A disheartened 4.6L owner
 

I recently bought a 1998 Mustang GT, with a 5sp manual tranny that's in great condition with around 40k miles on it. So far, I have done the things listed in my signature.

I have been talking to people, and everyone is indirectly (and directly) telling me how stupid I was to buy a 4.6L instead of a 5.0L. Some of the comments I have heard include: "Its a torque-turd", "You'll spend twice the money for half the gain on mods as compared to a 5.0L", "They cut out power at high RPMs", and others. Is this true? Am I doomed to waste my money until I can spend $3000 on a Cobra Long Block, Cobra Heads, or a supercharger?

Also, I have been told that with my current mods I should be able to run a mid 14 on the track, but when I went, I consistently got 15.9s. What the hell?? My 60 ft times were around 2.6 sec and higher. I have a lot of trouble connecting with my tires on the track. Some help with ideas on what I could get for a relatively small amount of money (I have a rather small budget) to make my car at least semi-respectable on the track would be greatly appreciated (this may include shifting advice, or other driving techniques since I am not an experienced racer). Thank you very much,

-A very frustrated 17 yr old mustang owner

I don't think I would be that upset. True, 96 thru 98 GTs are slow, but you could change the heads and intake to a 99 up. Would be cheaper than 32v engine. I think 99, 00, and 01 GT are Bad. My brother has one and I think it will stomp any stock 5.0 (he has a stock 2000 GT).

If you wanted to go cheaper, just bolt on the Juice. It don't care what kind of heads you have, only exhaust!

Don't let it get you down!

True, The 4.6 parts are more expensive now but prices are droping. The 5.0 parts are cheap but the 5.0 is a out of date platform. Remember this " THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOMEONE FASTER THAN YOU ! " At "17" you are still a long way from having the baddest car around, unless daddy buys it for you. Enjoy your current car, it may not be the fastest, but is a great begginer car. You will own many,many cars in your life!!~ Mod this car and have fun, learn about driving on the track, and later on sell it and move up to the next best thing. No matter what car you have you will always want more power than you have and someone will always have a badder car than you. Use your current car as a tool to learn on, kindda like a bike with training wheels. Mod and your car will get faster, practice and your times will come down,get a good education and you can aford the good parts!!!

Yea i agree with Cobra... the 96-98 were slow,... but I have a buddy with a 96 and it has Mac Cold air, Mac Underdrive pulleys, Mac 70mm Throttle body, Mac Full cat back system, 3.73's, Pro 5-0 Power Tower short throw, Sub frame connectors, Computer chip, FMS Plug wires, and a few other minor mods and we got on it the other night... and he was with me the whole time. We didn't really pull on each other... And I have a 2001 V-6 3.8L ....... LOL just playing. :D I have a 2001 GT. But mine is stock. 5.0's are cheaper to biuld for sure... but I like the 4.6 better my self. Put the bottle on and smoke the 5.0's. But then again the Stock 5.0's are slow as rice anyways. But they are easy to biuld. (and cheap)

I'am also 16 and am struggling to afford my GT and don't have much money for mods right now. Many guys tell me I should've bought a 5.0 but I strongly disagree. The 4.6 is a far better engine than the old pushrod engine by far. The modular aftermarket is growing fast. Very fast. Everyone says the modulars have no aftermarket but remember this: the 5.0/302 (in one form or another) has been in 'Stangs for over 30 years now. As far as I'm concerned, it sure as hell better have a bigger aftermarket than the modulars which have only been in Mustangs for 7 years. The early modulars were slow stock (could still beat a 5 liter stock). Now, the newer stock mod engines can roast even a moderately modded 5.0. Everyone complains about the first mod engines only making 215 horsepower (225 in '98). But, if memory serves me correctly, the best 5 liters only made 245 hp in the '94/'95 Cobras. The 'regular' engines only made 225 hp in the '87-'92 ('93 rated at 205 hp) Fox years. Also, the two valves make great ammounts of torque. The modulars also rev much higher than their pushrod counterparts. As for your 15.9 at the track, that's not so good. My stock '97 is auto and I ran a 15.3. I think your having traction problems because of your 2.6 60-ft. Did you haze the tires a little? Drop the pressure a bit too. It'll help a lot. Last, when do you shift? Shifting late isn't good on a relatively stock GT because it stops making power after about 4800 RPM so shift then. Keep trying! You'll get to 14's. PRACTICE!. I ran a 16.9 my first run if it makes you feel any better.:D

