4.6 Vs 5.0 GT Difference - Ford Mustang Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 59 (permalink) Old 01-29-2012
shellenberger
Guest
 
shellenberger's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a
4.6 Vs 5.0 GT Difference

For year's i enjoyed my 2006 GT and felt that i had plenty of horsepower for my driving needs. Because of some electrical problems that was going to be a ***** to diagnose and repair i decided to sell her and but a 2012 GT.

This past weekend, we went to go visit my father in law on the coastline of California. Anybody that knows the pacific coast highway going north of Santa Rosa knows there is some backroad heaven for opening her up. I came up on 4 car's in front of me doing around 60, looked for my opening and dropped her down in 4th and floored it. Before i knew it, i was around all 4 and a quick glance down showed i was doing around 110. This all happened right now!

Anybody that says the difference between the 4.6 and the 5.0 is just a "little bit" is out of their head. This sucker is fast!
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 59 (permalink) Old 01-29-2012
PONY Member
 
Jeepis's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Bergen
Posts: 524
 
Both are great motors but I am partial to the new 5.0

Me: 2014 GT Track Pack
Wife: 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee
Jeepis is offline  
post #3 of 59 (permalink) Old 01-29-2012
Apprentice
 
Skunk v5.0's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Location: Poplar Grove
Posts: 77
 
I'm going to get thrashed for this statement...I would not be caught dead driving the 4.6 version of the mustang. 14 second 1/4 miles from a muscle car is WEAK!
Skunk v5.0 is offline  
post #4 of 59 (permalink) Old 01-29-2012
Apprentice
 
8borerifle's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 57
 
I traded a 2010 GT 5 speed 3.73 gear base for a premium 2012 auto 5.0. Believe me, there is no comparison! The 2012 pulls MUCH harder. I drove a friends 2007 GT with a KB blower and a total of 14,000.00 in upgrades and my 2012 feels stronger. He has contacted KB numerous times to get it to run correctly. I feel something is definitly wrong with his car as I expected it to feel much quicker. Much happier with the 2012 as a bad left leg made the auto necessary. I am 64 years old and drove a ton of the 60's muscle cars. Stock none of them would beat the 5.0 and I am talking Hemi's, 440 six packs, 455 Buick GS, tri-power GTO's and 396 375HP Camaro!
8borerifle is offline  
post #5 of 59 (permalink) Old 01-29-2012
PONY Member
 
Deezul's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Location: Ma
Posts: 686
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skunk v5.0 View Post
I'm going to get thrashed for this statement...I would not be caught dead driving the 4.6 version of the mustang. 14 second 1/4 miles from a muscle car is WEAK!
Isn't even the 6 in the 13s?

2012 Black MCA, HID package, Steeda splitter, Airaid cold air intake, AM Hood struts, FRPP Sport axle back, Soon : matching lower grille, MMD tailight surrounds and tint.
Deezul is offline  
post #6 of 59 (permalink) Old 01-29-2012
Apprentice
 
bucolic's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 72
 
Ford's new 5.0 'Coyote' engine is fantastic. It's what put the Mustang on the map for me. Handling is the other thing that Ford got right with the new (2011 and older...) Mustang.

I guess I feel like part of a brotherhood with this car...but I really only would want to own the newer cars.

BTW, who can we thank from Ford for finally making a true performance product? I'm just glad they got their act together...the new Ecoboost V6, SHO, Focus ST (eventually) are all great cars, IMO.
bucolic is offline  
post #7 of 59 (permalink) Old 01-29-2012
Apprentice
S197 Member
 
Black Fire's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2011
Location: Detroit
Posts: 219
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skunk v5.0 View Post
I'm going to get thrashed for this statement...I would not be caught dead driving the 4.6 version of the mustang. 14 second 1/4 miles from a MODERN muscle car is WEAK!
Fixed
The average `60's Muscle Car ran in the 14's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8borerifle View Post
I am 64 years old and drove a ton of the 60's muscle cars. Stock none of them would beat the 5.0 and I am talking Hemi's, 440 six packs, 455 Buick GS, tri-power GTO's and 396 375HP Camaro!
True statement
I'm only 43 and been into Muscle cars both Modern and classic for all of my adult life. I've either raced against or driven several Classic Muscle cars and they are in no way as quick as the modern ones. In my book you can't appreciate where we are now without understanding where it all came from. Old Muscle is Raw new Muscle is Refined, but they both can make you smile.

