OT - Took an '05 GT for a ride Saturday

Black95GTS · Nov 9, 2004

I wouldn't call it gutless... just seemed like as soon as I was starting to get the SOTP feeling I get in mine around 4700 I was around 5900 in the '05, and had to shift. like Grady said, with the right rear gearing it would wake up the car like crazy. I dont know if you guys remember your 2.73s, but I wouldn't call that a street warrior gear by any stretch.

And honestly, my 210 rwhpish (I know, bench racing but bear with me) 95GTS felt like it had much more grunt then the 250rwp '05.

In terms of cubes making that much more of a difference, we're talking 21 cubic inches. 281 vs. 302. Thats not what I would call a gigantic size advantage, 7 percent difference?

The car redlines at 6K, Ford lists pk HP at 5750, I think they need to rethink this motor. If you could spin it to 7 grand then I think I could deal with it.

mystang94gt · Nov 9, 2004

Black95GTS said:
I wouldn't call it gutless... just seemed like as soon as I was starting to get the SOTP feeling I get in mine around 4700 I was around 5900 in the '05, and had to shift. like Grady said, with the right rear gearing it would wake up the car like crazy. I dont know if you guys remember your 2.73s, but I wouldn't call that a street warrior gear by any stretch.

And honestly, my 210 rwhpish (I know, bench racing but bear with me) 95GTS felt like it had much more grunt then the 250rwp '05.

In terms of cubes making that much more of a difference, we're talking 21 cubic inches. 281 vs. 302. Thats not what I would call a gigantic size advantage, 7 percent difference?

The car redlines at 6K, Ford lists pk HP at 5750, I think they need to rethink this motor. If you could spin it to 7 grand then I think I could deal with it.

Very true. I know those mod motor cars perform well with 4.10's and 4.30's. Have to wait and see how the 05's perform with better gears.

final5-0 · Nov 9, 2004

Joes95GT said:
I'm not saying your wrong Grady, because I tend to agree with you. I wonder why the mod motors are such dogs down low. The 4-valve motor's ports aren't THAT big. I wonder if the valves are too big? I can't see someone blaming the sole reason of the loss of low-end torque on the OHC design. I'm curious now....
Joe

Ok Joe

What I'm gonna say is my gut feelings about the mod motor.

A long time ago I used to be a motorcycle mechanic. The mod motor, at least to me looks like a very big version of those motorcycle motors I used to work on. When Honda came out with those 4 cyl motors they were very smooth but not much power down low. As the size of those motors grew the low end got better and better.

I somehow think the mod motor is just too little in the cubic inch department when used in a na application.

Now, back to the present times, and let me tell you about my best friends 99 Cobra. It also was a dog down low. From mid range rpms it really started to come on strong.

I guess all of this is to say that I think the mod motor at it's current size in na form is all about the upper half of the rpm range.

I think that is just the way it is.

If you want some low end grunt you gotta put on a positive blower (like the Cobra) or resort to some sorta gimmickery like those flapper valve thingies in the intake like my wife's rice burning suv has got

I do think a lotta of gear in the rear would help things also.

I hope some thin skinned mod motor guy don't read this stuff but heck, that little Stang wouldn't even squeek the tires from a stop sign

Later
Grady

Joes95GT · Nov 9, 2004

final5-0 said:
...All that stuff that was written....Grady

I can see where your coming from Grady.

The only other thing that I could think of in the mod motors is that they have no bore.....?

Joe

Rootus · Nov 9, 2004

final5-0 said:
I somehow think the mod motor is just too little in the cubic inch department when used in a na application.

Now, back to the present times, and let me tell you about my best friends 99 Cobra. It also was a dog down low. From mid range rpms it really started to come on strong.

Having owned a couple of naturally aspirated 4V Cobras in the past, I think that they suffer from too much head (not a problem I'm familiar with )

Seriously, though. Strap on some heads with similar airflow characteristics on a 5.0L and it'd probably kill the grunt a little too. Not to mention that Ford definitely cammed the 4V to scream at 7000, which without VVT means they had to sacrifice the grunt.

That's my theory. I've driven 2V 4.6L's, but it's been a loooooong time. As I remember, they aren't as gutless at low RPM as the DOHC motors are.

Dave

Joes95GT · Nov 9, 2004

Rootus said:
Having owned a couple of naturally aspirated 4V Cobras in the past, I think that they suffer from too much head (not a problem I'm familiar with )

Hey, I didn't say a word! This is taking a turn for the worse very quickly.

I wonder what the intake port sizes are? What about valves? If they made the valves smaller, would that help?

Things that make you go "hmmm".....

Joe

nmcgrawj · Nov 9, 2004

Black95GTS said:
The car redlines at 6K, Ford lists pk HP at 5750, I think they need to rethink this motor. If you could spin it to 7 grand then I think I could deal with it.

Where do our 5.0's redline? Where do we make peak power? Its been like that from day one stock wise.

Has anyone thought about the WEIGHT these new 05's have? I think i remember someone saying something about race weight being at 4000 or something really high like that? I know they are much heavier than ours. That combined with the mod motors not being as torquey really hurts.

Give them some 4.10s or 4.30s and see whos low end still sucks. Our stock low end is NOT all that great like someone already said before we get some gears.

Do you guys hate how the Mach 1 drives too? The mod motors dont have the low end grunt like 5.0's do....but who will win a race? Stock Mod motor or stock 5.0? What are u gonna say at the end..."dude, My 5.0 has more low end grunt than your 4.6 "????

