very high miles...5.0 vs 4.6

#21
chevyboy_z28 said:
maybe its all coincidence that most 5.0s i see are junk :shrug: , maybe i just dont know jack about cars :shrug: , maybe i should just crawl back into my chevy loving hole (camaroz28.com) and cry about how much i miss my camaro :shrug: ...maybe not :notnice:! i prolly havent been at this car stuff for as long as some of you may have, but im a good observer and i know what ive seen. 5.0s blow oil pumps, and four6s split intakes! you should be proud that your car isnt a piece of crap like some of its siblings, but the point at hand is if this guy, who hasnt even posted again since he started this thread doesnt know much about cars or isnt mechanically inclined, then he'll prolly run into alot of problems with both the fiveO, and the four6... im not necessarily saying that the 4.6 is a better motor of the 2, b/c for one there of two different breeds, however you have to admit, overall the 4.6 does seem better suited for this guys needs? anyway i apologize for bringing up chevy so much in my posts, its just so hard to adapt to this change...its like im used to eating sirloin steak and now im fed dog food :D j/k!
Click to expand...

The only major problem I have ever heard from the 5.0 is the oil control issue. The only problem I have ever heard of the 4.6 is the oiling issue on the timing chains not being enough. Read up a little more on the 5.0 and even any car mag will tell you the same - the 5.0 HO was one well-built capable engine that can take lots of abuse and keep on running. Most people want a fresh rebuild because usually there are some gains in it with plans for makeing it faster. Untouched, a 5.0 can go beyond the 200k mark, some 300k, and i've seen a couple reach the 400k mark.
 
#23
oil pump wtf?

100k+ with rebuild wtf?

my 91 has 180k on the completley stock motor, inake has never been off, nor the oilpan, and trust me when i say it does not run like crap and has impressed many a friends with thier freshley rebuilt motors.

my 85 server 97k miles with the california highway patrol, and the other 43k with misc owners with a completley stock longblock.

get your facts strait first then come talk crap

worst part is i used to be a chevy guy, still am at some times but i was quick to learn that in the mustang vs camaro the camaro may have been faster at times but the mustang had a better build quality.

oh and if you want you can come check out my friends 90 gt with 210k on the clock that we just replaced the factory water pump on(factory untouched motor)

camaros kick ass but when it comes to reliability i will gladly take my mustang
 
#24
Jo_885o said:
:bs: 400k
Click to expand...
Are you forgetting that the 5.0 didn't just come in a mustang? So yes, a good friend with an F150 on its second auto hit it, and another's with a crown vic hit it. The f150 has crap for power now and the crown vic finally locked up at I believe 402k. BS - if you say so, but I don't

My dad's 5.0 in his f150 died at 312k, a friend has an 82 t-bird rolling with 276k, another with an 89 stang and 212k, another with an 88 stang with 326k (which did have new piston rings, bearings, and valve seals put in for sake of oil problems - but not rebuilt and still runs just as strong), an E150 at 347k, a crown vic with 206k, and then mine that just hit 282k. So yes, i'm not basing what I say on one person's word or sighting, i'm basing it on what i've read time and again and experienced around me and from what I have worked on. Mind you there have been plenty of things down the road on some of these vehicles that have been replaced/fixed, but nearly none of them ever had to go past something as valve cover or oil pan gaskets to get it there. Of course there are plenty of others I know around the 100k-150k or so mark but for sake of arguement i'm stating the ones that matter and are more related to the issue now.
 
#25
91lxvert said:
get your facts strait first then come talk crap
Click to expand...
man first of all who are you to even be talkin to me. do u know who i am??? im Devin Williams b****, and i know my sh1t. if u took the time to read my posts thoroughly then ude see that i was just makin it known that both cars pose problems that an amateur mechanic may not want to encounter. the only reason i jumped on 5.0s is b/c some of the guys were implying that fiveOs will last forever and thats not always the case. maybe i was wrong by saying that the majority of them are crap b/c you guys and "the magazines" as someone added prove me wrong i guess. at least when and if he gets a fiveO the oil pump/oiling system gives him problems he'll know he was warned.
 