Craig
2012 GT 300A Lava Red Metallic, Brembo's, 3.73's, Build date 6/17/11
372 RWHP, 354 RWTQ ; GT500 AB's, MGW
Black Fire is offline  
post #8 of 59 (permalink) Old 01-29-2012
GLOBAL MODERATOR
5.0L Member
S197 Member
 
slorydn1's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Location: New Bern
Posts: 5,993
                 
Garage
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Fire View Post
Fixed
The average `60's Muscle Car ran in the 14's.



True statement
I'm only 43 and been into Muscle cars both Modern and classic for all of my adult life. I've either raced against or driven several Classic Muscle cars and they are in no way as quick as the modern ones. In my book you can't appreciate where we are now without understanding where it all came from. Old Muscle is Raw new Muscle is Refined, but they both can make you smile.
Amen. I drove my brothers 06 GT when it was new. It felt quick then. My car would
blow it up.

Still gotta love the old iron, though. I would still love to get my hands on an LS6 Chevelle, or a GT500 KR from back in the day. How about a Road Runner or Super Bee? Yeah, I may torch 'em with my 5.0, but they would still look and sound killer.


Hers:2012 Mustang GT Premium,6M,Kona Blue Exterior/Charcoal Interior, 400A, HID/Security Pkg ,Comfort Pkg.
His: 2014 Mustang GT Premium,6M,Sterling Gray Exterior/Charcoal Interior,400A, Reverse Sensing/Security Pkg, Comfort Pkg SMR# 3635
See both histories in New Garage
AFM GLOBAL MODERATOR
slorydn1 is offline  
post #9 of 59 (permalink) Old 01-29-2012
PONY Member
5.0L Member
S197 Member
 
jdnull68's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Location: Carterville
Posts: 280
 
Another thing to remember is that those older cars were fast for their time, but most had pitiful handling and braking characteristics. Any new muscle car would run laps around the old cars. But I grew up with them and still love them! It would be a shame to have to smoke an old camaro or GTO (almost!).

I've spent almost every dollar I've ever made on FAST cars, COLD beer, and HOT women. The rest, I just WASTED! 2011 GT auto, Race Red w/ white C-stripes/Airaid/BAMA/Steeda cat-delete/Heartthrob 3" catback & H-pipe/Hushpowers/UPR CA's/FRPP 3.55's & diff cover/Tint/billet grilles/CDC chin spoiler/GT500wing & valance/P.A. trans pan/ARP wheel studs/AMR 18x9/10. RACEDAY: RaceStars w/big n littles. 1/8 mi. ET- 7.63.

jdnull68 is offline  
GT Member
 
bluebyu12's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 2,007
 
I can pull on mildly modded 4.6 GT's... 5.0's pull nicely on me, so they are quick no doubt.

The powerband on these new motors though is up there. You will notice the 4.6 will start falling on its face in the upper RPM range.

Everytime I raced a 4.6 GT s197 at the track they would get me out of the hole, but once i was up top in my power band I would pull on them. The 5.0 works the same way. Once vtec kicks in your outta there lol

Grabber Blue 2012 V6 6-Speed Procharger P-1SC-1 @ 8psi tuned by Mustang Magic, Tial-Q BOV 3.55 Gears, Spec flywheel, exedy stage-3 clutch, 4in Alum. Driveshaft, Lethal Off-Road X, 12" resonators, 2.5" exhaust all the way back, QTP electric cutouts, GT500 Axlebacks, Barton Shifter, FRPP Strut tower bar, J&M LCA's, Steeda UCA ,CHE adj. panhard bar, FRPP P-Springs...lots of show mods
409/335 on a 98 degree day -- 12.5@113mph - Car has 11's in it!
bluebyu12 is offline  
2006GTfan
Guest
 
2006GTfan's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a
Also the muscle cars and their performance times back then, I wonder what the numbers would be with modern tires.
GT Member
 
burke985's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Slidell
Posts: 1,408
 
I had an 03gt slightly modified with 3.73 gears ,CAI, Predator Tune , Off road X with series 40 Flows and my new GT 5.0 would run that car over , these new 5.0's are incredible and I love it

