Go Back   Ford Mustang Forums > Mustang > 4.6 Mustang > 4.6L Talk

Welcome to our Mustang forums where Mustangers come together to hang out, discuss and enjoy their favorite Mustang hobby with fellow Mustang enthusiasts. We invite everyone to read, post, and enjoy our Mustang forum as well as the many other sections of our site.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest. By joining our community you gain access to post topics, communicate with members, upload your photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free so why wait, join our Mustang community today! If you have any problems with registration or your account login, please contact support.


Reply   Post New Thread
Unread 09-18-2001   #1 (permalink)
Guest


Posts: n/a Threads:
Default 5.0 vs 4.6

What is faster, an 88 5.0 or a 97 4.6? stock btw
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Unread 09-18-2001   #2 (permalink)
Guest


Posts: n/a Threads:
Default Re: 5.0 vs 4.6

Just FYI, I raced a 4.6L the other day in my '86 5.0, and beat him. The only mods I have are subframes, cold air kit, K&N filter, and underdrive pulleys. He was probably close, if not stock as well. But that's just me... Hope this helps.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 09-18-2001   #3 (permalink)
Guest


Posts: n/a Threads:
Default Re: 5.0 vs 4.6

Well, the 88 Mustang is lighter than the 97, I'm assuming they both have 5 speeds, the 88 5.0 makes 225 HP, and 300 ft/lbs. of torque, the 97 4.6L makes 215 HP, and 290 ft/lbs. of torque, so the 97 is heavier and has slightly less power, so if both had good drivers than the 88 5.0 would be faster.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 03-18-2002   #4 (permalink)
Guest


Posts: n/a Threads:
Default Re: 5.0 vs 4.6

i have a 97 gt stock and ive blown away any year mustang (stock)exect cobra models as so on.........
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 03-19-2002   #5 (permalink)
Guest


Posts: n/a Threads:
Default Re: 5.0 vs 4.6

96-98 GT's are the slowest GT's made in the modern era. The 87-88's were the fastest outside the 99+ GT's.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 03-28-2002   #6 (permalink)
Guest


Posts: n/a Threads:
Default 5.0 vs. 4.6 ?

i am in the market for a '94-'97 mustang gt, and i am having a hard time determining whether i should go with the 5.0 or the 4.6. what do you all think?
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 03-29-2002   #7 (permalink)
Guest


Posts: n/a Threads:
Default Re: 5.0 vs. 4.6 ?

Hello,
I have a 1995 GT and I love it. Theres nothing like lining up to a same year camaro and playin the game. 5.0's are going to be collectible one day so if you wanna keep it for a good long while.... The Mod Motor people rave about them, The overhead cam does seem like a great idea but i dont experience with em, of course 290 HP out the box is tempting. not as many performance parts as there are for the 5.0 tho. If you do decide 4.6, i'd recommend 99 and up, unless you get a 96-98 with enough $$ left over to get '99 heads. that was their problem.
Sorry for being so long winded...
Hope This Helps
~*Adam*~
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 03-30-2002   #8 (permalink)
Guest


Posts: n/a Threads:
Default Re: 5.0 vs. 4.6 ?

For those years, the 5.0 would be my choice.

Parts price aside, the 5.0 is easy to work on, theres tons of knowledge everywhere, and thats a +.
Just add a set of heads and intake and you are in the 99-present HP league.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 04-01-2002   #9 (permalink)
Guest


Posts: n/a Threads:
Default Re: 5.0 vs 4.6

There are late 98's that had a modification that eliminated the small wall obstructing the intake valve (prior to the PI heads) on the 99+ models and they are freakishly fast and surprise alot of people how they run.My buddy bought one, it was purchased in Jan.99 so it was one of the last 98's produced and it ran low 14's right off the lot.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 04-03-2002   #10 (permalink)
Guest


Posts: n/a Threads:
Default Re: 5.0 vs. 4.6 ?