Holy cow!! 2.6 60 ft? You did ALOT more than haze the tires. That's some serious tire spinning there. That's a BIG reason why you are running a 15.9. Practice, practice, practice. You NEED to get that 60ft down bigtime. When you go up to the line light the tires up for long enough that they start to smoke and then let off the brake and coast out of it while letting off the gas. It doesn't do much good to roast the crap out of street tires. You basically just want to clean them off when you do your burnout. Launch at around 1800-2000 rpm and don't completely dump the clutch. Kind of "feather" it a bit to try to keep the tires from breaking loose. DO NOT worry about your reaction time and who you are racing. For now concentrate on your launching techniques and getting those tires hooked up. If you still can't get the tires to hook drop your launching rpm's down untill you can get it to hook. If that doesn't work you need some better tires (probably need them anyways). The best tires to get, at least, would be drag radials. BTW, what was you mph on the runs?

96-97 GT= 215 hp @ 4400 rpm; 285 lb/ft @ 3500
Fox 5.0 excluding 93 (which was 205 hp, 275 lb/ft)= 225 hp @ 4200; 300 lb/ft @ 3200

I wouldn't put too much weight on hp ratings. They aren't exactly...umm...rock solid. Especially with the 93s...I am fairly sure it is under-rated. (They couldn't have the previous year cars be faster than the new 94s :)). As an example, the 93 cobra had the fastest 0-60 time until the 99 cobras.

I have heard the 96-98 cars are a torqueless turd, but I have been in 98gt5sp's car...and ummm...I don't see it :).

His best time was 15.6 and he didn't have a run where he didn't mess up in some way. Plus he had no traction, so I think it is more than fair to say that wasn't a fair judge of his car.

Plus, he makes it sound like he ran a 15.9 with his current mods, when all he had was his CAI and exahust (just for clarification).

I have heard that .2 off of 60' = about .4 off the ET. If this holds true, 2.0 60' would have yielded 14.7 runs. Ahhh, but he doesn't listen to me! :)

Thanks,
DoranW

Practice
 

You don't need a faster car until you learn how to drive the one you have (the secret of all types of racing.) While you'd be a little faster you'd be wasteing even more power (=money).

The 93 Cobra did not have the fastest 0-60 times.

Mustang Cobra 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Horsepower 235 240 240 305 305 305
Torque 280 285 285 300 300 300
0-60 mph 5.8s 6.2s 6.2s 5.6s 5.6s 5.6s

What do you mean they couldn't have the previous cars be faster than the new ones? Sure they could. Stock vs stock the fox bodies are faster than the SN95 94-98 GT's. More hp and torque and LIGHTER (makes a difference) weight. If he can cut down his 60ft times then he should be able to break into the 14s with his car.

Wally hit it dead on big time.

Where did you get your numbers from?

Thanks,
DoranW

WHAT IS A RESPECTABLE 60FT TIME FOR AN 2001 GT 5SPEED. STOCK? AND WHAT'S A GOOD 1/4 TIME FOR 01 GT 5 SPD?

TONS of mustang links on this page

Also at the above link was a SVT Cobra page in which I got the specs from called Dean's Mustang Zone:SVT Performance

On the 94-95 Cobra I've seen the hp rating vary from 240-245 hp at various sites. The ONLY way I see how the 93 Cobra could have beat the 94-95 in 0-60 is because the 93 is lighter.

Steeda: I'd say on stock rubber about a 2.1-2.0 would be pretty good. As far as times on the new 99-up stangs, I don't really know. From what I've heard they are supposed to run around high 13's. Maybe get mid 13s depending on driver, race conditions, etc.

If you think that the 4.6L motor has no potencial, just talk to the moderator of this forum.

"Yellowjacket" as Hammer calls his 1998 GT puts out around 450HP and that car has beat everything on the street when he and I go for a cruise. He's made LS1's look stupid.

Mind you he has a lot more cash in the car, but it still shows the potencial for the early 4.6L V8's. Blowers do wonders for them. And that is what I recommend you save for.

