very high miles...5.0 vs 4.6
- Thread starter mcompton
- Start date
millhouse
Founding Member
JadeFalcon said:
I'm sorry, but some of you either have some speedo/odo. issues, only drive downhill, or are calculating your mileage wrong.
Even with a 5 speed and 2.73 gears, anything over 25-26mpg is just not happening. Hell, ls1's are more effecient engines as well as a conservative 6th gear overdrive and rarely reach those mpg levels.
_jb_
New Member
HighMileage said: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.
94-95 SN95 styles have a 5.0 in them. As for repairs and such, cars do breakdown. It can be 10k miles, or 100k miles, depending on the driver. And I hardly see any running 98+ 4.6s for under $10 grand. I bought my car for $2350, and I MAYBE have $2000 invested in it. That still leaves me with $7650 to equal the value of a 98+. And with almost $8k, you can make one hellava car. You can have a brand new engine, more power, ect. doing it that way, but it will be time consuming. I know, because there were times when I felt like just torching the car because I couldn't get fix whatever. But, either way, fox, SN95, SN97, I can say nothing more than, "Get R Done!"
mattkimsey
I've compiled a list to recap this thread:
chevyboy_z28
New Member
you guys are a waste of my time...where the hell did all these other people come from co-signin to what wasnt even said to them. yall seem more focused on getting your point across to me that 5.0s are the best thing to grace the earth since sliced bread, rather than helping this kid out as the initial post was meant to do. if u dumb *****s would TAKE THE TIME TO READ, youd see that i was just puttin what ive seen out there so this guy would know that yes 5.0s do have problems too b/c you idiots were misleading him. i never said that the 5.0 was a piece of crap, however alot that i see are, but i was simply giving the guy an alternate point of view on how to choose. the "im devin williams b**** " comment was a spin off from the "im rick james b**** " quote from the chapelle show, but obviously you guys live in trailer parks with no cable, so u didnt comprehend the joke. anyway ive noticed that the original thread starter hasnt even posted back so i assume hes made a decision or has given up on this thread like i should have done before the end of the first page. you guys can go back to sucking each others penis' now, im thru with this thread.
ill advised
Member
Jo_885o
New Member
_jb_
New Member
chevyboy_z28 said:
Since you said that you are done with this thread, I'll still post this anyways. We never said 5.0's were GOD. You just started to bash them about an "oil pump problem" and all we did was correct you. You are the one that took it all the wrong way. And as for your quote about all the 5.0's you see, take a look at this page, http://2koolperformance.ca/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=248
and you will see MANY NICE 5.0s. Look, there is a nice one, another one, look another one, ect.
The 4.6 has issues do not buy one.
The 4.6 has issues do not buy one.
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=644422
The 4.6 has issues do not buy one.
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=644422
isn't this an old thread.
sure it happens. Not to everyone, and it's not the end of the world. Certainly not reason enough to NOT buy a modular.
My bro has an 86 5.0 stang with a gt40 engine going in, and a 96 mystic cobra with the 305 horse 4.6 modular. He loves the hell out of both of them. The 5.0 is a torquey raw beast, while the 4.6 is a high revving smooth horsepower machine. No problems from either, and I'd be proud to own either longterm.
sure it happens. Not to everyone, and it's not the end of the world. Certainly not reason enough to NOT buy a modular.
My bro has an 86 5.0 stang with a gt40 engine going in, and a 96 mystic cobra with the 305 horse 4.6 modular. He loves the hell out of both of them. The 5.0 is a torquey raw beast, while the 4.6 is a high revving smooth horsepower machine. No problems from either, and I'd be proud to own either longterm.
srothfuss
Last night I stabbed the same guy 7 times in a row
Yes, I looked at the date of this thread but I've owned both. A 98GT and 3 different Fox GT's (inlcluding my current ride)
I never had a problem with any of them. My intake didn't explode. I have never "blown" a spark plug out of the head. And non of my Fox cars had oiling problems. This thread was fun to read though (before my time on SN)
I never had a problem with any of them. My intake didn't explode. I have never "blown" a spark plug out of the head. And non of my Fox cars had oiling problems. This thread was fun to read though (before my time on SN)
I can't take this anymore...I think you may very well be retarted. Seriously. The oiling system of a 5.0 is the same that it was for almost 40 years. Millions, yes, millions of these engines were produced for everything from a Mustang to an F150 to various Lincoln incarnations, without ever having 'exploding oil pumps.'chevyboy_z28 said:
The shaft-driven pump on the 5.0 engine is actually a VERY reliable design, especially in stock form. Honestly, 200,000-300,000 miles is no sweat for a well-maintained Fox body. I'd not EVER say the same for the LT1 F-bodies.
