very high miles...5.0 vs 4.6

[mcompton]

For a long long time I have been wanting a mustang (if we are honest.....who doesnt want one at lest....) I am asking this on both this board and the 5.0 one....thanks.


Anyway, I am close to actually buying one....but I have a question.

I put about 1000 miles a WEEK on my cars. Now I realize that this is not a honda that is made as a comutter car, and so I will have to make some comprimises. For running up some high highway miles like this, what would be a better choice of car? the 5.0 or the 4.6? My main concerns are MPG and reliability.

some opinions please?

 

[GTvert01]

I would say go with the 4.6. You should get better gas mileage, they are very reliable.Chances of finding a 5.0 without a great number of miles already is not very probable.People like driving their mustangs.Even if the 5.0 happens to have a new engine, the entire driveline is most likely at least 9 years old.My .02 would to be for you to buy a 99+ gt and drive it 'til the wheels fall off.I have nothing against the 5.0s(I've owned 7), but as far as reliability, I think I would want the newer of the two.

 

[nickthegenius]

5.0 was used until '95. Unless you find a garage queen, its already going to have a ton of miles.

BTW, at one point I had a '88 Mark VII Bill Blass w/5.0HO in it. It had 168k on it and ran great. I used it for a winter beater one year to keep my '01 Formula out of the snow. Best RWD car in the snow I've ever seen.

 

[1bad04GT]

I had a 1990 5.0 hatch with 175,000 hard miles on it and until the day I totalled it it started up every time and got 20-25 mpg consistently with 3.73's. My '04 gets about the same but as far as reliability the 5.0 did pretty well. The secret is synthetic oil, good plugs, a k&n and higher octane (90+)

 

[Jo_885o]

like i said in the tech forum 4.6 imo

 

[BABstangV6]

For MPG get a 99 manual V6.

Yes Sir!

 

[Ghostface]

is higher octane really good for engine longetivity? I thought our 4.6's do just fine off 87.

 

[BABstangV6]

is higher octane really good for engine longetivity? I thought our 4.6's do just fine off 87.

Thats a myth. Our cars are built to burn enough octane in 87, with 93 you have extra gas left unburnt in the engine, leading to carbon build up in the cats.

 

[SilverHorse]

I had a black on black 5.0 coupe with 144K miles started every time. Taking care of that engine is the key. Now if you could only keep the rest of the car from falling apart. Others have already mentioned that '95 was the last 5.0 in a 'Stang so getting a low mile car is going to be hard and if you did, would you really want to run them up or keep her safe and sound. Get a good 'Stang for the weekend and a Honda for the 100K weeks!

 

[GTvert01]

Thats a myth. Our cars are built to burn enough octane in 87, with 93 you have extra gas left unburnt in the engine, leading to carbon build up in the cats.

What cats?

 

[johnnyvista]

getting a mustang for gas mileage is like going to mcdonalds for health food. get a honda!

 

[smokin 04]

Both the 5.0 and 4.6 are very well built engines. I would have to say the 4.6 will last longer that the 5.0 though. I work at a ford dealer and see a lot of 4.6 engines from taxicabs and police vehicles that 300-400K miles on them and they still run fine. IMO go Modular

 

[TripleBlk]

Neither will be stressed by highway miles. The only wear that will occur is at startup (assuming you maintain all the fluid levels). Especially loping along in 5th gear without a lot of braking/accelerating. Just don't ove-revv or "lug" ( too high a gear the speed) and both motors will outlast the rest of the car, IMNSHO. Oh yeah, overheating is a killer , too .

 

[crazystang05]

4.6

4.6 for sure run smoother in my opinion and u should be able to find one from 96 to now with low miles and at a decent price

 

[johnnyboy1111]

5.0 VS 4.6

have a 5.0 1991 coupe automatic , have got 33mpg with the ac on on long trips, past the 168,000 mark.....always changed oil & filter every 1500 miles, never used syth-oil......everything except starter , radiator, battery, wires&cap areoriginal 5.0 & 351 W were the best motors ever made "hands down" have also have a 4.6 99gt also past the 100,000 and still quite and fine, 23mpg is the best, but braking, steering are far better then the older stangs..thats my take , cant sell the 91 coupe as they still look good....

 

[millhouse]

have a 5.0 1991 coupe automatic , have got 33mpg with the ac on on long trips, past the 168,000 mark.....always changed oil & filter every 1500 miles, never used syth-oil......everything except starter , radiator, battery, wires&cap areoriginal 5.0 & 351 W were the best motors ever made "hands down" have also have a 4.6 99gt also past the 100,000 and still quite and fine, 23mpg is the best, but braking, steering are far better then the older stangs..thats my take , cant sell the 91 coupe as they still look good....

Unless I'm mistaken...you meant to say 23mpg with the a/c off, right?

 

[johnnyboy1111]

mr millhouse 33mpg

No Sir I meant 33mpg with the AC on....that was the best...thats on the 5.0 ...the 99 4.6 is geared different ..much higher ..... most V8 will get better milage with the AC on on the open road , the AC really doesnt slow up any decent V8 the windows being up improve the milage as there is no drag, ask any guys with older 5.0 stock set-ups and they will all say they got great mileage , it was the lazy gear ratio's of 1988-1991 .........

 

[vtecgsr952000]

the 5.0 is a great motor IMHO, but the tight 4.6 machining tolerances will keep it going longer........same reason hondas and toyotas run so long. fords quality is just recently caught up with the japs, and look how long the modular engines ae lasting. the 4.6 has been in the crown vic since 92 or 93 and has been shining in many other vehicles since. sorry, but any modular engine gets my vote!

 

[millhouse]

No Sir I meant 33mpg with the AC on....that was the best...thats on the 5.0 ...the 99 4.6 is geared different ..much higher ..... most V8 will get better milage with the AC on on the open road , the AC really doesnt slow up any decent V8 the windows being up improve the milage as there is no drag, ask any guys with older 5.0 stock set-ups and they will all say they got great mileage , it was the lazy gear ratio's of 1988-1991 .........

I'm having a discussion on this same topic in another thread.

Unless your idleing while going over niagra falls, your not getting 33mpg.

2.73 gears do help on the freeway without a doubt, but with a 5 speed...25-26mpg is going to be the limit for a fresh 302 engine in a mustang. An auto will most definatley get worse mpg than a manual 5-speed.