I have always gotten the insults because I have a 4.6 and not a 5.0 -- Anyone who's is going to insult you because of it doesn't have much going on upstairs in the brain. A lot of people think that the cubic inch size of an engine is all that matters. You can't even compare a 4.6 to a 5.0, they are two totally different engines. They both have their good and bad points, it's all a matter of opinion and preference. If someone tells you 4.6 sucks, tell them where they can put it, most likely they don't know what they are talking about. As far as your times, I would think you roasted the tires off the line. I have a 98 GT w/4R70W, and I took it to the track once I first got it and all I had on there was H-Pipe and chip, I ran a 15.1 in high humidity and spinning the tires down the track. Since then I have added a lot more to the car, and I have handed several 5.0 (auto & 5spd) bumpers back to their owners after a race, as well as some new 99+ cars too. When it comes down to it, no one elses opinion about your car matters but yours. There will always be a person who likes it, and some one who hates it. That's just how it goes in the car world. It's too bad people can't just respect someone elses car and not always try to show them up or make them look bad. Not all of us are out to win races. Amen, Church is adjurned!!

98STEEDAGT : JUST WANTED TO SAY YOU DID A GOOD JOB ON YOURS. LOOKS GREAT MAN. LATER.

Thanks, I have entered Steeda's monthly contest to get my Serial Tag. I know it's not the same as the original Serialization Numbers, but it would be considered a Steeda Collectors Edition GT. I am still working on the car right now, but I have about 85% of what the real Steeda's came with that year...

Full specs and progressive history link below. This is on my WWW machine at the house.

http://www.superrobots.net/steeda_gt_mustang.htm

I use to be ragged on for having a "Slow Point Six" (4.6), till I started actually racing. I think me and Tim C are the main reason why the 5.0, LT-1, and LS-1 Guys started respecting the 4.6's here in Fayetteville.

The 4.6 is starting to get one hell of a strong aftermarket going. Its already more than the LT-1 and LS-1 combined has, and its getting cheaper also.

I use to hate the 4.6 intenesely, till I got went for a ride in a 99 GT 35th anivesary edition with a 5spd. I was so impressed that I went out and bought one shortly after.

The 5.0 guys bash the 4.6 because things are changing and the 4.6 is starting to have one HELL of an aftermarket. Merc, your right about the 4.6 already having twice the aftermarket of the LS-1 and the LT-1 combined and those engines have been in F-Bodies for quite some time now. The only things the 4.6 is still lacking are cylinder heads, cams (Quite a few available now), and some affordable intake manifolds. We need more than just FRPP and smaller companies like SHM or PHP for aftermarket stuff. It's time venerable companies like Holley and Edelbrock start making stuff for our cars. Don't they realize the 4.6 is becoming the next 5.0 in terms of popularity. The sissy mods like cold air and U/D pulleys aren't enough. We need more parts!

OMG!!!! This forum is funny as hell....."5.0's slow as rice" OMG!!!!!

I smoke 4.6's all day with a 14.2 at the track @3000ft....

I still think the 5.0 is king at the strip when on any given night there are 10 plus 5.0's in the 10-12 second range and maybe three modular stangs in the 13's..

Funny stuff

later,

Give it time Dark, give it time... ;)

Considering I have first hand knowledge of how doggishly slow early 5.0s were (the continual 83 restore), and how the aftermarket for the push-rod is about 2,000 times larger than the 4.6, and considering that the parts cost about a 1/3 of corresponding parts on a 4.6, I think the modular motors are doing quite well....

Also, when did a stock 5.0 GT ever put out 260 hp to the flywheel?
oh yea, hehe, never....

Don't get me wrong, the 5.0 is one heck of a venerable engine that is easy to work on and relatively cheap to make fast, but give the 4.6 its due. Other than the original 96-98 intake debacle, these engines are pretty darn reliable, and make darn good power when modded....

To be honest, I love all stangs, but when someone with a "4.6s suck" attitude comes along, wheather they be in an LS1, 5.0, or a turbo 4, I'm usually the first one to hand him his rear-end at the track...

Alright Dark, lets not get in to a peeing contest. As I mentioned earlier both engines have their good and bad points about them. Let's look:

Why brag about an engine that takes more CuIn to keep up with another engine, in the same type car. It takes you 302cui to keep up with our 281.

Why argue between Ford owners. You take your 5.0 and we'll take our 4.6.

Just because their are more 5.0's at the track doesn't mean squat. That just shows me people want to take the cheap way out. It takes money to make a 4.6 run, and when it does run, I have seen it walk all over other cars(Ford and Chevy alike).

Foremost, I would hope that by now JoeBlow racer has enough intelligence to work on the 5.0.. How long has it been around?? The 4.6 is still an infant... You wouldn't expect to see a toddler win in a race with an adult... So why argue about this.

4.6 is more efficient from the factory than any other Mustang engine ever produced.

You have to actually plan to use a 4.6, unlike a 5.0 which you can just slap on heads and cam in your back yard. I have done this many times before.

