91 5.0 VS. 96 4.6

[5spd GT]

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.

With your mods...you will lose to a 99+ GT as long as it is a 5spd...race to a 100 and see what happens...not to 40...I've owned both...I know what they both can do stock...and race somebody that knows how to drive better...because it appears you can drive pretty good...

 

[admstng]

With your mods...you will lose to a 99+ GT as long as it is a 5spd...race to a 100 and see what happens...not to 40...I've owned both...I know what they both can do stock...and race somebody that knows how to drive better...because it appears you can drive pretty good...

let me say first, i don't think my car is fast... but, i have raced 5 speed '00+ with the guy getting a way better jump on me and then power shifting all the way to 4th. i beat that guy in particular by motor, not skill (unfortunatly) idk, maybe he needed a tune up?. I have raced 4-5 '00+ stangs, and i beat them all either by a half car to a car and a half. With all asking me how much work i have under the hood ..

the guy who had my car before me ran a 14.0 bone stock (with short thow shifter) on street tires. maybe he was BS'ing? idk.. since then, i only have bumped the timing and put full exhaust.

but stock times for both a '90 coupe and a '00 GT seem close anyway

and btw, all races cut off after 100mph, (i'm @ 100mph at the end of 3rd )


not going to argue though, i could care less, I just want a DSS crate motor already

 

[RTGreen]

I own a 96GT and a 91 5.0 coupe. When both were stock the 5.0 would smoke the 4.6...no contest. The 96 4.6 is a dog in the low rpms.

 

[Jo_885o]

PUSHROD all day long.

 

[Mustang5L5]

5.0 easily, it's the 99 and ups that give stock 5.0's fits.

Yup, and i think 99+ are faster on average than a 5.0 stock.

My '03's running 14.2-14.3 bone stock.

My '88 AOD was running 14.7-14.8 stock. It's not stock now but that's not what we are comparing.

 

[Silver95Stint]

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.

The statement was only made to show that the 5.0 is notorious for lowend torque which in turn will help in in a short run like the 1/8, but in the 1/4 the highend torque in the 4.6 will help it reel the 5.0 in, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, it sure wouldn't be the first time. I have driven both and for some reason the 4.6 seems quicker as the race progresses.

 

[WhiteDevil]

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.

I doubt you could pull 275rwhp out of 2,500 bucks in parts. If you are talking head and cam swaps those are much more than simple bolt ons on a 4.6L, they are a simple bolt on for a 5.0L though.

 

[87'GTstang]

The statement was only made to show that the 5.0 is notorious for lowend torque which in turn will help in in a short run like the 1/8, but in the 1/4 the highend torque in the 4.6 will help it reel the 5.0 in, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, it sure wouldn't be the first time. I have driven both and for some reason the 4.6 seems quicker as the race progresses.

The 4.6 seems as the race progresses to be quicker because it is a horsepower-builder engine. Hp is derived off of torque. An ideal engine would be to have the most torque possible down low and the most horsepower to be mid range to up top. Having torque mid range is not desireable because it is the twisting force on the wheels or the grunt a vehicle uses to get itself going. Torque is greatly needed for towing and for launching off of the line, that's about it. Toque does no good to have it up top because that's the area where horsepower takes over and starts to build up and hp is more related to acceleration. It's a little hard to explain the process but once you understand it then it will just click. But the problem with the 4.6 was that it didn't have too much of a torque difference between it and the 5.0, BUT the torque started to really come on at the point where it no longer mattered - in the low mid-range as opposed to really down low where the 5.0 had it and where everyone really felt it.

 

[onesticker]

I mean really guys. Is there really any use arguing over this? The '91 would win with two fat ladies in the back seat. Oh yeah, you can't get two fat ladies in the back seat.

 

[87'GTstang]

I mean really guys. Is there really any use arguing over this? The '91 would win with two fat ladies in the back seat. Oh yeah, you can't get two fat ladies in the back seat.

