torque curve where a 225HP '91 makes significantly more power than a stock 260HP '01...much less a supercharged one...it may be that because the 01 just keeps "pulling" more evenly through the whole power band
Click to expand...


thats true and teh 4.6L makes peak TQ around 4K rpmthat around where the old 5.0L was making its HP. Also the mods put in it also move the power band higher or lower in the rpm
 

stangGT97

New Member
Dec 22, 2004
1,299
1
0
Boston area, MA
Jun 17, 2006
#6
  • Jun 17, 2006
  • #6
the smaller bore size has a lot to do with the 4.6L having less low end torque than the 302. A 4.6L bored to a 302 will not only have a great low end, but will also be very rev-happy... a killer combination of all the good OHC and OHV characteristics
 

DropTopPony

Noob Slayer
Founding Member
Aug 13, 2002
2,570
3
48
south jersey
Jun 17, 2006
#7
  • Jun 17, 2006
  • #7
stangGT97 said:
the smaller bore size has a lot to do with the 4.6L having less low end torque than the 302. A 4.6L bored to a 302 will not only have a great low end, but will also be very rev-happy... a killer combination of all the good OHC and OHV characteristics
Click to expand...
well said...

i've seen a dyno of a BigBore from MP that gained 20HP and 40TQ....
One of those is definately in my future!
 

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"
Founding Member
Aug 7, 2002
9,516
6
99
Arkansas
Jun 17, 2006
#8
  • Jun 17, 2006
  • #8
It is the perception, don't go by the seat of the pants. They make a very similar amount of torque down low as a 5.0L. I have both.

Now, with the 4.6L having a "building up" feeling (especially with your supercharger)...it is going to feel weak down low...

Just perception...

Also, how often do we shift at 3,000rpm
 

timeless2

Vi Veri Veni Versum Vicus Vici
Admin Dude
Nov 29, 1999
1,366
202
154
the Shadow Gallery
Jun 17, 2006
#9
  • Jun 17, 2006
  • #9
While not totally relevant, I wanted to share this article with you guys on the 5.0 liter cammer.

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=16182

 

DropTopPony

Noob Slayer
Founding Member
Aug 13, 2002
2,570
3
48
south jersey
Jun 17, 2006
#10
  • Jun 17, 2006
  • #10
timeless2 said:
While not totally relevant, I wanted to share this article with you guys on the 5.0 liter cammer.

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=16182

Click to expand...
now if you can spot me the $15,000 dollars to get one
 

timeless2

Vi Veri Veni Versum Vicus Vici
Admin Dude
Nov 29, 1999
1,366
202
154
the Shadow Gallery
Jun 17, 2006
#11
  • Jun 17, 2006
  • #11
DropTopPony said:
now if you can spot me the $15,000 dollars to get one
Click to expand...

That is the biggest impediment. The price tag.
 

stangGT97

New Member
Dec 22, 2004
1,299
1
0
Boston area, MA
Jun 17, 2006
#12
  • Jun 17, 2006
  • #12
timeless2 said:
While not totally relevant, I wanted to share this article with you guys on the 5.0 liter cammer.

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=16182

Click to expand...

does anyone else find comedy in the fact that the author's name is Jennifer Shatwell...?
 

BurningRubber

10 Year Member
Dec 6, 2004
1,865
24
58
Jun 17, 2006
#13
  • Jun 17, 2006
  • #13
The 5.0 feels tourqier down low, even compared to a PI 4.6... ive driven both and have come to that conclusion.

But, at around 4k my 4.6 really starts to come to life and pulls pretty good, where as the 5.0 is nearing the end of its power band soon at that RPM.
 
C

CatmanJJ

Captain Tangnet
20+ Year Stangneter
Feb 5, 2002
4,379
1
68
Maryland
Jun 19, 2006
#14
  • Jun 19, 2006
  • #14
Don't the fact that the 5.0 cars, engines aside, both weigh less and have smaller wheels/tires from the factory also contribute to how it feels much faster down low? I do know my friends lightly modded (exhaust, CAI, 3.73s) '95 GT felt pretty strong off the line but ran outta steam really quick.
 

04DarkShadowGT

Member
Jan 31, 2004
474
0
17
Fort Wayne, IN
Jun 19, 2006
#15
  • Jun 19, 2006
  • #15
If you dont think you have enough low end grunt, get some 4.10s
 

tomustang

Psychotic Member
Founding Member
Jun 8, 2000
3,434
2
78
McLean Hospital
Jun 19, 2006
#16
  • Jun 19, 2006
  • #16
American_Muscle said:
Hey guys,

I've had my blown(vortech) 01 GT for about a week.

I had a STOCK 91 5.0 before this and it seems like it has more power down low even in stock trim.
Don't get me wrong....the top-end on this '01 is killer...once the SC kicks in, but why is the 4.6l so weak down low?

Is it the extra weight?Fewer cubes?
Click to expand...
Everyone is forgetting you are running a Centri supercharger, you're not going to make more power down low with one, so you're not going to gain more.
 

Dan02gt

mazing how much gas smell came from that tiny hole
20+ Year Stangneter
Mar 2, 2003
909
415
113
Greenville, NC
Jun 19, 2006
#17
  • Jun 19, 2006
  • #17
The heads, cam, and intake on a stock 5.0 makes great low end torque but starts running out of steam at about 4500 RPMs. If you install a pair of deceint flowing heads and a short runner intake like a Performer RPM you gain a ton of power up top but lose some low end torque. It's a trade off, with a small engine you don't easily get the best of both worlds.

Plus a fox is lighter that a 94+ which also has a lot to do with the way it feels.
 

02LaserRed2V

New Member
Jul 30, 2004
379
1
0
Augusta, GA
Jun 20, 2006
#18
  • Jun 20, 2006
  • #18
I don't seem to have this issue with mine.
 

SamMan

New Member
Aug 20, 2005
121
0
0
Denton, TX
Jun 20, 2006
#19
  • Jun 20, 2006
  • #19
Me either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

0
V6 to V8 Swap info
  • 02_2v_Curtis
  • Jan 11, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
673
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Jan 11, 2026
02_2v_Curtis
0
Progress Thread Giving an abandoned 88 GT project a new chance at life
  • jaketractor
  • Jan 9, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jul 20, 2025
Noobz347
Build Thread 1978 Fairmont. I bet somebody back home’s thinkin’…I wonder why he don’t write..?
  • CarMichael Angelo
  • Aug 27, 2020
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 137 138 139
Replies
3K
Views
383K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 7, 2025
Rdub6
I
Exorcising a '78
  • IICrew
  • Mar 29, 2020
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech
  • 13 14 15
Replies
287
Views
33K
1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech Apr 14, 2023
IICrew
I
  • Locked
“Doing stuff the wrong way for the right reasons”: A related stupid story.
  • CarMichael Angelo
  • Apr 26, 2020
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
7
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 27, 2020
a91what
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
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?