91 5.0 VS. 96 4.6

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

  1. stock for stock 5 speed who would win
  2. right off the factory brand new 0 miles

    same driver

    91 5.0 would hand it its ass IMO
  3. NO way in hell would the 96-98 4.6 take a 5.0. Those year motors were weak weak weak. They dont make crap for power. Nothing like the 99 and ups.
  4. the 96'-98' 4.6 were the "doomsday" engines - everyone thought the mustang was over with. Now with that said, I second that - the 5.0 would hand the 4.6 it's ass and then some.
  5. woulda 95 5.0 get beat as bad
  6. 91 GT vs. 96 GT...it would be very close (stock for stock)...they both are "weak" without gears...I've drove both...it would be close...maybe a bit of an edge to the 5.0...

  7. 1/8mi = 5.0...... 1/4mi = toss up - which ever is driven better
  8. 5.0 easily, it's the 99 and ups that give stock 5.0's fits.
  9. The SN 95's are heavier. The 5.0 is about the same in either, but the newer cars way more. If you race trunk for trunk a fox v8 will beat a SN95 V8 all the way up to 99.
  10. The SN 95's are heavier. The 5.0 is about the same in either, but the newer cars weigh more. If you race trunk for trunk a fox v8 will beat a SN95 V8 all the way up to 99.
  11. I have a 90 and I've raced a guy at work who has a 97 several times, and everytime I've won without dispute. Both cars are stock. The original 4.6's just didn't have enough power to push the extra weight they were carrying over the 5.0's.
  12. i hope Stang2841 dies

  13. True ;)

    The 1996 GT has a 4.6-liter V8 engine with 215 hp and way less torque, the Cobra has a 305-hp and the 3.8-liter V6 has 150-hp.

    The 1987-92 Mustangs make 225hp and 300lb torque. The 1993 is a little less with 215hp and 275lb torque.

    So not only does the Fox body Mustang weigh less weight they are making more hp and way more torque.

    1996 Mustang
    215hp @ 4400, 285lb @ 3500

    1992 Mustang
    225hp @ 4000, 300lb @ 3000

    1996 Mustang
    Curb Weight, lbs.
    Curb weight 3355

    1992 Mustang
    Curb Weight, lbs.
    convertible = 2996
    coupe = 2775
    hatchback = 2834

    Every 100lbs in weight reduction = 1/10th sec faster ;)
    This is why the coupes are faster than the hatchbacks in stock vs stock off the showroom.
  14. The 96-98 Gt does not have "Way less torque"...try 15lbs...300 vs. 285 ft. lbs...

    1987-1993 have the same horsepower...their were changes from speed density and maf, and small minor cam changes, and in 93 the hypereutic pistons were introduced witch were actually lighter...(NONE of those changes were even close to significant enough to justify the supposed 20hp difference...)the 205 horsepower rating in 93 was strickly a marketing ploy by Ford to make the 94-95 sn95 with the 5 Liter look better with its 215hp rating...who would want to buy a new model with less horsepower...hence the "marketing ploy"...

    Those curb weight numbers you introduced are inaccurate...they appear to be for a 5spd 4 banger...

  15. I tried :p

    Bottom line the 87-93 stangs make more power and the Fox body is lighter.
  16. Equal Drivers?

    I would never guarantee a victory for a 5.0 vs. a 96-98 Gt...or say it was no contest...
  17. Nothing wrong with trying :nice:

    Yes...if both were right off the showroom right now and had equal drivers with same gearing...same mileage (0)...yes the 87-93 would win...but not by much...it wouldn't be a blow-out...

    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 :D ) 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...

    Now back on the 93 horsepower rating... :nice:

    ...Ford lowered the horsepower number to 205 for 1993 only. The engine didn't lose horsepower; Ford's official line was that the method by which it rated horsepower had been changed and that this was really a more accurate number....which again in hence is a marketing ploy...

    It was a marketing ploy because Ford could not fathom putting the new model car (94+) with 10hp less than the previous model...Ford denies this...of course but the engines are functionally identical...

    Instead of the 04 Viper having 500hp...how would you like to buy a 05 Viper with 475hp?....same principle applies...
  18. Stock for stock, if the 91's driver knows what he is doing and it's running right then there is no way the '96 has a chance. First of all the 96 if heavier, unless it's a '91 Vert GT against a base 96 GT. Second, the 91 5.0 has a wider, stronger powerband over the 4.6; 5.0 has much better bottom end tq.