#26
My 93GT has 203K with an untouched longblock (including original oil pump) and gets 20 mpg on the highway. When I bought it in 1998 it had 78,500 miles. That equates to about 1804 miles a month since I've owned it. Enginewise, I've replaced the water pump, distributor, alternator, and battery. We'll see how long the oil pump and starter last-lets face it, moving parts wear out and will eventually need to be replaced. To tell you the truth, I'm more worried about my transmission going out before the engine. Most cars you see that are pieces of junk were more than likely abused and not taken care of. Some people have never heard of this thing called preventative maintenance. The SN95 will definitely have a better ride quality and brakes. I would stick to the 5.0 b/c I am biased, and I think is easier to work on. The key is to find one that either has low miles and was well maintained (good luck), or one with higher mileage that was, again, well maintained. Good luck with your choice.

Hawaii-50
 
#27
87'GTstang said:
Are you forgetting that the 5.0 didn't just come in a mustang? So yes, a good friend with an F150 on its second auto hit it, and another's with a crown vic hit it. The f150 has crap for power now and the crown vic finally locked up at I believe 402k. BS - if you say so, but I don't

My dad's 5.0 in his f150 died at 312k, a friend has an 82 t-bird rolling with 276k, another with an 89 stang and 212k, another with an 88 stang with 326k (which did have new piston rings, bearings, and valve seals put in for sake of oil problems - but not rebuilt and still runs just as strong), an E150 at 347k, a crown vic with 206k, and then mine that just hit 282k. So yes, i'm not basing what I say on one person's word or sighting, i'm basing it on what i've read time and again and experienced around me and from what I have worked on. Mind you there have been plenty of things down the road on some of these vehicles that have been replaced/fixed, but nearly none of them ever had to go past something as valve cover or oil pan gaskets to get it there. Of course there are plenty of others I know around the 100k-150k or so mark but for sake of arguement i'm stating the ones that matter and are more related to the issue now.
Click to expand...
man its kinda hard to believe that all those cars have that many miles. are u sure those numbers are right?, there higher than giraffe :taco:!
 
#28
chevyboy_z28 said:
man its kinda hard to believe that all those cars have that many miles. are u sure those numbers are right?, there higher than giraffe :taco:!
Click to expand...


Hey Devin-

You know, anything's possible. I mean, you went from a Camaro to a Mustang, right? :nice: J/K. BTW, I was wondering what the M5 in you sig means. I've never seen that before :bang: .

Hawaii-50
 
#29
chevyboy_z28 said:
man its kinda hard to believe that all those cars have that many miles. are u sure those numbers are right?, there higher than giraffe :taco:!
Click to expand...
I'm just stating the ones in the most extreme cases that I have seen, but most ones on a daily basis I see are in the 100k-150k miles mark. Every once in a while i'll see one in that range with an issue such as lost compression, vacuum leaks, and things of that such, but almost all still run rather well for the mileage. I've even come across one stang that felt like a non-HO only to find it was still running but with a rough idle and 7 cylinders (nitrous guru) and he drove the thing for quite a while like that until I convinced him otherwise. Yes, over the few years that i've toyed with them, those are the ones that stand out in memory mainly because when you notice something out of the ordinary you tend to remember it - correct? It was/is a strong engine and if you don't drive it hard and take care of it, a 5.0 will last a long time due to the build quality.
 
#35
I have never heard about this premature oil pump failure on 5.0s. I do agree that 4.6s 2v have a problem with intake manifolds cracking a coolant runner. I have replaced over 40 intakes on 4.6 2vs due to failure, but I have yet to replace an oil pump on 5.0 due to a failure. Plain and simple the 5.0 was one of the most reliable motors that ford ever made.
 