It's all a matter of preference anyways. You sit here and get mad about us not liking the 5.0, what about all the morons out there that insult me in person for the fact that they see GT 4.6 on the side of my car.. I went down to the local gas station and parked next to a 5.0, a guy comes out and starts asking about my car. I tell him it's a 98 GT, he immediatley asks "Is is a 5.0?", ok, this just shows ignorance!!! I tell him it's a 4.6, he appologizes to me for having a 4.6, then turns to the guy in the 5.0 and starts asking about his car, and w/o even knowing all about our cars he claims!!! "I bet this 5.0 can kick your 4.6's butt!" OK, I hate this, I hate this to the point that I am about ready to beat the living hell out of the next person that does it. The other car has lost to me several times before, but since it is a 5.0, I guess that makes it faster... If you think for one minute that CUBIC INCHES make all the difference, and are the only determining factor in an engines ability to perform, then you need to go back to the books and READ!!!!!!!!! Now I am not saying that CuI don't play a role in an engine, cause they do, but.... Consider this!!!! Based on this method of thinking that a 5.0 will always out run a 4.6, you have to also believe that a Mustang or Camaro will never be out ran by any Honda/Acura or other type car... we know this isn't true!!!! So, where's the intelligence in this????

Final Word..... 4.6, 5.0, 5.4, 5.8 it DOES NOT MATTER!!!!!!! it's your car, your decision, no one else opinions matter about it. We all own Fords here, we should be giving BOW TIE's problems, not fighting with each other.......

just a thought, but aren't the 5.0's actually 4.9's?? if memory serves, they were a cc short of being able to even round up to a 5.0....4949 to be exact...

the 4.6's have a higher redline and a flatter horsepower/torque curve. having just spent a week in a friends low mileage '95 4.9L, I would take my 4.6 anyday.

but this is kind of like arguing if you have a small penis or just really large balls dont you think?

Well...umm...no not really :). Both cars have their benefits and drawbacks. If you have the money to back it up, the 4.6 can be badass. In a few years (3-4) there will be much more options out there.

Thanks,
DoranW

Glad to see mustang owners getting on so well:rolleyes:

Come one guys. So the first 4.6L was slow from factory, big deal. I think it's way cool. When Hammer and I go for a cruise and people think "ha ha another slow 4.6L" and we kill the guy, it's awesome.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 5.0. For me, a mechanically inclined guy with no training at all, the simplicity of the 5.0 can't be beat. The mod costs also match my wallet ;)

The real deal is that it is a MUSTANG. Our cars were all designed with the same thing in mind, a relatively quick, cheap, reliable, sporty car from factory that embodies fun and excitement to the average Joe.

4.6's and 5.0's can be scary fast....
 

I love the 4.6L cars....The only reason I havent got one yet is I am waiting for the new body style in 04'

It was the 5.0's are slow as rice comment that got to me.

Let me just say that I like all stangs from 87 and up and a few of the old ones.

4.6 owners act like they have such superior and new technology with there mod motors. My brothers 86' 300zx has a very similar engine design as the new modular 4.6.

Who really cares about the aftermarket just take driving lessons from Lizard King and run 13's stock:p

Later guys,
:D

98gt5spd - you have a 14 sec car, but you are just a 15 sec driver right now, and thats fine. We all have to learn sometime. We took my brothers stock 99GT auto to the track (it was his first time racing,) and his 60fts were 2.5sec+ and ET's were in the mid 15's for the night. I hopped in the car, cut a 2.0 and 2.1 60ft time on the stock Goodyears, and ran a set of 14.2's. What caused the difference? Experience.
First off, those Kumho's are great for the street and twisties, but they aren't too good on the track, or anywhere from a dead stop. But you should still be able to get the 60ft time down to 2.2-2.3, but I don't think it'll get much better on those tires. The other thing we need to look at is your shift points and how fast you are shifting. First gear I would shift at 5400, and 2nd and 3rd between 5100-5300.
If you get a chance, post the whole timeslip so we can see what was going on downtrack also. We need to help get you in the 14's.
Since you need something "cheap" to help out your ET's, you best bet right now would be a set of drag radial's. You can find a set of 15 or 16" stock Mustang rims for dirt cheap (its fine if they are scratched or the paint is peeling, it'll make them that much cheaper.) The throw a set of Nitto of BFG drag radials on there and get you 60ft times in the 1.9 range. With your car's power, and improved driving technique, you would have a mid 14sec car with no doubt in my mind.

Re: 4.6's and 5.0's can be scary fast....
 

