A disheartened 4.6L owner

[98SteedaGT]

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.......

[wade73]

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?

[Sonics2042]

Originally posted by wade73
...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

[95mustanggt]

Glad to see mustang owners getting on so well

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.

[Dark_5.0]

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

Later guys,

[91LX2Bfast]

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.

[Lizard King]

Originally posted by Dark_5.0
Who really cares about the aftermarket just take driving lessons from Lizard King and run 13's stock

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.

[slow98]

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

[Unit 5302]

Originally posted by wade73:
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...

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.

Originally posted by Lizard King
...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.

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.

[11secondGT]

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!!!!!

[Unit 5302]

Originally posted by 11secondGT
...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...

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.