The only real issue that I have ever seen for oil pump problems would be a high-mileage stock shortblock that has had a HCI done, leaving the stock oil pump driveshaft in place. That shaft can twist and break during lots of high RPM driving. Of course the ARP shaft is like $20.00 and could be dropped in during the cam install in like 30 seconds.
My 88 GT has 280,000 miles on it and is my daily driver. It has the bone stock engine in it, intake to oil pan. The car just recently ran a 13.84 on street tires at 101 mph.
It seems to do fine for me.
chevyboy_z28 said:
First off, you live in Detroit, one of the absolute ****tiest cities on the face of the planet to live in. I lived in Michigan for a while and everybody knew that Detroit was an embarrasment - now I see why. Secondly, and probably most important, is the fact that you drive the slowest, ugliest, lowest performing Mustang since the Mustang II of the '70s. The fact that you even post anything that remotely has anything to do with cars is astounding. Your grasp of automotive technology is shockingly bad.
Face the facts - there are a lot more mullet-wearing, trailer park living homos driving F-bodies than any Mustang. I would guess that you live in the same trailer park that Eminem did in the movie Eight Mile.
chevyboy_z28 said:
I have 201,000 on my near stock 89, and it is the most reliable car I have ever seen. The oil pressure is just fine, and it still has the stock clutch believe it or not. I also have an 02GT with 53,000 miles on it. I prefer the 89, it looks better, and in my opinion is a better all around car. People put down t-5 transmissions, but I like them better than the t-3650 any day. T-5's will hold up just fine if not abused.
Flavadave4
Active Member
I have no experiance with the 4.6 other than i have one in my 2000 F150.....113000K uses a small amount of oil but nothing alarming. Its a regular cab short box 4x4 with a 5spd and i get 15/18 mpg
I got 25mpg 3 weeks ago on a day trip to PA in my 5.0 GT with 3.73's @ 2600 all day long.
Good Friend of mine has a 90 LX that has 194000 miles and is running on stock clutch, motor has never been opened up or modified. Drives it everyday and still runs a 14.7.
The car has been in his family since purchased new in late 89
I got 25mpg 3 weeks ago on a day trip to PA in my 5.0 GT with 3.73's @ 2600 all day long.
Good Friend of mine has a 90 LX that has 194000 miles and is running on stock clutch, motor has never been opened up or modified. Drives it everyday and still runs a 14.7.
The car has been in his family since purchased new in late 89
rd
Founding Member
I'd go with the 4.6. If you get a 5 speed, you won't have the auto trans to fail, and the engine should go well into the 200k area.
I also think for a stock vehicle, the OBD2 is much easier to troubleshoot than an EEC4. I do have a scanner that works on both, and the OBD will tell you the problem and will show you many of the important items while the engine is running.
I confess that I got the OBD2 vehicles, a 4.6 F150 and two OBD2 Explorers, before I ever owned an EEC4.
The EEC4 has too much guesswork left in the troubleshooting.
Basic engine comparison, either would go 250k, but I'd rather deal with the 4.6, from my current experience in my F150. Not sure the 4R70W is up to the task though.
I also think for a stock vehicle, the OBD2 is much easier to troubleshoot than an EEC4. I do have a scanner that works on both, and the OBD will tell you the problem and will show you many of the important items while the engine is running.
I confess that I got the OBD2 vehicles, a 4.6 F150 and two OBD2 Explorers, before I ever owned an EEC4.
The EEC4 has too much guesswork left in the troubleshooting.
Basic engine comparison, either would go 250k, but I'd rather deal with the 4.6, from my current experience in my F150. Not sure the 4R70W is up to the task though.
Both can be very reliable but I would go for a 4.6 as a daily driver given the choice. Your typical 4.6 will have less mileage than your typical 5.0 with less wear on the chasis. Other things like suspension, interior, etc also take its abuse and in a 10 vs 15 year old car it typically has its differences so take that into consideration. I've heard of the intake issue with the 4.6 but that is usually in extreme cases. It's plastic... what do you expect with N02. Never heard of any oiling problems with the 5.0 though. Most people don't bother to up grade to a high volume when rebuilding their engines... the stock design works perfectly. The problem I would worry about in the 5.0 is the tranny and headgaskets. The people that bought these cars drive them hard. They are meant to. The T5 is a weak point and so is the aod. The 2002's 3650 tranny is a much stouter tranny. If a 5.0 is driven hard, mine included, the headgaskets were pretty weak and are prone to blow. Mine blew at 134K and my friend's 155k. Seems to be a trend of sorts. Perfect for a H/I/C upgrade though. I would go for a 2000+ GT if I was looking for a daly driver with decent gas mileage. I get 20MPG at its current state but I am milking it. The 4.6 is a much tamer and smoother, gets about the same power and gets better average gas mileage.
Kevin
Kevin
Similar threads
