How much faster is the 94-95 than the 96-98?

I raced another vert the other night and it hapened to be a 4.6l. I was definately a 96/98. I cant believe I hit it and just kept on walking him all the way to 70. Beat him by about 2 cars. Im not to impressed since I only have a catback exhaust. I guess the SLP must have scared his car.
 
  • Sponsors (?)


I think a lot of people exagerate the lack of capabilites a 96-98 4.6 has. Who ever said that they are a mid 15 second car at best is on medication. My uncle has a 98 GT and ran consistent 14.2 - 14.3 with it, only mods being a hacked air silencer w/ a K&N and pullies. So, stock the car would have been a 14.5 second car. With slicks I don't see why he couldn't have pulled a 13.9 because his 60's were 1.95-2.05's on street tires. Yes he is a decent driver and there is a possibility that his car is very light, even though he did run in full street trim. So, I'm not completely believing the whole 4.6's suck.

Joe
 
I raced my friends stock 96 GT 5 speed with flows a few times and he beat me when I was stock, I got a h-pipe and flows and I beat him when I manualy shifted my gears (Mine being an auto), But I had a hard time with him when not manualy shifting gears.
 
Joes95GT said:
I think a lot of people exagerate the lack of capabilites a 96-98 4.6 has. Who ever said that they are a mid 15 second car at best is on medication. My uncle has a 98 GT and ran consistent 14.2 - 14.3 with it, only mods being a hacked air silencer w/ a K&N and pullies. So, stock the car would have been a 14.5 second car. With slicks I don't see why he couldn't have pulled a 13.9 because his 60's were 1.95-2.05's on street tires. Yes he is a decent driver and there is a possibility that his car is very light, even though he did run in full street trim. So, I'm not completely believing the whole 4.6's suck.

Joe
It seems like the 98's are a little better, but I agree with you, 4.6's aren't that much slower than our cars stock. My friend has a 96 4.6 with the "GTS" package (some option #, not a real GTS), so it's pretty light. When our cars were stock mine felt a lot better down low, but they cars felt the same up top. I'm pretty sure I would have beaten stock for stock even though his car is considerably lighter than mine. However, now it's no contest. His car feels like my old V6 stang when I drive it. I call it the torque-less wonder... :p

Jake
 
Joes95GT said:
I think a lot of people exagerate the lack of capabilites a 96-98 4.6 has. Who ever said that they are a mid 15 second car at best is on medication. My uncle has a 98 GT and ran consistent 14.2 - 14.3 with it, only mods being a hacked air silencer w/ a K&N and pullies. So, stock the car would have been a 14.5 second car. With slicks I don't see why he couldn't have pulled a 13.9 because his 60's were 1.95-2.05's on street tires. Yes he is a decent driver and there is a possibility that his car is very light, even though he did run in full street trim. So, I'm not completely believing the whole 4.6's suck.

Joe
14.5 Stock but look at those 60fts, man. i was runnin 14.80 with a 2.26 60ft i think if i could have stuck like that i would have been right there if not faster. And that was BONE stock down to the 10 degree timing.
 
i'm still wondering how long it's go to take most 5.0 people to see the massive potential there is in the 4.6 based motors. just because the '96-'98 cars were sluggish from the factory is no reason to scrap the whole motor. if you've been keeping an eye on all the ads in the mags, the 4.6-based aftermarket is growing FAST. it's only a 12 year old design, only used in performance applications for 7 or 8 years. if the newer cars hadn't gotten heavier, it would be a lot tougher for 5.0 cars to keep up with the 4.6's.
 
No one is dogging 99+ cars or especially the new 3 valve 4.6 in 05. The whole thread was about how the 96-98 are pretty doggy for a GT. No one said we should scrape the whole idea of the 4.6 motor. Just look at the new DOHC 03 Cobra's making 600 rwhp with a blower swap and 03 Mach 1's in the 11's with bolt ons and slicks. There is a ton of potential in the 4.6 motor....it just wasn't realized in 96-98 and that is what the whole thread is about.

Jake
 
Joes95GT said:
My uncle has a 98 GT and ran consistent 14.2 - 14.3 with it, only mods being a hacked air silencer w/ a K&N and pullies.
I ran "consistent" 14.5's with my 98 Cobra :rlaugh:. Only took it to the track one night, though. At least I managed to trap 102, but I had my ass handed to me 5 or 6 times in a row by 5.0's. :nonono:

For the most part I think stock GT's are very similar from 94 to 98, though I think in most situations the 94/95 will be slightly faster. That was my experience when I had my stock 94 GT back in 1996. I was young and stupid and raced pretty much anyone that wanted to, and I never lost to a 96 GT. I actually thought my car was *fast* :lol:.

Dave
 
BlueOvalStangGT said:
some guy in the other forum about the tailights claims a 13.774 with Pullies, Filter, X-Pipe, Mufflers and a Chip. he even has the slips to prove it. that sounds faster then my car, is this :bs: ?
It was my car, and yes it happened, along with a 13.8 and a 13.9. My car ran 14.6 with just Flowmastyer mufflers welded in, on street tires, for you guys who say they are 15 second cars are wrong, they are mid to high 14 second cars stock, at least that is what most guys runs, but there are freakish slow ones, just like alot of cars. My car had the following done to it when it ran [email protected]...... ASP UnderDrive Pullies, BBK Off Road X-Pipe, FlowMaster 2 Chambers, a HomeMade Cold Air Elbow with a K&N, on it, and some BS "Jet" chip some guy GAVE me at the track one time, I was on 275/40.17 Nitto Drag Radials, I did cut a good 60ft on the run, but with a 2.0+ I still managed 13's with ease. In my mind, the cars are about even in Bolt-On form, although with longtubes the 5.0 will make a bit more power, but from the factory, a 1994 GT Coupe 5-Speed vs. a 1998 GT Coupe 5-Speed, don't expect much a a difference at all, there is not one. It seems like alot of you guys doubt my times, all I can do it post pics of the slip.

