5.0 vs 4.6

Discussion in '1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-' started by guitarpnk99, Dec 3, 2007.

  1. haha x2
  2. Doesn't even take an import guy for that. A 4.6 makes more power stock than a 5.0, there's your technology at work.
  3. but then look at it this way. how many 4cylinders run 4s in the 1/4 mile?

    Dont worry ill wait:D

    yes technology can somewhat close the gap but then once u really start throwing money at the 4.6 u pull right on back from those 4cylinders. there really is no replacement for displacement. yes some say turbos are the answer for that but ok using that logic if i add a turbo to a bigger displacement car that means im adding even more displacement. Right?lol
  4. If thats how you wanna compare then do it fairly....you can't compare a stroked and poked 302 (now a 347) to a stock displacement 281...lets compare it to a stroked and poked 281 which would be a 324 topped with some 4V heads and your turbos should easily produce 1000+ rwhp....
  5. Stock VS stock, the 4.6L is easy to work on as well, I would have to split that down the middle

    I've heard 5.0 guys compare the rebuilds on 5.0's vs 4.6's and they come out the same both having easy and hart points with them
  6. if you are going with just bolt ons(exhaust, gears, tuning) the pi 2v is where its at. if you are going with a 300+rwhp NA car, then the 302 based motor is where you need to be.

    now, if you are going fi and want less than 500rwhp, the 302 is the one. If you want 500+ for cheaper, the 4.6 is the way to go.

    those 2k+ bare blocks for big power you have to buy for the 302s are a big budget eater from the get go.
  7. There was a good article in the premier issue of 'Ford Builder' magazine - March 2005 staging this argument, 4.6 vs. 5.0. They broke down each component, block, intake, etc...
    I'm not sure you'll find the article online, but I'm sure back issues are available - www.fordbuilder.com
  8. Site wont work for me.
  9. I know you're not talking about '96.:shrug:
    Cause there's technology taking a dump.
  10. why? it makes the same stock power as the 5.0L before it on less displacement. Then in 99 you have the same less displacement making a good amount more power, then with the mach 1 and the s-197 you have a lot more power on the same less displacement.

    If you took my engine and then had redesigned and it came out as .4L smaller and still made the same power i'd be impressed. Then if you continued to make more and more power on that engine i'd be more impressed (although still a lil' ****ed off) - as many 5.0 owners still are.
  11. BMW 5.0=500hp>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  12. As pointed out by CobraRed_96_GT that year's GT still produced the same amount of power as a 5.0 with less displacement. 1996 was also the debut for the DOHC Cobra with 80+ more HP than a stock 5.0 with the same 4.6L engine. I fail to see this dump you say technology took. :)

  13. You all are talking like it's the 5.0's shortcomings that caused the lower hp numbers. The fact is that a '96 GT making the same power as a '95 GT just shows how it was always Ford's fault for not developing the 5.0 more.
    The roller 5.0 was used in Mustangs for years, but with it's dominance over Camaro in the 80's and early 90's there was no need to develop the 5.0 too much. But as soon as the Camaro became a contender, the pressuire was on to at least compete, and most people thought a new engine in the new bodystyle was the answer.

    The GT40P cylinder head from the later Explorers is just a glimpse of the possibilities of what Ford could've developed if they had kept the 5.0 in the Mustang. Instead, they switched to mod motors for the same hp numbers.

    I realize 4.6es now make same/more power. I'm not mad. They're NEWER so they SHOULD make more power. But that's the sad thing about the non-PI 4.6es. Newer engine, same hp numbers.
  14. i loved my 2v gt, but for an engine with smaller displacement it sure takes up a lot more space than my 5.0
  15. i fail to see an argument here (no offense at all). Your saying they could have gone just as far with the 5.0 using different heads. And i assume you'd mention cam too for an improvement over stock. Well they DID do this, just instead to the OHC engine and by replacing it with PI heads and later tubleport 4V heads as well. And these cars still get 20-22mpg without any lope at idle with complete streetability - with potential left in changing out cams and other things. If you did the same to a 5.0 IMO a lot less people would buy it due to the mileage and less streetability.
  16. So how is it that people were still buying 350ci. Corvettes in 2004? :shrug: Are Ford engineers just incompetent compared to GM engineers?
  17. If Ford was still making a carb fed OHV 5.0 in 04' i think i'd be disappointed. Also the corvete sees low 20's in mpg from the 6-speed and gearing and is still very much a daily driver. While if you wanted that kind of power out of a 5.0 it'd be rumbly as hell (not that that's a bad thing IMO)
  18. If GM had the technology to make the 5.7 evolve the way it did, surely the potential was there for Ford to do the same with the 5.0. Even if it they had to change to a 5.8 or some other displacement, it'd at least still have been a windsor pushrod.

    The only reason you're convinced it would be "rumblly as hell" is because of what is currently available and known. My point is that it was a missed opportunity, so we'll never really know.