I agree that unless you have the funds to make a 96-98 4.6L GT fast, then you would be better off with the 94-95 GT which are eqiupped with the 5.0, But if you can get a hold of a 96-98 Cobra, then that would be the better choice in my opinion, they usually make 260-270 HP to the wheels stock, and with mild 9 psi blowers they reach power levels of 400+ and they love to rev. The downside with Cobras is that they are a little more expensive to buy, and the parts cost a little bit more also.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 04-16-2002   #11 (permalink)
Quick4.6 is offline Made Member


Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 849 Threads: 11
 Quick4.6's Country Flag  View Quick4.6's 10 photos
Baltimore   Maryland
Quick4.6 is on a distinguished road
Default

A race between a 94-95 and a 96-98 would be a drivers race. I have a '98 GT and I have yet to lose to an SN95 5.0.
I used to smoke my buddy's '91 GT until he swapped his AOD to a T5, but the fox bodies are lighter anyway.
The 96-98s will run even with the SN95 5.0s, bottom line.
I've run a best e/t of 14.51 and a trap of 96.9 with just a K&N, Mac Cat Pipe, and Flowmasters on the stock 2.73s with a 2.3 60ft. With more traction I hope to significantly lower these times.
__________________
SOLD: PI Headed '98 GT - 248rwhp/306rwtq - 13.88@101.9 (2.0 60ft 3300+ DA)

'11 TDI Sportwagen - 50 mpg Daily Driver - Not Quick.
Quick4.6 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 04-16-2002   #12 (permalink)
Quick4.6 is offline Made Member


Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 849 Threads: 11
 Quick4.6's Country Flag  View Quick4.6's 10 photos
Baltimore   Maryland
Quick4.6 is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Re: 5.0 vs 4.6

Quote:
Originally posted by SMACKDWN46
There are late 98's that had a modification that eliminated the small wall obstructing the intake valve (prior to the PI heads) on the 99+ models and they are freakishly fast and surprise alot of people how they run.My buddy bought one, it was purchased in Jan.99 so it was one of the last 98's produced and it ran low 14's right off the lot.
Is there an article on this anywhere? Where did you hear of this?
__________________
SOLD: PI Headed '98 GT - 248rwhp/306rwtq - 13.88@101.9 (2.0 60ft 3300+ DA)

'11 TDI Sportwagen - 50 mpg Daily Driver - Not Quick.
Quick4.6 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 02-06-2008   #13 (permalink)
shoyoas is offline Rookie


Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6 Threads: 0
 shoyoas's Country Flag
Phx   Arizona
shoyoas is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ;394
Well, the 88 Mustang is lighter than the 97, I'm assuming they both have 5 speeds, the 88 5.0 makes 225 HP, and 300 ft/lbs. of torque, the 97 4.6L makes 215 HP, and 290 ft/lbs. of torque, so the 97 is heavier and has slightly less power, so if both had good drivers than the 88 5.0 would be faster.
Didn't Ford change the way they "rated" the engine horsepower in 89 or 90? It made the then 225hp 302's only rate at 215hp with no changes to the engine. So the 88 5.0 may have had the same hp as the 97 4.6 with a new "method" of calculating hp.

Either way the 88 is lighter so...

My question for anyone is: is the difference in price for building a 4.6 ALOT higher than building a 5.0? I'm about to purchase either a 5.0/SN95, 4.6/SN95 or a Fox/5.0

My only other options within 3500 bucks are the f-bodied lt1 cars. But i've been a stang dude all my life so that would suck. Just have a need for speed!
shoyoas is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 02-06-2008   #14 (permalink)
shoyoas is offline Rookie


Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6 Threads: 0
 shoyoas's Country Flag
Phx   Arizona
shoyoas is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ;397
There are late 98's that had a modification that eliminated the small wall obstructing the intake valve (prior to the PI heads) on the 99+ models and they are freakishly fast and surprise alot of people how they run.My buddy bought one, it was purchased in Jan.99 so it was one of the last 98's produced and it ran low 14's right off the lot.

If this is the case, when they changed the design they should've also changed to a different p/n for these heads. Get the factory part number and the heads can be ordered/found easily.
shoyoas is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 02-06-2008   #15 (permalink)
Red02GT is offline Made Member

4.6L Member


Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 212 Threads: 16
 Red02GT's Country Flag
Massachusetts
Red02GT is on a distinguished road
Default

I had a 90 lx and was told they used a milder cam ,more emissions friendly with a better idle .my friend had a 87 gt and used to run the quarter in 13.4 the only mods were dynomax mufflers and a home made ram air set up stock 3.08 gears My other friends 87 lx ran 12.8 with 3.55 gears off road . stock mufflers and mickey thompsom drag radials , the floorboards under the drivers seat split due to stress from launching it
Red02GT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply   Post New Thread



Thread Tools



Mustang Photos
Mustang Links    Top Sites    RSS    Link To Us    Add to Favorites    Archive    Terms of Use    Site Rules    Privacy    Contact    Sponsors    Advertise   
AllFordMustangs is not affiliated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company. ©Copyright 2002-2011 All Auto Enthusiasts Network

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