5.0 vs. 4.6

CobraJet428 · 08-17-2003, 03:18 PM

I have owned two Mustang GT models since 1993. I had a 93 GT with the High-Output 5.OL engine. The only modificantion I made was flowmaster mufflers. The rest was stock. The car was totalled in November,1999 (rest in peace) so I bought a 2000 GT with the 4.6L engine and it is still stock. Before I broke in the engine, I thought I was getting a weaker engine. Now that it is broken in, I think it's stroger than my 5.0. I know the 4.6's have a higher horsepower rating. etc., but what is ther engine preference for the rest of you and why? I know it's like comparing apples and oranges a little bit , but I want to hear what you have to say.

The Deuce · 08-17-2003, 04:04 PM

The way the 4.6 makes power is a little tougher to drive fast than the 5.0.

The old motor was strong from almost right off the bat and got wheezy on top. The 4.6 has a better top end than the 5.0 (99+) cars at least.

Stock for stock, you should be in a faster car now. Their major downfall is the $ required to modify the cars.

Mr 5 0 · 08-17-2003, 04:20 PM

As The Deuce commented, the 4.6 is a stronger engine, overall, but it doesn't have the low-end torque capabilities of the 5.0. Both engines are 12-second-capable N/A (with gears and some engine mods) but the 4.6 can be a bit more complicated to work on and performance parts are noticably more expensive. Since the 5.0 is out of production the 4.6 is the only game in town so I would enjoy what you have, buy some gears and engine goodies and stay in the game.

Mass Stang · 08-18-2003, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CobraJet428
I have owned two Mustang GT models since 1993. I had a 93 GT with the High-Output 5.OL engine. The only modificantion I made was flowmaster mufflers. The rest was stock. The car was totalled in November,1999 (rest in peace) so I bought a 2000 GT with the 4.6L engine and it is still stock. Before I broke in the engine, I thought I was getting a weaker engine. Now that it is broken in, I think it's stroger than my 5.0. I know the 4.6's have a higher horsepower rating. etc., but what is ther engine preference for the rest of you and why? I know it's like comparing apples and oranges a little bit , but I want to hear what you have to say.

I just got to drive a Mach1 at my local dealership a couple weeks back. I must say I wasn't impressed, But then again like "Cobrajet" said maybe it has to be broken in. I understand the Mach1 was not modified, and my 5.0 is, but I have driven allot of stock 5.0's and I would have to say I'll take a 5.0 over the new engine

VeNuM · 08-18-2003, 09:04 AM

Once I had shorty headers, offroad h-pipe, catback, electric fan, underdrive pulley's, and a K&N, I was able to hang dead even with a 2002 GT on the top end. Granted it didn't matter because I got him out of the hole with 2.73's and pulled on him hard in first gear just because of all my bottom end torque. Just a little comparision. ~Brian

Dark_5.0 · 08-18-2003, 10:46 AM

I have both and fro straight line speed I like the 5.0 alot better.

But, Its nice to have a 320 HP 4.6L car that has a nice smooth idle and good street manors.

For a daily driver the 4.6

For a drag car the 5.0.

VeNuM · 08-18-2003, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark_5.0
For a daily driver the 4.6

For a drag car the 5.0.

Bottom line this is how it is. I'm in the process of buying a 99+ GT for a daily driver and the 5.0 is going to become a weekend toy. I've driven 4.6's and they're great, but once the modifications start coming, the 4.6 doesn't gain as much as the 5.0 and the 5.0 is cheaper and easier. ~Brian

95mustanggt · 08-18-2003, 02:01 PM

I've got both, a 95 GT (5.0) and a 2002 GT (4.6). I am quite impressed by the 4.6L V8. It pulls all the way to redline, unlike my 95 5.0.

However, when I pop the hood, I can atleast tinker with my 5.0. The 4.6 is nothing but a bunch of wires and electrical connections!! Add in the fact that parts for the 5.0 are much cheaper and if you want a car to work on, I'd say go with a 5.0. If you want a nice stock performer, go with the 4.6 (99+).

Hethj7 · 08-18-2003, 03:54 PM

Can I have one of each

?

The 5.0 for all out muscle car power and a 4.6 with a little boost for a quick, well-mannered, daily driver.

CobraJet428 · 08-19-2003, 11:55 AM

My 93 5.0 definitley had that pin-you-to-your-seat, tire-boiling
torque coming out of the hole...My 2000 model seems stronger on the top end. Both cruised well at 75-80 on the interstate...some of you may be laughing, but i cannot afford any more tickets. The 5.0 got better fuel mileage
Like I said, once I got my new one broken in, it will pin me to my seat...Since I did minimal modidfications on my 5.0, i don't feel like
I got screwed when I bought this one...I guess its 6 of one, half a dozen of the other as the old saying goes.
...and when it comes to engine repair, all I do is routine maintenace stuff on mine. Lord knows I'd be lost as a blind mule
trying to tackle fuel injection since I was raised on carburators. I'm stuck being dependant upon the dealer if anything major goes wrong until I can learn how to do some of that stuff...

08-17-2003, 03:18 PM	#1
CobraJet428 Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Pickens,SC Posts: 130	5.0 vs. 4.6 I have owned two Mustang GT models since 1993. I had a 93 GT with the High-Output 5.OL engine. The only modificantion I made was flowmaster mufflers. The rest was stock. The car was totalled in November,1999 (rest in peace) so I bought a 2000 GT with the 4.6L engine and it is still stock. Before I broke in the engine, I thought I was getting a weaker engine. Now that it is broken in, I think it's stroger than my 5.0. I know the 4.6's have a higher horsepower rating. etc., but what is ther engine preference for the rest of you and why? I know it's like comparing apples and oranges a little bit , but I want to hear what you have to say. __________________ ....only in a Mustang, Mark Holliday Rice Haters Club Member #237 2007 Vista Blue Mustang GT Convertible w/black top and charcoal interior, 18-in. polished aluminum wheels. 1978 Ford F150 Ranger Longbed, 400M w/automatic and 2 fuel tanks...get the picture? 1993 Mustang GT Dark Blue/Grey 2-tone. Flowmaster Mufflers and blackouts on the headlights. RIP (10/31/99). 1968 Mustang 6 cyl/C4 automatic 1938 Ford Pickup, Flathead V8 (85HP) with granny 4-speed..a restoration work in progress.

