very high miles...5.0 vs 4.6

M

mcompton

New Member

Aug 17, 2004

2

0

0

Aug 18, 2004

#1

• Aug 18, 2004

• #1

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

New Member

Nov 24, 2003

636

0

0

West Plains, MO

Aug 18, 2004

#2

• Aug 18, 2004

• #2

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

Active Member

Dec 23, 2002

1,631

1

38

Elwood, IN

Aug 18, 2004

#3

• Aug 18, 2004

• #3

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

New Member

Jul 6, 2004

174

0

0

Lubbock, Texas

Aug 18, 2004

#4

• Aug 18, 2004

• #4

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

New Member

Jul 17, 2003

422

0

0

Clint. Twp, Michigan

Aug 18, 2004

#5

• Aug 18, 2004

• #5

like i said in the tech forum 4.6 imo

 

BABstangV6

Smater than the average bear!

Apr 3, 2003

595

0

0

Rock Hill, SC

Aug 18, 2004

#6

• Aug 18, 2004

• #6

For MPG get a 99 manual V6.

Yes Sir!

 

Ghostface

Member

Jan 11, 2004

226

0

17

Aug 18, 2004

#7

• Aug 18, 2004

• #7

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

 

BABstangV6

Smater than the average bear!

Apr 3, 2003

595

0

0

Rock Hill, SC

Aug 18, 2004

#8

• Aug 18, 2004

• #8

Ghostface said:

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

Click to expand...

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

New Member

Sep 2, 2003

127

0

0

Palm Harbor, FL

Aug 18, 2004

#9

• Aug 18, 2004

• #9

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

New Member

Nov 24, 2003

636

0

0

West Plains, MO

Aug 19, 2004

#10

• Aug 19, 2004

• #10

BABstangV6 said:

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.

Click to expand...

What cats?

 

J

johnnyvista

New Member

Jan 15, 2004

123

0

0

Aug 19, 2004

#11

• Aug 19, 2004

• #11

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

 

S

smokin 04

New Member

Feb 2, 2004

94

0

0

TWO HARBORS, MN

Aug 19, 2004

#12

• Aug 19, 2004

• #12

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

 

T

TripleBlk

Member

Nov 12, 2002

312

3

19

Cape Canaveral FL

Aug 19, 2004

#13

• Aug 19, 2004

• #13

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 .

 

Reactions: Gng4169

C

crazystang05

New Member

Jun 21, 2004

172

0

0

Aug 19, 2004

#14

• Aug 19, 2004

• #14

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

 

J

johnnyboy1111

New Member

Apr 27, 2004

84

0

0

Aug 20, 2004

#15

• Aug 20, 2004

• #15

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

Founding Member

May 14, 2002

1,985

0

46

Simpsonville, SC

Aug 20, 2004

#16

• Aug 20, 2004

• #16

johnnyboy1111 said:

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....

Click to expand...

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

 

J

johnnyboy1111

New Member

Apr 27, 2004

84

0

0

Aug 20, 2004

#17

• Aug 20, 2004

• #17

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 .........

 

V

vtecgsr952000

New Member

Jul 11, 2004

23

0

0

Aug 20, 2004

#18

• Aug 20, 2004

• #18

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

Founding Member

May 14, 2002

1,985

0

46

Simpsonville, SC

Aug 20, 2004

#19

• Aug 20, 2004

• #19

johnnyboy1111 said:

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 .........

Click to expand...

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.