[Dubl10]

Okay I have had this question lay inside my head for awhile and I'm not all that technical etc.. But how does the new 05 GT match up to all the previous Mustang GT's. Is this definitely the fastest, better engine etc.. mustang (stock) than the previous models? If so, how come it's 4.6L and not 5.0L. Is the 5.0L mustangs in the past better? Are they faster?

Or is it because the 5.0L mustangs were 2-valve and the new mustang, the 4.6L is 3-valve? If that is even true, I'm not 100% sure on that.

Any thoughts? Was just curious about all that?

 

[Crazy001]

The 5.0 was a bit larger, but it was a much older engine. The 5.0 (302) was designed in the 60s, and doesn't have the power output of any of the 4.6s. The 5.0 in my friend's '89 Town Car only has 150 HP! True, it's not tuned for power, it's supposed to be quiet. The same car nowadays with the 4.6 has 240 HP, and is just as quiet. This is a bad example....hmmmm....


The latest mustangs with the 5.0 only had 225 HP, and that actually went down to 215 in '94 with the new body style. I've even heard that a '94 GT Vert is a 16 second car!

Yes, size DOES matter, but it's not everything. The 5.0 is a very old, archaic engine, regardless of size, while the 4.6 is a much more modern engine, which does almost everything better. :thumbup

 

[Stoenr]

take a 5.0 tbird vs next years 4.6 The 4.6 wins clearly. I assume same with the mustang.

 

[pcfrisch]

My 86 GT had a 5.0, rated 200 HP.
also a 82 GT 5.0 that I think was rated at 190 HP.

 

[Dubl10]

Thanks for all the replies, it surely makes sense!

 

[Gig4Fun]

Guys, something else to consider BESIDES the horsepower or torque is the ability of a car to get to a certain speed by design of the engine managment "system". These motors wind up fast with the computer control of the combustion environment..... and the superb contol of that transmission etc. etc. (many things in the mix so to speak).

So, NOT just power but how fast it revs when you tip the throttle.....

 

[rgensemer]

You may find it ironic but the 05 V6 is quicker than a stock 1990 5.0 Mustang V8!

 

[ran260gt]

You may find it ironic but the 05 V6 is quicker than a stock 1990 5.0 Mustang V8!

With a good driver , stock 5.0 LX MUSTANG`S could run mid 14`s or faster !Stock 05 V6 is not quicker then a 225hp 300lb/ft, 3200lb car !

 

[alfman9]

With a good driver , stock 5.0 LX MUSTANG`S could run mid 14`s or faster !Stock 05 V6 is not quicker then a 225hp 300lb/ft, 3200lb car !

Hey, that was exactly my first car cira 1990. It was bad to the bone.

 

[rgensemer]

With a good driver , stock 5.0 LX MUSTANG`S could run mid 14`s or faster !Stock 05 V6 is not quicker then a 225hp 300lb/ft, 3200lb car !

On paper, the two cars are very close. 0-60 in mid 6 second range, 1320 times in mid to high 14 second range. I'd say it would come down to the driver.

 

[ran260gt]

On paper, the two cars are very close. 0-60 in mid 6 second range, 1320 times in mid to high 14 second range. I'd say it would come down to the driver.

I hope your not talking about the 05 V6 as a mid 14 sec car STOCK !
If so, your car is a factory dud ! at 14.7 with mods !

 

[rgensemer]

I hope your not talking about the 05 V6 as a mid 14 sec car STOCK !
If so, your car is a factory dud ! at 14.7 with mods !

I apologize for not being clear. A stock 2005 will run around 14.9 - 15.1 depending on who did the testing. With the mods I made I was able to shave a few tenths off from stock. I think it's a stroke of engineering genius that Ford is able to offer a 4.0 V6 that can perform as well and in some cases outperform many older and even newer V8 Muscle Cars including the 5.0 Mustang.

 

[ran260gt]

If you want to call putting an Explorer engine in a Mustang Engineering Genius :so OK !
Yes the 05 V6 have good numbers in Stock form ! but a little more then 200hp out of a 4.0 is not that good !
Nissan Maxima has 265 out of a 3.5 ,and a Acura TL 3.2 has 270hp.
In my opinion ,the Mustang V6 should have around 250hp , it`s a large V6 it should have the power to match !
I think ford missed the mark on the V6 , thats just me.