I am no fan of the 05 mustang. I would much rather have a 94-95 or 99+ over an 05 but come on...you guys are ripping this thing apart. They are two different motors. Two different cars. Two different driving characteristics. The only reason the 5.0 is what it is, is because of the aftermarket. Wait for a huge 4.6 aftermarket and see how the engines compare.

Give this new stang or any 4.6 some 4.10's or 4.30's and come back and tell me its still a dog off the line.

Rootus · Nov 9, 2004

nmcgrawj said:
Has anyone thought about the WEIGHT these new 05's have? I think i remember someone saying something about race weight being at 4000 or something really high like that? I know they are much heavier than ours.

The numbers I've seen put the 05 GT about 150 lbs heavier than a 94/95 5.0L. The difference is more dramatic compared to a later 4.6L (bet ya didn't know that a 99+ 4.6L weighs less than our 94/95's do...). I think the weight is here to stay -- we all want our toys, and they all add weight. As much talk as their is about having a stripped model with no A/C, no radio, no power anything, etc, ... nobody would buy it. The only weight savings to be had is by going to lighter materials, which will jack the price up until a Mustang is no longer king of the bang-for-buck hill (and we're already losing that battle as it is...).

Dave

nmcgrawj · Nov 10, 2004

Rootus said:
The numbers I've seen put the 05 GT about 150 lbs heavier than a 94/95 5.0L. The difference is more dramatic compared to a later 4.6L (bet ya didn't know that a 99+ 4.6L weighs less than our 94/95's do...). I think the weight is here to stay -- we all want our toys, and they all add weight. As much talk as their is about having a stripped model with no A/C, no radio, no power anything, etc, ... nobody would buy it. The only weight savings to be had is by going to lighter materials, which will jack the price up until a Mustang is no longer king of the bang-for-buck hill (and we're already losing that battle as it is...).

Dave

How much less do the 99+ 4.6L weigh than us? Is it in the engine? I dont see where else they could be lighter at. I just know when a buddy sits in my back seat(yea i have had emergencies lol) that the low end really suffers with the extra weight.

So how much more is a 05 convertible gonna weigh?

Joes95GT · Nov 10, 2004

Rootus said:
As much talk as their is about having a stripped model with no A/C, no radio, no power anything, etc, ... nobody would buy it.

Dave - three words - body in white.

And your right, I'm nobody. My girlfriend even tells me that from time to time.

Joe

Scott_95GT · Nov 10, 2004

True, pushrod motors naturally have a lot of low end grunt. But that does not in any way mean sohc engines always have no low end. Last time I checked, the f-150 I just sold (before getting my stang) had a sohc 5.4 which had nothing but low end grunt. It made it's peak torque at like 2500 rpm's, and had solid hp from 3000-5000 rpm's. Then look at the hemi trucks. Those are all pushrod motors, and while they definatly have low end, the peak torque is higher than the 5.4 w/a sohc.

I see where u guys are coming from when it comes to low end grunt. (Thats why I purchased a 95 gt, and not a 96+ gt) But let's be fair. Give the 05 some good gears and free flowing exhaust. It would fix the low end problem, and turn some very impressive et's

stangboy · Nov 10, 2004

Scott_95GT said:
True, pushrod motors naturally have a lot of low end grunt. But that does not in any way mean sohc engines always have no low end. Last time I checked, the f-150 I just sold (before getting my stang) had a sohc 5.4 which had nothing but low end grunt. It made it's peak torque at like 2500 rpm's, and had solid hp from 3000-5000 rpm's. Then look at the hemi trucks. Those are all pushrod motors, and while they definatly have low end, the peak torque is higher than the 5.4 w/a sohc.

I see where u guys are coming from when it comes to low end grunt. (Thats why I purchased a 95 gt, and not a 96+ gt) But let's be fair. Give the 05 some good gears and free flowing exhaust. It would fix the low end problem, and turn some very impressive et's

The lowend power that your 5.4-powered F-150 was because it had more cubic inches rather than a 4.6. That 5.4 is 331ci. which is a bit more than 281ci. Bit you're right, with some gears and better flowing exhaust the 05 will probably really haul ass.

cobra dave · Nov 11, 2004

I've owned 3 cobras a 93 then a 96 and now my prized 95. I wouldnt give my 95 up for an even swap on an 05. I liked the power my 96 had but mod motors suck IMO. Just getting the valve cover off on the drivers side was a 6 hour project. 03 and 04 cobras well, I would own one in a heartbeat if the price was right but those are a whole different world. Yeah still mods but the power makes up for the pain in the a**. Oh by the way go to the 05 forum you've got guys on there saying their running bone stock 13.1's and .2's. But of course no slips to prove it.

OT - Took an '05 GT for a ride Saturday

Black95GTS

Active Member

mystang94gt

New Member

final5-0

Mustang Master

Joes95GT

New Member

Rootus

Officially Addicted

Joes95GT

New Member

nmcgrawj

Advanced Member

Rootus

Officially Addicted

nmcgrawj

Advanced Member

Joes95GT

New Member

Scott_95GT

New Member

stangboy

cobra dave

New Member

Similar threads

OT - Took an '05 GT for a ride Saturday

Active Member

New Member

Mustang Master

New Member

Officially Addicted

New Member

Advanced Member

Officially Addicted

Advanced Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency