about the 96 GT

[91redgt]

I am about to buy a 96 gt with 99k miles on it. It is all stock and is in excellant condition in and out. The guy wants 6500 for it. Is it worth it. Also, how are the 4.6 engines. My other stang is a 91 5.0 and about to sell and get the 96. Any suggestions would be appreciated. It seems a lot faster than my 91 and my 91 has exhaust, gears, intake. Just to let you know.

[The Deuce]

The 96 needs either a blower (kenne bell has a great one) or the PI heads swap to make good power.

I like the 96-98 cars, but you will get mixed reviews because they don't have the best power and aftermarket parts are few and pricey.

[91LX2Bfast]

Honestly, that price seems a little high for a 100K mile 96GT. Its not real high, but its about $500-1000 higher then I would be willing to pay. Right now is a buyers market, and you should be able to find a similar car for less money.
The 4.6L will last a very long time as long as its been taken care of. 200K+ miles is becoming common as these engines continue age.

[surfbeast]

I agree, 6500 is a bit high considering I see 99 Gt's with 60K in the 9-10K range on a regular basis. Some private owners think there cars are a pot of gold. A dealer would give him about 3K trade at best! Talk him down or keep looking.

[95GTS]

Personally I'd stay away from the 96. That's the first year of the SOHC 4.6L and the T45. Especially the T45 wasn't the best in the first couple years. I know because I used to have one. Let alone the 96-97s have quite a few recalls so if you do get that car make sure you get the recalls done. Are you just wanting the newer body style over the Fox or what? If I were you I'd keep the Fox 5.0. Much more reliable, much cheaper parts, more aftermarket and much easier to work on. If you are wanting a 4.6 go to a 99 or newer. Better heads and better all around car. Now if you are wanting the newer body style of the 94-98 then get a 94-95 5.0 so you have the body style with the better drive train. That's my opinion. I know people like the early 4.6 cars but I will never own one again. I just had WAY too many problems with it and was a very low mileage car, too.

Also, so you know, the 96-97 was rated at 215 hp. Your 91 will wax that 96 especially with the few things that you've added to your car.

The $6500 is probably close to around "market" value for it. But I don't think it's worth that much. Then again, I wouldn't buy it at all unless it was cheap enough I could get it and part it out, lol.

[96_4.6]

Actually I would have to say they made the 96 and up a 4.6 a SOHC to make it more reliable did they not?

[xxxBlakexxx]

I would say, buy a '99 if you can swing it. Depending on where you live, you should be able to find one with 60,000 miles on it for $9k. That would be a good, low price for my area, but obtainable.

I think you will get a better car with a lot more time left on it. 260 hp with lots of after market stuff available.

Just my opion...

[95GTS]

Originally posted by 96_4.6
Actually I would have to say they made the 96 and up a 4.6 a SOHC to make it more reliable did they not?

Well I think that from a reliability stand point it'll be mostly opinion. From the troubles I had with mine I would surely be one to disagree with the reliability angle. The two motors are different designs though. I think what you might be getting at is that Ford may have been going for a more "efficient" motor. They sure blew it with the 96-98 (heads especially) but the DOHC and the 99-up SOHC are working pretty well. Basically it's just an update of "today's" technology over the older pushrod technology. I don't know that it is REALLY a more efficient motor. Ford is just going to a different technology with their motors.

[jaxter1]