12 GT , TSW Nurb 19", JBA Axel-Backs,Roush TVS Stage 3,Kenne Belle BAP,JPC Over Axel Pipes ,MagnaFlow Tru-X O/R Xpipe, 3:31's, Brembo Package ,Steeda Tri-Ax / Bracket, Roush Billet LCA's, Steeda Sport springs, Steeda pro-action shock/strut with HD mounts,Steeda adj. pan hard bar,Steeda LCA re-location brackets, Steeda Adj UCA and Bracket, JHR Clutch Line, Shaftmasters 1-piece DS, Boss Oil Cooler, SOS Dual pillar, Roush Boost Gauge, Aeroforce Interceptor

622 whp and 545 wtq @ 8.5psi
AED Tune = Best mod of all
burke985 is offline  
BOSS Member
 
Thereaper's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: Mobile
Posts: 3,638
 
I had my 2007 GT at the dealer for a tire rotation last year and I test drove a new 2011 5.0. I felt it would be better to drive the 5.0 home and I'm still driving it.

Black 2014 GT Premium BBP 6R80
Thereaper is offline  
GT Member
 
mallen's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Location: salt lake city
Posts: 1,103
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8borerifle View Post
I traded a 2010 GT 5 speed 3.73 gear base for a premium 2012 auto 5.0. Believe me, there is no comparison! The 2012 pulls MUCH harder. I drove a friends 2007 GT with a KB blower and a total of 14,000.00 in upgrades and my 2012 feels stronger. He has contacted KB numerous times to get it to run correctly. I feel something is definitly wrong with his car as I expected it to feel much quicker. Much happier with the 2012 as a bad left leg made the auto necessary. I am 64 years old and drove a ton of the 60's muscle cars. Stock none of them would beat the 5.0 and I am talking Hemi's, 440 six packs, 455 Buick GS, tri-power GTO's and 396 375HP Camaro!
The thing is,those HP numbers on those old cars are misleading. Many people attribute emissions laws and all the changes and equipment they required with reducing horsepower drastically,and to a point that is correct,but its not the whole story. As an example,consider the 500cubic inch Cadillac V8. 1n 1970 it was rated at 400HP. Thats SAE gross HP. In 1971 they dropped the compression ratio from 10.1 to 8.5:1. In the old system,its horsepower dropped from 400 to 365. Thats a significant difference but around that time something else was happening. The way the auto industry was required to report horsepower changed. Back in the day,they would make a specially built engine with crazy clearances and strip it of all its accessories including the water pump. They would take that engine,bolt it to the engine dyno and see how much power they could squeeze out of it before it self destructed. That number they read off the engine dyno just before a rod went flying through the bl235ock was then sent to marketing and printed on all the ads and brochures. That changed around that time. Under the new system they have to run in a similar configuration to whats going to be in a actual car. Under the new system,that 365 horsepower motor put out 235 HP. Thats quite a hit and most people attribute it all to emissions equipment.

What Im getting at is,our cars put out 400HP under the new system. Thats quite a bit more than a car that puts out 400HP under the old system. The V6 that Ford is using in Mustangs puts out far more than that. In fact,MOST modern V6 engines put out vastly more power than the largest V8 engines of old put out when you take into account the different rating systems.
mallen is offline  
GLOBAL MODERATOR
5.0L Member
S197 Member
 
slorydn1's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Location: New Bern
Posts: 5,993
                 
Garage
Thanks Mallen. I have often wondered what the difference was between the gross and net numbers. I guess I kinda figured they would be more similar to what we do now with the advertised crank hp and the rwhp on a chassis dyno. Guess I would have been WAAAY off, huh?

I wonder what our 412 hp equates to in 1969 gross numbers. Sounds like it would be around 500 or so?


Hers:2012 Mustang GT Premium,6M,Kona Blue Exterior/Charcoal Interior, 400A, HID/Security Pkg ,Comfort Pkg.
His: 2014 Mustang GT Premium,6M,Sterling Gray Exterior/Charcoal Interior,400A, Reverse Sensing/Security Pkg, Comfort Pkg SMR# 3635
See both histories in New Garage
AFM GLOBAL MODERATOR
slorydn1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183