#37
91lxvert said:
who the **** is devin williams?
Click to expand...

That is what I was thinking. Devin Williams? Who? I don't care who you are, but I have seen 5.0s with 30K miles with a rebuild, and others with 200k and still going. It all depends on who takes care of them, and who doesn't. I have seen many Chevy's worn down too, along with Dodge, Toyota, ect. Look around on here, there are LOTS of people on here with wonderfull Mustangs.
With a screenname like chevyboy_z28, I do agree with millhouse that you are biased.
 
#38
While I was a ford technician, I had the opportunity to experience many high mileage 5.0's and 4.6's. The honest truth is, they are both good engines, but I've never seen any 4.6L last as long as a 5.0. 4.6L modular motors suffer from timing chain tensioner wear, which is normally the first thing to trouble the motor if it is maintained correctly. They are a teflon plastic composite that slides against your cam chain. The hardest thing on these timing tensioners is mileage itself, that and idling. I use to replace motors in police cars once a month on average because they were idled to death. The excessive wear caused by the idling on the cam chain tensioners caused them to get eaten up to the metal, shavings in the pan, chains would break, that kind of thing. Replacing the tensioner is not an easy task for someone who is inexperienced, even experienced enthusiasts will lament it. All the accessories have to come over to get the timing chain cover off. High mileage 5.0's suffer entirely from valve seals, low compression from rings, and occasionally if it is beat on, you get twizzlered oil pump shafts (easy to upgrade). 5.0's do not have an all around problem to be delt with. They are like most any other small boock V8, you will replace a water pump every 120k miles on average, occasionally you will do a lower intake (rare though) but in the just 5.0's tend to last longer. 250k 5.0's spray 150 shots all day long just fine, they might blow a little smoke but its nothing to worry about. I did a H/C/I blower swap on my vert with 120k miles on it, and drove the motor all the way till when I took it apart, 50k later, worked flawlessly. You will get biases here and there, I'm sharing my experience working on them.
 
#39
Old-age engine longevity is mostly determined on how you used and maintained it in its "youth". Expect gas mileage to be dependent on this too.

In my opinion the 5.0 is an extreme-fans-only kind of engine. It isn't much in its stock level but the potential is actually there.

You didn't mention what kind of chassis you were looking for? 5.0 in SN95 or 5.0 in Fox. Fox chassis can be upgraded to any use, including (especially) drag racing. You will need lots of parts to do it, so expect some kind of a commitment here. The SN95, much like the 4.6, is more of a well-rounded engine, better for daily and highway use in many ways.

Think of the Fox 5.0 as a bare bones enthusiast starter kit. Where as the SN95 4.6 is a more evolved-toward-daily-use automobile.

I like my 5.0, but if I were you, I'd get a 98+ SN95 4.6. Like someone said, you may not find a low-miles 5.0 today. Time flies and waits for no one. The commitment for getting into the game now is going to be higher. And I'm not just talking about money. Chances are that what you save on a cheap Fox 5.0, you'll end up losing in repair/rebuild/restore costs. The question is, are you up to the task?

You got a tough question there. Still, it depends on what you want to do with the car. If nothing then I'd avoid the Fox chassis. Good luck. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PonyGTrider
Fox Xtremely high fuel consumption
Replies
213
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
PonyGTrider
PonyGTrider
Kid wita 5oh
351w turbo build.... Turbo guys teach me things...
Replies
13
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
General karthief
General karthief
G
New Owner: Very Clean 1991 GT Convertible. All original with 21k original Miles. How to make it better?
Replies
31
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Jarhead67
J
K
3.8 T5 & Bellhousing to 1987 Lincoln 5.0
Replies
3
Views
418
Other Auto Tech
Noobz347
Noobz347
Z
Progress Thread zeth194 - New Guy on the Block
Replies
10
Views
627
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
LILCBRA
LILCBRA
Top Bottom
Back
Forums
Menu