 

[Lances03GT]

I like the v6 in my wifes 06.Alot better than the 3.8L they used to have.

 

[mustmg1]

Why care if it has less horse power than a Maxima?? Which one would you rather own?? The Maxima is also about 10,000. more than the V6! I now own a GT, Dodge came out with the Charger with 420 Horse Power. SO WHAT! I am not going to buy a Charger. A really nice car, way to go Dodge, but it is NOO Mustang! If Horse Power is the ony thing you look at when you buy a car, then look at a Charger. I love what they have done with the Mustang both V6 and V8.
Sorry, I have just heard so much about horse power that I think we loose sight of why we bought the Mustang. It's soooo coooool!!!! Oh well, enjoy your rides.

 

[kj_cinci]

Yes, we're all Stangers and we do expect some power to go with all that styling.

I don't know the TQ numbers for the Japs mentioned above but often they take out allot of HP at the engine with the loss of some TQ as the resoult and then correct it down the drivetrain, what is drive wheel HP on those Japs?

The smaller cylinder volumes we see nowdays sertainly have to do with better engine management (ie. computers, varibale timing, fuel injection, etc.) but I'm sure that emissions regulations too play it's part...?!?

 

[rgensemer]

If you want to call putting an Explorer engine in a Mustang Engineering Genius :so OK !
Yes the 05 V6 have good numbers in Stock form ! but a little more then 200hp out of a 4.0 is not that good !
Nissan Maxima has 265 out of a 3.5 ,and a Acura TL 3.2 has 270hp.
In my opinion ,the Mustang V6 should have around 250hp , it`s a large V6 it should have the power to match !
I think ford missed the mark on the V6 , thats just me.

You are absolutely correct and on the mark. I have not seen any performance stats on the cars you cite, but I'm sure they are close to the Mustang V6. You are also correct that Ford could get more power out of the 4.0. With the right mods and tuning it's good for 300+ Horsepower. But consider this. If Ford engineered the V6 to put out 260 or 270 HP, why would anyone spend 5 - 6k more for a 300HP V8? Not many would spend that kind of money for another 30 or 40 HP. Conversely, Ford could easily get another 50 - 60 HP out of the 4.6. Why is the 4.6 engine in the F150 only rated at 231HP, but 300HP in the GT? Hell, why didn't they just drop the 5.4 L V8 in the Stang (now that would be interesting)
I suspect a lot of this has to do with CAFE standards, but who knows. I'm really off topic so yes, the 5.0 was the king of the hill when it was around and there are many modded 5.0's out there that will hose a stock V6 or a stock GT. The fact remains though that we are talking bone stock and with that comparison the 2005 V6 is as quick as a STOCK 5.0. With the times you state, your car is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[NoSlow5oh]

You are absolutely correct and on the mark. I have not seen any performance stats on the cars you cite, but I'm sure they are close to the Mustang V6. You are also correct that Ford could get more power out of the 4.0. With the right mods and tuning it's good for 300+ Horsepower. But consider this. If Ford engineered the V6 to put out 260 or 270 HP, why would anyone spend 5 - 6k more for a 300HP V8? Not many would spend that kind of money for another 30 or 40 HP. Conversely, Ford could easily get another 50 - 60 HP out of the 4.6. Why is the 4.6 engine in the F150 only rated at 231HP, but 300HP in the GT? Hell, why didn't they just drop the 5.4 L V8 in the Stang (now that would be interesting)
I suspect a lot of this has to do with CAFE standards, but who knows. I'm really off topic so yes, the 5.0 was the king of the hill when it was around and there are many modded 5.0's out there that will hose a stock V6 or a stock GT. The fact remains though that we are talking bone stock and with that comparison the 2005 V6 is as quick as a STOCK 5.0. With the times you state, your car is the exception rather than the rule.

Unless you've ever heard of a bone stock V6 running a 13 sec. pass, then you should retract that statement.

 

[rgensemer]

Unless you've ever heard of a bone stock V6 running a 13 sec. pass, then you should retract that statement.

I don't know which statement you refer to. But I stand by what I've stated. See for yourself. I have never heard of a bone stock 5.0 running anywhere near the 13's or even breaking out of the 14's.
http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html