Well a car w/near 100K will need work soon, but the modular should be good for many more miles before overhaul if it's running solid now. I wouldn't trust any 5.0 after 80k or so...that's when I dumped my last one, shaft seals went, also other things pushrod motors require at that age made cutting losses the smart choice. Don't buy that post before about a 91 GT (what, 7+ 0-60, high 15's?) 'waxing' a 96 GT (mid-6 0-60, low to flat 15's). I call BS on that, read some reviews (C&D, R&T, etc.). The 96 is faster. I had an LX 5.0 notch, low rear gears, that was the quickest stock Fox made, I think...hey, just get a Fox and drop in the biggest rebuilt/hotrodded engine you could pass emissions with. I wouldn't trust any engine w/close to 100K mi. Or...spend a few more bucks and get a lower-miled car. The 4.6 is a good engine. The less miles/yrs of service, the better, less money down the road. But overall, any late 90's GT w/good miles should go for 7-8K depending on options. And it's quicker/faster/more buildable than a Fox. Sure, if you have a few grand burning a hole in your pocket, put a blower on a 5.0 or drop in a stroker. For me, a lower-miled 4.6 would be a better choice....they make blowers for them, too. Not everyone needs to spend 2-3K blowing a motor....heck, a later Cobra/SVT or even Rousch still makes more HP than most blown/turbo'd 5.0's bone stock. And they handle better/look cooler/have way better sound systems. Not to mention OBD-II vs. the dreaded EEC-IV or whatever it is....look at the money you'll need to dump into it to make it fast. Think of that money better-spent on a newer car to begin with, and start saving up. Do I make any sense? Then again, I drive my 'stangs daily, even in winter...duh.

[95GTS]

High 15s in a stock Fox vs low to flat 15s in a 4.6 96-98? I think not. If someone is running high 15s in a stock Fox, even a GT, then they need to learn to drive or they are at high altitudes. Even on street tires they'll be in the high 14s all day. A stock 4.6 SOHC 96-98 is a mid 15 sec car on street tires. Sure you may be able to find a freak 96-98 that had a great track and every thing fell into place that day to run low to flat 15s. Then again I know you can find the same for stock 5.0s running high 13s.

The power band is one big difference between the 5.0 and the 4.6. The 5.0 reaches it's power band sooner than the 4.6 which gives it an edge. The 4.6 has to go higher in the rpm's to get it's power. The 5.0 has a bit more torque, too, which makes a difference. Throw the "Correct" rear gear ratio in each to help get them into the correct part of the power band and then they become more equal. As for parts the 5.0 aftermarket is SOOOO much more and much cheaper parts over the 4.6 whether aftermarket or factory. And the comment about 80K on a 5.0. The only way that comment is even remotely accurate is if the car has had the heck fire ragged out of it. It's all in how you take care of the motor/car. The Windsor motors are very strong and proven and 80K on one is nothing. I had about 150K on my 87 GT (stock) and had only had to replace the water pump. I had almost 140K on my 351 Lightning and had replaced not one part. Another 302 with over 160K on it. My 96 blew the upper intake at 40K. After that it had a miss that could never be found. The heads were a joke. Had to have the tranny rebuilt at 32K (babied it, too) and it was never the same and always had something wrong. The 96-98 has 4-5 RECALLS for them that I know of. Maybe even more but I don't know. I've seen alot of other people with problems with their 96-98s (more so the 96-97s).

Maintenance and care is the key to any vehicle lasting to any point. Now I'm not saying the 4.6 can't do the same. Take care of it, fix it when it breaks, and it'll last a long time as well. With your 01 Ford already has the bugs worked out of it that plagues the 96-98 SOHC. But that's to be expected of new model years for the most part.

Everyone has got their own opinion and tastes. But the comment about the 5.0 pushrod techonology requiring "other things" at that mileage is bogus. Maintenance is all it needs just like the 4.6. Yes there are some lemons out there but that's the extreme minority.

As for the magazine articles. One can never go by what they print. Most of them couldn't drive correctly to save their own life. Most magazines like C&D and R&T are not accurate when compared to real life.

[Dark_5.0]

96-98 GT's are slow as hell.

an 88GT automatic vert will hang with a 96 GT 5 speed.

You should see how slow they run where I live wich is 4000ft above sea level. 15.7-16.0 is common.

I ran a 15.2 in a bone stock 88GT vert.

A 96-98 GT without FI or a PI swap doesnt interest me at all.

Yep thats the way I see it.

[Titan]

I think it just depends on how you want to drive it. My '98 works perfect for me. I'm in it for almost 75 miles/day, 95% interstate driving and my car is awesome. 70K+ miles and still running strong. Not that I don't like going fast...but I don't have the money to make my car a beast. It's plenty quick to keep up on the interstate and has more than enough pickup to keep from getting squeezed b/w semi's. For a daily driver, any well-kept car will suffice. However, the price does seem a little high...

[jaxter1]

well, ok, guess the testers at R&T/C&D are not able to test as well as some seat-of-the pants, I've-raced-'em before guesstimates. I really stand by that previous reply....of course nothing's written in stone, but again the first 4.6's were at least as fast/tested (by professionals) consistantly better than the older 5.0's hands down. I can also dig up some raceway numbers from the tracks 'round here....timeslips indicate the 4.6's walking-to-pacing at the least, unless the 5's were modded. Therefore, I still call bs on 'any 5.0 waxing an early 4.6' trash. It simply isn't true. Again, I bought the fastest (seat of the pants/stoplight tested) 5.0 made, and R&T/C&D agreed with that, at least. I can tell you the 4.6 I have now is faster, even in conv. trim. Yes, I own a stopwatch...and yes, I've raced. The later 5.0's stunk, they lied about the power output...or didn't you hear. Those wholloping 225 rated horses were usually nearer to 200...and if anyone believes a pushrod is more efficient or reliable than an OHV....well, you're entitled to that opinion. Engineers would tell you otherwise, as would the numbers of companies following that route. I wasn't the only 5.0 owner that had a motor fall apart (actually, I had 3 engines in the 1st 3 years....thank god for warranties). I drove my 5.0 for 11 yrs, got tired of it. I also had some fast non-'stangs, but noticed everyone I thought to have some sense in racing dropped thier 5.0's as well. Many of them drive WRX's now....or riced-out Mitsu's. A Cobra can still walk them, if the driver can handle his stick. 'nuff said. The five-oh's were great musclecars. The modulars are better, much more (real) HP and way more efficient. And the newer chassis/trims make the Fox look Dinosauric. Sure, I could pimp out a Yugo w/twin turbo's.....would prefer a new SVT Cobra, though. In light of that, I'd take any 4.6 over a pushrod, dollar-for-dollar. My base trim 4.6GT makes more than 40HP over any stock 5.0GT. And I trust it....it's underpowered. The modular can go to 4-valve.....and toast any 5.0 without resorting to blowers. A 5.0 GT with Nitrous can ALMOST get the same output as a Rousch, stage 2. Or a later Cobra. With far less handling capability, uglier trim, and a crappy ECU. Unless you spend, of course, thousands in upgrades. Really, I don't get the obsession. It's like the MG crowd almost.

[ac97gt]

alot of it is a matter of opinion and wallet. i happen to like look of the 5.0s, and many people here will also agree. the 5.0s mods are easier to come by and much cheaper. theres also endless more roads to go down in deciding what mods to do. i dont think anyone on here will argue that the 5.0 is more effecient, and i dont think thats a point they were trying to make, either. for the same price as a stock 96-98 you can make your 5.0 spank half the stuff on the road.

i also love the look of the 96-98, and around here they are still pretty expensive (at least $7000 for 100k). you cant touch a 99+ for under $11000 and thats if you can even find an 8cyl. if you love the look and you've got the bank, then of course its more effecient and they are great cars. just be ready to sink alot more money alot faster if you wanna get movin.

dont get me wrong, it all depends what you want ouf of your car too. if you just want a comfortable daily driver with some power behind it, you're looking in the right place. some people just want to go as fast as possible for as little as possible.

...its not that i dont love my car, but i definitely respect the 5.0s and i still love em.

[96_4.6]

Yea I love the back tail lights on the 5.0 like the 90-93 could be 89 or whateverr but the shreaded taillights sold me and I wanted that one but there was a sweet deal on a 96 with warranty with 68,000 miles with a full 100 point inspection for 8900 so I bought that. I havent opened my stang up yet but it has some balls with the mod's listed below, I cant wait to install the pulleys I've always heard so much about those and the headers oh yea lookin for some ponies with those two and still debating on just install the c&l plenum with the 65mm or doing the 70mm even without the PI's, hmmm