Never say never

 

[NeVeRLiFt]

The 94-96 stangs are a little heavier and make around the same horsepower as Fox bodies but less torque and the 4.6 makes it torque higher in the rpm range.(torque and hp cross at 5250 rpm's always) I know Ford changed the way they calculate the hp in 93' and always heard the 88' was the strongest stock running stang and then there was the change to the maf and a cam change. 97' and 98' not sure about... 99+ are fast IMHO and can more than hold their own even though they are a little heavier. The 99' and newer are just flat out making more power and like to rev

Every 100lbs in weight you lose you gain 1/10th sec in the 1/4 mile. So a lighter car will always have an advantage and taking the same car having 5spd and auto the 5spd will always be faster by .25 sec or more usually.
By this theory a LX coupe 5spd will be .25 - .5 sec faster than most other stangs just because its lighter and a stick. All else being the same, driver included.

 

[5spd GT]

I still can't believe the guys that think a 99+ Gt will lose to a stock 5.0 ...or even a slightly "boltedon" car...

To anybody that believes that...LOOK AT THE MPH...it shows the true power...not stoplight to stoplight races...

A 96-98 gt will not get smoked by a stock 5.0...might lose but not smoked or

Some guys need to drive both and quit getting fooled by the bigger motor must mean faster...

And yes for $2500 bucks you can get right at 275rwhp...

 

[millhouse]

I still can't believe the guys that think a 99+ Gt will lose to a stock 5.0 ...or even a slightly "boltedon" car...

To anybody that believes that...LOOK AT THE MPH...it shows the true power...not stoplight to stoplight races...

A 96-98 gt will not get smoked by a stock 5.0...might lose but not smoked or

Some guys need to drive both and quit getting fooled by the bigger motor must mean faster...

And yes for $2500 bucks you can get right at 275rwhp...

I have driven both. My brother owned a 96 gt (stripped down version, but it was no longer considered a gts). We both have 5 speeds, and I kicked his ass every time. We have switched cars, with the same outcome. He now kicks my ass with a 4.6 cobra swap we did into a 99 v6 flood car.

My car trapped around 98mph stock. That seems to be atleast 2mph quicker than your average 96-98 4.6 gt. Couple that with atleast .5 seconds in the 1/4...and I would call that a wooping. The 4.6's in no way could keep up with me...from a stop, or a high speed roll.

Now speaking of 99+ gt's...they should beat any stock 5.0 in equal trim. Should being the key word...as I have never lost to a stock or lightly modded one at the track. Although I have never ran one stock from a high speed roll...it's pretty safe to assume I would get . From a stop to 100 though....well that's where I shine

 

[Silver95Stint]

I mean really guys. Is there really any use arguing over this? The '91 would win with two fat ladies in the back seat. Oh yeah, you can't get two fat ladies in the back seat.

That's a horrible thought, two fat ladies in the back seat.

 

[Silver95Stint]

The 4.6 seems as the race progresses to be quicker because it is a horsepower-builder engine. Hp is derived off of torque. An ideal engine would be to have the most torque possible down low and the most horsepower to be mid range to up top. Having torque mid range is not desireable because it is the twisting force on the wheels or the grunt a vehicle uses to get itself going. Torque is greatly needed for towing and for launching off of the line, that's about it. Toque does no good to have it up top because that's the area where horsepower takes over and starts to build up and hp is more related to acceleration. It's a little hard to explain the process but once you understand it then it will just click. But the problem with the 4.6 was that it didn't have too much of a torque difference between it and the 5.0, BUT the torque started to really come on at the point where it no longer mattered - in the low mid-range as opposed to really down low where the 5.0 had it and where everyone really felt it.

