Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech' started by Josethespic, Aug 16, 2004.
I just got an email stating someone replied to this thread
I don't have time to do it, now. When I get back tomorrow, though, I'm going to rip your ass apart.
I......uh......nah, to easy.
Why's that? 5.0 makes more HP, more torque, and weighs significantly less? Where does the 4.6 get this magical boost in top end? (I can't wait for you to start talking about HP vs. RPM curves)
Gimme a break... Your answering a performance comparison by saying one might be worn out? This would make the race "VERY CLOSE?" That's a ridiculous answer, and obviously not the point of this conversation.
What's faster a 65 shelby cobra or a 2004 maxima?.... This would be a very close race based on the rust and tune of the Shelby..... Doesn't this argument seem a bit retarded to you?
It's a major contributing factor. Comparing the engines, the stock 5.0 from 87 all the way through 93 flat outperformed the 4.6 SOHC between 96-98. The 5.0 had the advantage all the way through their respective powerbands, and it weighed less. That's not even getting into the weight of the cars. Put the same motors in the same cars, and the 5.0 still wins.
So, the engines were fine, except for how they were built... Nice point...
I hate playing aftermarket what-if games, but how in the hell do you get that a h/c/i swap on a 4.6 is cheaper than on a 5.0? Sure, you paid big bucks for your h/c/i combo (nearly identical to the way I built mine), but there are SO MANY cheap powermaking combinations out there for the 5.0, and 250-260 rwhp is absolute crap for a h/c/i 5.0.... Shame on you...
Hell, I've run more than 250 rwhp with a cobra intake, stock non-touched heads, junkyard shorties, and a cat back exhaust system.
Is this your entire point, or is it just a fall-back for your ludicrous initial assertion?
Why do you keep falling back on this crap argument of run-down 5.0s? Nobody is interested in that debate. No one cares if you can outrun a Dodge Viper just because it's running like crap.
Half a second is owned, because at the far end of the track that's more than 5 car-lengths. The 4.6 will lose off of the line, and will never even begin to run the 5.0 down. The 5.0 is going to ET and trap better, too.
This guy is in an LX coupe, which is as light as they come. He's got exhaust from the long-tube headers through the cat-back system. He's got a ten-minute tune-up, and K&N filter. What makes you think he isn't capable of outrunning stock 99+ GTs?
99+ GTs routinely make around 235 rwhp bone-stock, and weigh how much? 3400+ lbs? 5.0 coupes like his routinely made around 190 rwhp and weighed 2900 lbs bone stock. Does 400-500 lbs make up for 45 rwhp? maybe not.... What happens when you add in his exhaust mods? Damn sure sounds to me like he could easily have what it takes to hand it to a 99+ GT.
What to 99 5spd GTs trap again? I've seen 5 speeds on good runs go from 98mph all the way up to 102 (at least he said he was stock). I hear you preaching the "true power" of trap speeds. I agree, this is true to an extent, but once you're within a few mph, you can't assume which one has more power. Simple gearing changes can make 4-5 mph differences because it changes the rpm at which you cross the traps. Gearing, despite changing trap speeds, does not change the "true power" of the car. The gearing would have a negligible effect on a race from highway speeds, where power/weight is the most important factor until, of course, the race exceeds ~130 mph (depending on the aero) where aerodynamics is becomes more important.
I agree.............. Now that you are back up from falling off your chair, I'll continue.............. However, I do believe that a light 5 speed V6 would whoop an AOD 4.6.
No he isn't.
If you say it enough times, it might make it true.
Bull crap! Stop making up rules. There isn't a 96+ car that matches the LX coupe. So by making this crap up, you're eliminating the fastest stock 5.0s (disregarding the Cobra).
Absolutely, of the 5 or so cars that the fox will put on the SN95, 3-4 of them are due to weight and 1-2 of them are due to the engine.
Nope...didn't say that.
Two words: reading accuracy...
Not very impressive in comparison with a notch 5.0 on DRs with a full exhaust system.
What does the phrase "coupe vs. coupe" mean exactly?
As I said before, once you get to within a few mph, your trap speed indicator is not accurate enough to determine which is the more powerful car. This does work great when you compare an LS1 running 109mph to a GT running 101 when they're running the same ET. This, however, does not work well, when a 5.0 is running 101 and a 99+GT is running 102. That's just too close to call, even if it were a couple mph difference.
The "simple fact" that you've owned both means jack to me, bud. I hope you have some timeslips of for your 5.0 with full exhaust, gears, and bolt-ons running slower than a 99+ bone stock GT so I can laugh at you.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
Engines make torque REGARDLESS of speed.
Horsepower is a result of torque and engine speed. Without torque, there is NO horsepower.
I don't agree with that. Ford fixes the flimsy peice of trash that the 87-93 Mustang was built on, and all people can do is **** and moan about the extra 300lbs.
My car won't be good enough for me until it has about 500 pounds of chassis reinforcement.
Not to mention that the car actually stands a chance of getting around in the snow, when it weighs more than a cheese puff.
Fastdriver...i highly doubt a v6 will beat any GT. The 96-98 might have been dogs compared to the 99+ and 5.0s but a v6 will not beat it.
Why not? You seem to think that a 5.0 will not outrun a 99+ on the street. What heavenly law keeps mismatched cars from lining up?
Well, I wasn't referring to you, and your statement is so vague that it doesn't add anything to the conversation. Based on what statement should I go back and take physics again? I don't recall ever saying anything in regards to torque and hp and their relationship to "track kings."
Yeah, now that's pretty obvious isn't it? It didn't seem so obvious in your first posts.
Yeah, the only time I ever took it to the track.
They all do? Do track conditions or weather conditions make a difference? Based on your laugh at my times without even knowing track and weather conditions, am I to deduce that the 99+ GTs would have run 13.9s and 100-101 mph? I know that this isn't always the case, because I've been to the track once or twice in my life, and I've seen them run slow in both ET and trap speed.
That is impressive if it's true. I haven't seen a bone-stock 4.6 SOHC run a 13.7. Then again, I don't really go looking for bone-stock mustangs at the track anymore.
Great argument. I hope this comment wasn't directed at me though because I don't recall saying anything regarding the difference in displacement.
Of course they didn't.
I know, it's just annoying because I always get wrapped up in them.
If bone-stock 99+ GTs are running 13.7s and better, then I digress - the fastest of them will outrun the fastest of the 5.0s (possibly barring the Cobra). However, I don't believe I made any misleading statements, thus far.
bone stock notch lx running 13.8? that sounds VERY farfetch'd, especially when the 04 svt cobras are running 13 flat (13.1 vert). if that is true, props to that friggan driver.
oh yea, a couple pages back but ill still say it - "Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how far the wall goes with you." or something like that, anyways...
my dads new DD, an 03 3.8L 5spd will totally kill my 84 5.0 aod. now ive never driven a 5 spd 5.0 but i dont think a 99+ gt would have a problem handing a 5.0 its @$$ on a silver platter