08-17-2003, 04:04 PM	#2
The Deuce Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 2,325	The way the 4.6 makes power is a little tougher to drive fast than the 5.0. The old motor was strong from almost right off the bat and got wheezy on top. The 4.6 has a better top end than the 5.0 (99+) cars at least. Stock for stock, you should be in a faster car now. Their major downfall is the $ required to modify the cars. __________________ 1997 Mustang GT "The Freak" - 13.80 @ 101.70, 2.07 60' 1995 Honda VFR750 - not much @ really fast (actual data pending.) 1964.5 Mustang 289 Rice Haters Club Member #13

08-17-2003, 04:20 PM	#3
Mr 5 0 Conservative Individualist Join Date: May 1997 Location: Wherever I need to be Posts: 7,487	5.0 vs 4.6 As The Deuce commented, the 4.6 is a stronger engine, overall, but it doesn't have the low-end torque capabilities of the 5.0. Both engines are 12-second-capable N/A (with gears and some engine mods) but the 4.6 can be a bit more complicated to work on and performance parts are noticably more expensive. Since the 5.0 is out of production the 4.6 is the only game in town so I would enjoy what you have, buy some gears and engine goodies and stay in the game. __________________ 5.0 Mustang Owner 1990 - 2005

08-18-2003, 09:04 AM	#5
VeNuM Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Downers Grove, IL Posts: 464	Once I had shorty headers, offroad h-pipe, catback, electric fan, underdrive pulley's, and a K&N, I was able to hang dead even with a 2002 GT on the top end. Granted it didn't matter because I got him out of the hole with 2.73's and pulled on him hard in first gear just because of all my bottom end torque. Just a little comparision. ~Brian __________________ 1989 Black Mustang GT Hatchback, Underdrive Pulles, Electric Fan, Cold Air Intake, Headers, Offroad H-Pipe, Magnaflow catback, Steeda Tri-Ax, Fluidyne Aluminum Radiator, Timing at 14*, 3.73's Coming not so soon: 408w Ricer Hater's Club Member #59

08-18-2003, 10:46 AM	#6
Dark_5.0 Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Staging lane Posts: 4,337	I have both and fro straight line speed I like the 5.0 alot better. But, Its nice to have a 320 HP 4.6L car that has a nice smooth idle and good street manors. For a daily driver the 4.6 For a drag car the 5.0. __________________ 92' LX-Big brakes, Lots and lots of suspension, GT40X heads, Ported cobra intake, stock cam, Vortech SC trim. 00' Lightning-Stock 88'CRX-13 second ego killer

08-18-2003, 02:01 PM	#8
95mustanggt Registered Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Kamloops, BC Posts: 2,875	I've got both, a 95 GT (5.0) and a 2002 GT (4.6). I am quite impressed by the 4.6L V8. It pulls all the way to redline, unlike my 95 5.0. However, when I pop the hood, I can atleast tinker with my 5.0. The 4.6 is nothing but a bunch of wires and electrical connections!! Add in the fact that parts for the 5.0 are much cheaper and if you want a car to work on, I'd say go with a 5.0. If you want a nice stock performer, go with the 4.6 (99+). __________________ 1995 Mustang GT 20016 F150 Lariat Super Crew

08-18-2003, 03:54 PM	#9
Hethj7 Mizzou Tigers Join Date: Apr 1999 Location: weston, MO United States Posts: 1,455	Can I have one of each ? The 5.0 for all out muscle car power and a 4.6 with a little boost for a quick, well-mannered, daily driver. __________________ 2006 Mustang GT 1990 LX GT-40 motor 262 horsepower, 307ft-lbs (sold but forever loved) 1998 Contour SVT Rice Haters Club Member #244

08-19-2003, 11:55 AM	#10
CobraJet428 Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Pickens,SC Posts: 130	Power/Speed My 93 5.0 definitley had that pin-you-to-your-seat, tire-boiling torque coming out of the hole...My 2000 model seems stronger on the top end. Both cruised well at 75-80 on the interstate...some of you may be laughing, but i cannot afford any more tickets. The 5.0 got better fuel mileage Like I said, once I got my new one broken in, it will pin me to my seat...Since I did minimal modidfications on my 5.0, i don't feel like I got screwed when I bought this one...I guess its 6 of one, half a dozen of the other as the old saying goes. ...and when it comes to engine repair, all I do is routine maintenace stuff on mine. Lord knows I'd be lost as a blind mule trying to tackle fuel injection since I was raised on carburators. I'm stuck being dependant upon the dealer if anything major goes wrong until I can learn how to do some of that stuff... __________________ ....only in a Mustang, Mark Holliday Rice Haters Club Member #237 2007 Vista Blue Mustang GT Convertible w/black top and charcoal interior, 18-in. polished aluminum wheels. 1978 Ford F150 Ranger Longbed, 400M w/automatic and 2 fuel tanks...get the picture? 1993 Mustang GT Dark Blue/Grey 2-tone. Flowmaster Mufflers and blackouts on the headlights. RIP (10/31/99). 1968 Mustang 6 cyl/C4 automatic 1938 Ford Pickup, Flathead V8 (85HP) with granny 4-speed..a restoration work in progress.