Thanks for the info 87 stang. Does anybody know the stock 1/4 mile times for the 96-98 Gt's? They can't be that far off from the 5.0's.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

I can’t believe there’s been so much debate over this…..an 87-93 5.0 will hand it to a 96-98 GT any day of the week. No questions asked. The only possible way that it would be close would be if the 5.0L had been wrung out and beat to death, or you were running an auto 5.0L with an extra 200lbs worth of stereo equipment against a 5-speed 4.6L. All things being equal, there’s just no comparison. Hell, a ’99-up 5-speed V-6 will outrun a ’96-98 GT about half the time, so I don’t know what all the controversy is? And for the record, it doesn’t take many bolt-ons for a 5.0L to run with, or even run away from a ’99-up GT as was stated earlier in this thread. Making up the general 3-4 tenths difference is only a gear swap and a set of pulleys away.

 

[5spd GT]

On the 99+ v6 beating the 96-98 gt half the time...NO...it will run right with it though...but it will end up losing...you can't overcome the torque factor...even with the v6's having the 327's with the 5spd...LOOK AT THE MPH...not stoplight to stoplight...

Millhouse...your the exception ...your car don't count...or your driving skill...

The 5.0 does not totally own the 96-98 4.6...it is a close race...with the 5.0 having the edge...To many people are also considering NOTCH vs. 96 fully loaded gt... ...GT vs. GT...should be considered...hence: equal trim...

 

[1fast94svt]

hahahahahah GEARBANGER there is no way in HELL a a99 V-6 is going to take a 86-98 GT. I had a 97 GT and it had underdrive pulley and cold air w/ flowmasters on it. I used to beat fox's by around a car. Sometimes a fox would take me. There is just not a way in hell a 99V6 is going to stay w/ a Gt. Your being a little rediculous on the 96-98 GT's they are straight cars.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

On the 99+ v6 beating the 96-98 gt half the time...NO...it will run right with it though...but it will end up losing...you can't overcome the torque factor...even with the v6's having the 327's with the 5spd...LOOK AT THE MPH...not stoplight to stoplight...

Millhouse...your the exception ...your car don't count...or your driving skill...

The 5.0 does not totally own the 96-98 4.6...it is a close race...with the 5.0 having the edge...To many people are also considering NOTCH vs. 96 fully loaded gt... ...GT vs. GT...should be considered...hence: equal trim...

Alright, well maybe saying half the time was a bit of an exaggeration, but I have seen a handful of well driven 5-speed V-6's edge out automatic and even one 5-speed 96-98 GT. Not a total kill mind you, but a win none the less. My point being that the run between the '99-up V6 and the 96-98 GT's are closer in performance than the '96-98 GT vs the 87-93. I have to admit, I’ve seen some slooooow fox’s, but as a whole, there’s really no comparing the two as far as strait line acceleration is concerned.

5spd GT, you bring up a bit of an interesting point, but need I remind you that there are probably more LX 5.0L’s on the road than GT’s and you can’t dismiss them in the comparison because the new Gen models don’t come in a variety of styles anymore like they did back then.

 

[5spd GT]

Alright, well maybe saying half the time was a bit of an exaggeration, but I have seen a handful of well driven 5-speed V-6's edge out automatic and even one 5-speed 96-98 GT. Not a total kill mind you, but a win none the less. My point being that the run between the '99-up V6 and the 96-98 GT's are closer in performance than the '96-98 GT vs the 87-93. I have to admit, I’ve seen some slooooow fox’s, but as a whole, there’s really no comparing the two as far as strait line acceleration is concerned.

5spd GT, you bring up a bit of an interesting point, but need I remind you that there are probably more LX 5.0L’s on the road than GT’s and you can’t dismiss them in the comparison because the new Gen models don’t come in a variety of styles anymore like they did back then.

I agree with part of what you are saying and some I don't see...A 5.0 is close match to a 96-98 4.6L...I would say more so than the 99+v6 comparison...just look at track mph and it shows the "closeness"...

Yes they don't come in different trims like they did thru 87-93...but I think "people"...need to express the weight difference more than the 5.0 being the almighty engine and making tons of more torque and this and that...I think the weight between a notch vs. a loaded 96-98gt is more of a factor than the SLIGHT power difference...

96-98 GT = 215hp and 285 torque (with the exception of 98 with 225hp)...and remember supposedly Ford changed the way they rated horsepower in 93 ...hmmm....