91 5.0 VS. 96 4.6

Discussion in 'Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech' started by Josethespic, Aug 15, 2004.


  1. Not only does the 5.0 have more torque and a broader power band its power comes on 500rpm sooner.



    Just add some AFR or TF heads, 230 dur. cam w/ 110 lobe, headers and intake and for the money you have some serious hp :flag:
     
  2. 5.0 would win no questions asked. The 96-98 motors were nothing like the 5.0's were and the people who think those to motors were equal are just in denial. The 4.6 motors were not any good until 99+
     
  3. The 5.0 should take it stock for stock, but it would be a close race. The 4.6 is not known for it's low end torque, but on the contrary the 5.0 is not known for it's highend torque.
     
  4. Froma dead start to the end of the 1/4 mile the 5.0 would win. But it would be close.

    From highway speeds with a roll on race the 4.6 would take the 5.0, but it would still be close.
     
  5. Exactly...except I believe it would be almost a tie up top...

    Now let me requote something...

    "The "bottom line" is that (looking at this from the most extreme angle- '87 vs. '98)...that your possibly looking at an 11 yr. old difference between the cars and technology of how the engine actual works...a considerable difference between a pushrod engine (minus the ls1 pushrod ) and the SOHC design of the 96+ 4.6...your looking at a car (1987) that is more likely out of tune and has some rust or just some worn out parts...compared to the 98...but this is not always true...and this is why you see that the races would be VERY CLOSE...because the age defining difference..."

    But straight off the showroom at the same time...the 5.0 would win...the torque is not that big of a difference to reason why it would win...

    The engine in 96-98 were fine...just they didn't have the 99+ PI heads and intake (and the cam...which didn't make that much more power over the 96-98)...you can add all that on there pretty quickly and cheaper than the mentioned h/c/i on a 5.0 and get a nice little ride...(about 250-260rwhp)...with some little bolt-ons here and there...the 4.6 aftermarket is catching up...we say that a lot...now it is time for people to believe it...
     
  6. Very true. If I spent $2500 on parts I could bolt on several parts and have over 275 rwhp on my 98 GT. Which I considered doing, but decided against.
     
  7. From a stop or a roll...stock for stock, trunk to trunk, equal drivers...the 5.0 will win, no if's and's or butts.
     
  8. and same running condition...the reason why a 98 gt can run with the 5.0 is because it is usually based on condition also...
     
  9. Both though can be out of tune and need some tlc. The 5.0 just happens to be older. If the 5.0 isnt running well, it could be close...or perhaps the 4.6 could win. If the 4.6 is not running well while the 5.0 is...the 4.6 doesnt stand a chance.

    I could spank 94-98 gt's no problem back when I was stock and I had 160k+ on the odo. Age doesnt necisarily mean slow.
     
  10. If you have read what I have put in my posts...you will see that age is the only definative reason...but it contributes...and in the most extreme case (87 vs. 98)...the 87 has 11 more years of POSSIBLE...wear and tear on it...that is a reason why most people drive newer vehicles than older...because they USUALLY are in better condition...not always...the 4.6 does stand a chance with everything being equal in condition, gears, equal drivers and tranny...but the edge goes to the 5.0...I have drove all...93 5.0, 95 gt, 97gt, and 2000 GT...only owned the first and last one...and their is a chance...
     
  11. 5.0 HIGH OUTPUT would win
     

  12. Sure they stand a chance...at being OWNED. :D

    Seriously though, if you take the driving factor out of the equation...and have 2 vehicles that are in a equal state of tune, then the only way the 4.6 is going to keep up is if the 5.0 is a fully loaded gt model. Both hatches and notches will put a hurting on the 4.6's. Even with the more miles and wear and tear, the 5.0 is still going to come out .5 seconds ahead on average in the 1/4 mile.

    Now if the point your getting at is that there is going to be more run down 5.0's...I will agree with you there. Thats not to say that they wouldnt be quick with a nice tune and some new plugs/wires etc.
     
  13. 5.0 vs. early 4.6

    Well heres the thing. I have a 5.0, and i would love to say the 5.0 would take it. The thing is i used to have a 97 4.6 5spd GT w/ low miles. One of my best buddies had a 91 GT 5.0 We were both bone stock and i would ALWAYS take him by a car length or two. So with that said i would say 4.6 but a good driver could make the race very interesting. The 4.6 are now really weak motors.....they actually had a bunch of ringers some how. My other buddy had a 95 GT and holy Shlt is that a ringer...
     
  14. Half a second is owned?...look at the mph...is their 5mph difference?...no... :nice: ...I look at mph to show true power and potential...not the E.T....though it provides a good comparison...a car (5.0) with a lower torque powerband and being in a lighter car will get him off the line and the 4.6 has to play catch up and doesn't quite have the power to catch up...so the 5.0 is usually declared the winner...but they both provide equal mph numbers...

    In response to the weight...my freinds 90 gt weighs less than my hatch...Gt's weigh on average no more than 80-100 lbs more...

    Again it would be close...with the edge going to the 5.0...
     
  15. Since when has high-end torque ever been something to consider for an engine period? Torque is mainly important downlow and somwhere in the middle of the RPM band the two trade off and the built-up hp takes over and builds until the engine starts running out of air. The 5.0 was kknow as a "stump puller" - it was a torque monster and made gobs of it. Any modular engine by history has not been known as torque monsters, but high-revving hp engines. This is the tradeoff by technology. Given an equal engine you should find a race between a pushrod and modular to be a little different. Wheras the pushrod will probably pull off of the line with its torque, when the modular starts revving it should catch back up when it begines revving higher and higher and builds hp (the only way ricers have anything whatsoever).

    On another note, the 5.0 again was in no way like the 4.6. The 4.6 was weak and enthusiasts knew it in more ways than you could imagine - the 91'-98' 4.6 sucked period (until technology started being pushed their way).

    Also, the 87' and 88' 5.0 was the most powerful and earned the 225/300 rating rightfully so. In 89' a chocked MAF meter size and a revised cam profile cost approx 5-7 hp. Again in 91' the cam was revised and that cost another 3-4hp (your true 10 hp loss and 15 ft/lbs torque loss). Due to revisions in which manufactures performed testing (no loads on the engine being the old way vs. accesories being driven the new), it was a combination of the revised methods and the fact that hp was lost over the years.
     

  16. well, if it means anything, i have stock eveything, except exhaust, i take '00+ stangs out all the time, the first one i thought was a fluke, it was a 00 vert 5 speed, many ppl said it was becasue it was a vert, but since then i have beaten hard tops, verts, auto's, 5 speeds, some had work done, some didn't.
     
  17. damn that sucks cuz i got a 91