I'm looking for a car with good looks, and better gas mileage then my '71 351c coupe. So I wanted to know if these 4.6l are decent engines, what kind of performance you can get out of them, or if I would be better off getting a 5.0l. Any input will be appreciated, the more the merrier. Thanks in advance.

I've had my 95 GT for three years now and like it. I'm glad I went for the 95 rather than the 96-98 just because parts are so much cheaper (for the engine at least). The exhaust was roughly the same as what you would pay for 96 parts. The 5.0 is a much more reliable engine, and the gas mileage isn't horrible. With all my basic bolt-ons, and 3.73's I get about 23-24 on the highway, and about 17-18 around town. Hope this helped!

Very helpful Dunny, thanks for the help, I'll see if i can find a 94-95 5.0 liter out here in oregon.

I have had both a 95 and 96. 94 -98 are the best looking body. As far as the motor go both are very strong motors and reliable.The thing about the 94-95 5.0 is the bottom end is not forged witch is ok as long as you dont want go F/I.The 4.6 bottom end can handle up to 10-12 pounds of boost stock. And for parts the aftermarket heads for the 4.6 cost a little more then the 5.0. In less you go the pi route. Cams for the 4.6 are bit more to but as far as the rest of the engine parts they are about the same.

If you want an SN95 and not a new-edge (99-04) then Id go with the 5.0 for the fact that it makes similar HP for half the price of parts for 96-98 mustangs.

But dont get me wrong, I love my 96.

Thanks guys, great advice.

I rather have the 99+ Style... 210Hp stock really?? The thing runs 15s My sisters b.f slow 2012 si can do that.. o.0 And then the amazing slow numbers of 160hp on a stock dyno for an auto. And I hate that body style its so ugly...


Sources: My personal opinion......

gtfo..........................

lolol someones mad...


It's true. There slow

No. Your post is unclear and retarded. I don't care what your opinion is. I just don't know what you're talking about.