Here is the car....
fa532c96.jpg


Here are the tires....
fafd3cc9.jpg


and last but not least heer is the slip....
fa415604.jpg


I really don't know what else to say, any of you guys in Houston want to see the car run 13's in person leave me a PM and we can get together and go to the track January 2nd, the car weighted 3300+ on the run. They are really not as slow as you guys make them out to be, the 99+ are running low 12's with only bolt-ons, suspsension and slicks.
 
You dont need to say anything at all. The MPH tells the whole story, i trapped 97mph with just a catback, 97mph shows the low hp of ur car. The E.T. is all in that 1.89 60ft. With most drivers on street tires that is a mid to low 14 second run. nuff said.
 
WhiteDevil said:
You dont need to say anything at all. The MPH tells the whole story, i trapped 97mph with just a catback, 97mph shows the low hp of ur .The E.T. is all in that 1.89 60ft. With most drivers on street tires that is a mid to low 14 second run. nuff said.
Yea, but when I cut 60ft's like you, trap 98-99, my best MPH was a 98.87, typically the better 60ft you have, the less MPH you have, but it results in a better time, I am willing to bet without your Intake manifold, I could run right with you. And you have more Bolt-ons and headers. Not to mention gears, 4.10's would make my car a considerable amount faster. But I am impressed with your car, nice set-up. My main problem is having to stay in 3rd gear across the traps, with 3.27 gears, shifting into 4th gear would hurt my times, with 4.10's I would be able to get into 4th and avoid getting into my cars WORST POINT(5k-6krpms), I shift at 5k, but am forced to redline 3rd when at the track, with 4.10's I think my car could run mid 13's easy.
 
Maybe I'm looking at this arguement wrong but the 94-95 GT's weren't exactly overachievers. Don't get me wrong, I love those cars and had my 95GTS for 8 years and very much so regret selling it. Stockwise, my 95 was a pig though its 2.73 gears I'm sure had a lot to do with that. Friends 98GT was very much so a match for my 95, stock for stock. He did have 3.27 gears though. I personally would say the 94-98 Mustang GT's were all on the same level of performance. The nice thing about the 5.0 was the ease of modding. It was very easy to increase the performance with the huge aftermarket available for the 5.0 cars. Of course, nothing beats the ease of modding and increasing the performance of my 03 Cobra :D
 
95GTS said:
I personally would say the 94-98 Mustang GT's were all on the same level of performance.

I agree too!! :nice:

I've owned both (bone stock) and honestly they're very similar.

But the 94-95's have better aftermarket support than the 96-98's. With so many aftermarket heads and intake manifolds and cams etc to choose from, the combinations are endless!!
 
ruffa4 said:
I agree too!! :nice:

I've owned both (bone stock) and honestly they're very similar.

But the 94-95's have better aftermarket support than the 96-98's. With so many aftermarket heads and intake manifolds and cams etc to choose from, the combinations are endless!!
Yes the 5.0 has a better aftermarket than the 96-98's. But that will change with in the next 5 years. I love my 5.0, but there is no doubt in my mind that the little 4.6 SOHC can make just as much power as the 5.0. Less friction and moving parts = more horsepower, it's that simple. The 4.6's take much better to forced induction than a 5.0 does, and when the market gets bigger for the 4.6 with different heads and intakes, that will be proven. For the time being, the 5.0 is king, but I would be willing to bet money that things will be changing in the next 5-10 years.
 
984.6gt said:
It was my car, and yes it happened, along with a 13.8 and a 13.9. .


Once again that was YOU, and YOUR car, maybe you have a factory freak or maybe your just a good driver but your times deffently do not speak for all 96-98 GT's out there. Its a well known fact that the 96-98 GTs are the slowest Mustangs in recent history and the down low TQ is pretty much non existent compared to a 5.0. Even though there rated the same as the 5.0's from the factory that doesent mean crap b/c we all know that factory production #'s dont mean anything.
 
984.6gt said:
Yea, but when I cut 60ft's like you, trap 98-99, my best MPH was a 98.87, typically the better 60ft you have, the less MPH you have, but it results in a better time, I am willing to bet without your Intake manifold, I could run right with you. And you have more Bolt-ons and headers. Not to mention gears, 4.10's would make my car a considerable amount faster. But I am impressed with your car, nice set-up. My main problem is having to stay in 3rd gear across the traps, with 3.27 gears, shifting into 4th gear would hurt my times, with 4.10's I would be able to get into 4th and avoid getting into my cars WORST POINT(5k-6krpms), I shift at 5k, but am forced to redline 3rd when at the track, with 4.10's I think my car could run mid 13's easy.
For me its always been the harder i launch(better 60ft) the more mph i get cause i come out of the hole in my power band. Im not saying i dont believe it, because i do. That is a nice show of driving skill, and you must have one stick track because with my nitto drags i barely cut 1.9s but my track sucks for traction. I always forget also that you have a 98 those always seem a little stronger than the 96-97 GTs. If you dont wanna be at 5-6K rpms get 3.73s cause when i cross the traps im in 4th gear at about 5,200.