I'm ready to see the data that supports these two motors produce torque
curves that are that close
As always ... I'm keeping an open mind
But
I wanna see how this is possible Mr. David
Grady
which is faster??
- Thread starter umpalumpa7777
- Start date
I'm ready to see the data that supports these two motors produce torque
curves that are that close
As always ... I'm keeping an open mind
But
I wanna see how this is possible Mr. David
Grady
live in bridge city work in harvey.......mine is a 94......dont much care for the 4.6
unless you gonna run boost or spray it you'd be hard presed to get much out of it...5.0 on the other hand you can make a nice performer for a decent price....just my 2c...........
GTA_V6_Mustang
Active Member
I'm ready to see the data that supports these two motors produce torque
curves that are that close
As always ... I'm keeping an open mind
But
I wanna see how this is possible Mr. David
Grady
+2
It is in one of my "mustang books". I want to say it was peak torque at 3400 RPM for the 5.0L and peak torque for the 4.6L was 3500 RPM
It could be 3500 vs. 3600 RPM. But I know it was a 100 RPM difference.
This is PEAK torque
Torque has never been an issue with me. You are just there for a second, and then you are in the mid-upper regions where you race.
It could be 3500 vs. 3600 RPM. But I know it was a 100 RPM difference.This is PEAK torque
Torque has never been an issue with me. You are just there for a second, and then you are in the mid-upper regions where you race.
GTA_V6_Mustang
Active Member
It is in one of my "mustang books". I want to say it was peak torque at 3400 RPM for the 5.0L and peak torque for the 4.6L was 3500 RPM
This is PEAK torque
Torque has never been an issue with me. You are just there for a second, and then you are in the mid-upper regions where you race.
to each his own.
I have a fix for the 4.6's lack of low end torque
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=718631
BTW, I should have an update for that thread in the next month or two.
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=718631
BTW, I should have an update for that thread in the next month or two.
GTA_V6_Mustang
Active Member
I have a fix for the 4.6's lack of low end torque
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=718631
BTW, I should have an update for that thread in the next month or two.
I remember reading that when u first posted it. Hows that going?
He's put over 1000 miles on it with no problems. He got the x-pipe installed, but we still haven't installed the cams yet. The plan is install them as soon as the weather gets a little nicer, then he'll put it on the dyno shortly after that.
He just installed some new rims last week.
GTA_V6_Mustang
Active Member
He's put over 1000 miles on it with no problems. He got the x-pipe installed, but we still haven't installed the cams yet. The plan is install them as soon as the weather gets a little nicer, then he'll put it on the dyno shortly after that.
He just installed some new rims last week.
Talk about desperate need for a drop, lol.
if you want to see a 95 mustang win check out my video on youtube, type in 1995 mustang gt vs 1994 z28 camaro. my buddie's camaro had a shift kit and stall on his, he said there was some ignition and headwork done, anyway he got his ass waxed.
my mods are 355 gear, 76 c&l maf, flowmasters, h pipes, mac 1 5/8 shorties, underdrive pulleys, 65mm throttle body, 95 cobra intake, ignition box with blaster coil, 5 speed conversion, king cobra clutch, short throw shifter. i ran a 14.1 @99mph, it was about a week or two after i did the t5 swap and i was not all that used to launching it.:Track:
my mods are 355 gear, 76 c&l maf, flowmasters, h pipes, mac 1 5/8 shorties, underdrive pulleys, 65mm throttle body, 95 cobra intake, ignition box with blaster coil, 5 speed conversion, king cobra clutch, short throw shifter. i ran a 14.1 @99mph, it was about a week or two after i did the t5 swap and i was not all that used to launching it.:Track:
blksn955.o
Founding Member
A buddy of mine had a bone stock 87 GT hatch in 2000. He got it from his mom since she never drove it anymore. It still had the air silencer and after we ran it at the track we found a whole roll of paper towels stuffed between the air filter and air box.
Another buddy bought a 2000 GT in 2000. Both went to the track. IIRC the 87 went 13.9 at like 99 or 100 and the 2000 went 13.9 at 100 or 101. With very sim. 60ft times (2.1 range). On the street from a 30 roll the 87 pulled a car on the 2000 (this one was a great runner...just great).
My 94 went high 14's stock...and really I think most of the weakness with these 94-95 5.0 cars vs. the fox is the eec right off the batt. The weight is really not that much more than the 93 hatch with a passanger. With some mods they still respond very well for the amount done and enjoy the same great aftermarket support all 5.0's do at a very resonable price.
As far as price getting cheaper for the 5.0. The beat up/rough ones are getting cheaper but it seems if the mustang has a 5.0 and looks clean they are getting good money still. I honestly think the days of the 5.0 really dropping in value are done for the most part and they have a very die hard fallowing. Its not like the DB's at Barrett Jackson will be driving the value up like they do but you dont really see many clean fox's or sn95 5.0's for less than 4-5k (excluding a used car lot).
Another buddy bought a 2000 GT in 2000. Both went to the track. IIRC the 87 went 13.9 at like 99 or 100 and the 2000 went 13.9 at 100 or 101. With very sim. 60ft times (2.1 range). On the street from a 30 roll the 87 pulled a car on the 2000 (this one was a great runner...just great).
My 94 went high 14's stock...and really I think most of the weakness with these 94-95 5.0 cars vs. the fox is the eec right off the batt. The weight is really not that much more than the 93 hatch with a passanger. With some mods they still respond very well for the amount done and enjoy the same great aftermarket support all 5.0's do at a very resonable price.
As far as price getting cheaper for the 5.0. The beat up/rough ones are getting cheaper but it seems if the mustang has a 5.0 and looks clean they are getting good money still. I honestly think the days of the 5.0 really dropping in value are done for the most part and they have a very die hard fallowing. Its not like the DB's at Barrett Jackson will be driving the value up like they do but you dont really see many clean fox's or sn95 5.0's for less than 4-5k (excluding a used car lot).
Very simple answer. Do the same mods to the 5.0 as the 4.6, neon, srt, sti,wrx,supra .. The 5.0 will WIN by a M I L E - hands down.
The stocker 5.0 has displacement but is choked out by emissions (puts out less emissions than my inline-6 04' BMW), small heads, restrictive intake, 4 restrictive converters, no power adder..etc..
Displacement rules. Period. End of story.
The stocker 5.0 has displacement but is choked out by emissions (puts out less emissions than my inline-6 04' BMW), small heads, restrictive intake, 4 restrictive converters, no power adder..etc..
Displacement rules. Period. End of story.
MysteryMachine
Active Member
Stock for stock, showroom for showroom, all 4.6L are faster than a stock 5.0 HO. The newer they are, the harder they beat the stock 5.0L.
However, the '96-'98 are a drivers race with them. The '98s are actually very slightly faster. I have did a test with each one stock from a 5 mph roll to eliminate the launch factor. The '98 started pulling instantly.
I have no problems with torque in either of the 4.6L I have owned or drove. It makes the same torque 100 RPM higher.
The 4.6L is very comparable to a 5.0L as far as the top-end, except for some of head bolt torquing, in car. The camshafts are easy, if you have did it once before.
I have did a h/c/i swap on both a 5.0 and 4.6. It is all in what you are used to. I think they both have their place
That's peak...I think Grady's graph showed low end TQ not peak. Meaning the 5.0 has more throughout the lower RPM band aside from peak.