Bastard! You beat me to the punch! I was gonna tell you to swing by so you can choke on my unpolluted stock exaust ... But with that compliment, i'll let it go for this time! ;)

This guy in town has a very impressive 347 stroker (based on a 5.0, obviously) ... he should be running right now at about 350HP at the crank, he is going to add a 300 shot of nos (bottom end built for it). If you think about that for a second, not many 4.6 can say ... yeah I'll run a 300 shot of NOS. Allthough the new 4.6L stock can do some impressive numbers, the 5.0 can be very very impressive when properly modified.

stock 5.0s
 

im sorry but i roast mostly stock 5.0s with bolt ons and gears at the local 8th mile track all day long,i dont have many mods and my motor is the huh huh pathetic 98...i couldnt break 8s yesterday but my best time was a 9.07 most of the near stock 5.0s run between 9.4 and 9.8. here are some numbers, are bottom end isnt that bad!!these are from the best run yesterday

R/T...658 sad i know
60'...2.123
330...6.176
1/8...9.074
mph...71.67

you boys aint got us modulars that bad..

peace

Re: Re: 4.6's and 5.0's can be scary fast....
 

The 5.0 was given the name 5.0 to avoid confusion with the 4.9L 300ci I-6 found in the truck lineup. This designation began in 1978 on the King Cobra version Mustang II. Technical displacement of the 5.0 is 4942cc (4942.22....). It's technical displacement in SAE is 302ci (301.59....) The 4.6L is technically 4.6L (4593.47...) or 280ci (280.31...). It's called a 281 though.

The 351W isn't actually a 351 either. It's a 352. they called it the 351 to avoid confusion with the 352 FE block that was retired.

The seat of the pants dyno doesn't work to determine powerbands. Rated hp and torque come in at a lower rpm than the ratings with the 4.6L, but neither engine revs well when stock, and the 4.6L favors the same shift points or lower than the 5.0. Furthermore, it actually took MM&FF more work to get the first Gen 1 GT into the 14's than it did for their first 99 Base Mustang. They were able to muster high 14's out of their stock 94-95GT's without a whole lot of fuss. By the way, I test drove a 95GT and thought it was a complete dog, so I can certainly agree with that.

I can also say with authority, 350hp at the crank from a 347 stroker isn't very impressive, and a 300hp shot on the top of 350hp will grenade a stock 5.0 block, it's just a matter or time. ;) The stock 5.0 bottom end is good for 400hp+, and the stock block begins to get iffy at 400-450hp or so. Past 500hp and you're rolling the dice. Add a main girdle, a good rotating assembly and you might be able to run safely for an extended time at 500hp. A well built 347 stroker will put down 400hp at the crank without much problem. A well built 302 will put down 350-375. The weakness in the stock 5.0HO block (including 1986GT) is the main webbing. It's cast thin. The 1986 GT has a .030" thicker casting.

You Guys Are crazy
 

You guys are posting that the 5.0l is an outdated platform and that the 4.6 is better. Perfect example. I have 95 GT, freind has a 98 GT. Both cars were high 15 second cars at 94 mph stock. Both got headers, off road x pipe, flowmasters, cold air kits pulleys, and gears. The 95 runs 13.3's and .4's at 103.5 and the 98 runs 14.3's at 97. Now, you tell me what is outdated and technologically advanced about a motor that for the same mods and money makes a third of the gain!!!!

Not to mention that 95 GT runs nose to nose with a 96 cobra that has the same mods (gears, pulleys, exhaust). That is a twin cam 320hp motor. I did the work on all three cars, I race all three cars at the track and the 95 is the nastiest most impressive of them!

The 4.6l has a lot to show before it can even be looked at on the same level as a 5.0. Take a lesson from GM. The new LS1 is a push rod motor that in stock form that in a ws6 goes 12.9 at 109.7 on drag radials. Oh yeah, I have made a few passes with that car. Not to mention my 87 5.0l GT that goes 10.87@127 on a 275 Drag Radial.

The push rod motor is the only way to go!!!!!

Re: You Guys Are crazy
 

Hmmm... An SN95 GT, with 250hp and gears running 103.5 through the traps with a 13.3-13.4. Are you forgetting a S/C or stickies on the mod list, or maybe you're staging 30ft shallow and crossing the start at 20mph? I like the 5.0, but I also like reality. There are some really good drivers out there that can put an SN95 5.0GT into the really high 13's@100mph with your mods, but I've never seen any claims like yours. You're claiming performance better than good drivers in the Fox cars.