![SEARCH](http://www.mustangworks.com/images/search.png)
![The Mustang Works](http://www.mustangworks.com/images/mw_footer_logo.gif)
© Copyright 1995 thru 2008 - The Mustang Works™. All Rights Reserved.
MustangWorks.com is designed and hosted by Aero3 Media.
MustangWorks.com is designed and hosted by Aero3 Media.
|
![]() |
#1 |
Registered Member
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 5,246
|
![]() I just picked up a 2002 GT last week. I had been in this forum before asking technical questions about the 4.6L and trying to get an idea of whether it could compete with the 5.0 on a light mod basis.
I got a bunch of inaccurate information on the 5.0L and how cheap it was to modify vs the 4.6L, even after I posted multiple times that it would cost the same. I come back here and read some posts today, and quite frankly, a good deal of you need to go back to school when it comes to how engines work, why they work, and how to make them work better. The BS in this forum is so thick I feel like I'm on a ricer site. Not about other cars either. The information that I see flying back and forth about the 5.0 being a dog, and this and that about the 4.6L, vague answers to technical questions without any knowledge to back it up? Good lord. Do I have to put a hat on sideways when I click on Modular Madness? I think I'm going to do a little break down here. 5.0L (Technically 4.9L) 1968-2001. 302ci Bore x Stroke 4.00"x3.00" Overhead valve, pushrod 90* V-8 Cast Iron Heads/Block The 5.0 has a proven record of being reliable over 150,000mi. Power loss doesn't begin until about 120,000mi on the average 5.0HO roller cam block. The 5.0 has been used in different varients from about 120hp up to 240hp as rated from the factory. True output on the Cobra models is much closer to 260hp, and at least one member has dynoed 260rwhp with only exhaust done to his 93 Cobra. The "old technology" engine can handle in excess of 400hp on the stock rotating assembly, and it can make in excess of 350hp easily in a very streetable N/A configuration with max power coming in at under 6000rpm. People routinely hit 600hp with a good rotating assembly and a non intercooled S/C 5.0 that has had a basic N/A job done to it. Due to the oversquare engine design, the 5.0 can rev much higher if needed. With a good block and rotating assembly N/A 5.0's have revved beyond 10,000rpms in closed circuit racing. Complete crate longblocks are currently available rated at 320hp for about $1800. Fuel economy is superior when compared to the 4.6L as the 5.0L is more adept at making low end power, eliminating the need to rev higher in normal driving. The 5.0L engine was discontinued not because of performance, reliability, economy or expense. It was discontinued due to concerns about it's ability to meet stricter pollution standards. Engineers said it would need a redesign of the head to meet air quality standards, and in a few years, even that wouldn't cut it. So in an effort to cut costs, Ford pushed the SOHC 4.6L into phase. Low and behold the 5.0L was resurrected with better heads in the 1996-2001 Explorers. Any well driven 5spd non vert 5.0 from 1987-1988 is capable of running very low 14's stock. Any 1989-1993 can run mid 14's stock. Any SN95 within those parameters can run mid/high 14's stock. The 93 Cobra in the right hands is a 13 sec car. With a few hundred in mods, it's nearly a 12 second car. I have run my 87GT vs my former 2001GT and the 87GT was notably quicker, nearly bone stock, with 160k on it. There are many very lightly modded 5.0's running mid 13's out there. I'm talking like $500 or less here. There are stock engined save for some 1.7:1 rockers 1987-1988 SD Mustangs running 12.8's. Overall, the 5.0L may use older technology, but it's design is superior for performance street applications. The SOHC 4.6L makes a great grand touring engine. It's smooth, quiet, and is now relatively quick. Had the 5.0L been an option on my 2002 GT, I would certainly have taken it. Please research the engines/cars that you want to talk smack about before posting it. Most of you have no clue about what you are talking about, and you give a black eye to the credibility of Mustang owners all over when you post grossly inaccurate information. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Warrington, PA
Posts: 694
|
![]() I also agree with you about the BS about the 5.0L being a dog. I know one post thats up right now on this board that I think you are also referring to. I am not sure if comments like that come up because there are some 4.6 owners tired of being told they drive cars with "weak" engines or what? The 4.6L 2V is not a rev happy engine, even with its OHC's, like some people have said. I also saw a lot more BS, but elected not to address it in an attempt to not start a flame war. But now I agree with you in addressing the false info because we need to make sure that we are informed Ford owners, not just riceboys who think our cars are the greatest just because they are newer then something else. I don't think you are trying to single any people out, just trying to make aure that false info isn't being pushed around.
I have owned a 91 LX 5.0 5spd, and currently own a 97 Tbird 4.6L auto. In my driveway are also a 4.6L 99 GT and a '01 Lightning (brother's and Dad's cars respectively.) So I feel I can relate to both engines with experience to back it up.
__________________
'97 T-bird LX 4.6L 2V, auto SVO heads/intake, Vortech T-trim, front mounted intercooler, blower cams, Cobra crank, Manley H-beam rods, JE pistons, Aeromotive fuel system w/ 42# injectors, and much more No times yet |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
It's a lot like a race car
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Meridian, MS
Posts: 4,130
|
![]() I agree. There were some rather inaccurate statements being made about the 5.0. However as I told Unit yesterday, the 5.0 is a excelent motor, that does make the 4.6 bad. Just not as good in all respects. Both motors have their strong and weak points
BTW, to eliminate confussion, Unit is refering to the 4.6 SOHC, not the DOHC.
__________________
1987 Buick T-type 1998 HD Electra Elide |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 2,875
|
![]() Quote:
Emissions are important, I think the comment about the 5.0 not meeting emissions is probably very valid. I work for an equipment manufacturer and the government regualtions are really coming down hard. The 4.6 is still a solid engine, and I wouldn't knock it. The 4.6 DOHC is a great engine (IMO). I would rather see Ford switch engines and keep the mustang fresh, than keep the designs on the back shelf with all the cobwebs. That's how cars get canceled ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The special place in your heart
Posts: 388
|
![]() Hey, I drove a 5.0 GT for 4 years, and am now on the 4.6 Cobra. I know its a Cobra engine, but still, I think its splitting hairs a little to compare a V-8 5.0 and a V-8 4.6, its not like comparing V-8 to V-6, right?. (I didn't read all the posts here, got bored
![]() (I miss my GT, but not when I drive the Cobra)
__________________
Scott 453.9rwhp 387trq Lots of fun Convertible ![]() Penn State University Temple University School of Medicine (start August 27th ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
The Redneck James Bond
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Fayetteville NC
Posts: 1,707
|
![]() Umm...Unit. I looked through Modular Madness and didnt see many questions asked by you. What questions have you asked that you are refering to???
I'm sure if you asked, Hammer would of been more than happy to answer, and is just about gaurenteed to give you the best answer there is to be had. If you have questions about racing your 4.6, there are several of us here that know the real deal about running the 99+ 4.6's hard. I would rattle off some names but I dont want anyone who wouldnt be mentioned to get pissed. I would like to think I was not one of the people you were reffering to. If I dont know something, I wont BS an answer, if I do know the answer, someone has usually beat me to it already. Oh, by the way Unit. When you were running the New GT's (How about that, you had two New GT's in a weeks time...Bragging rights ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
AKA "Dr. Evil"
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South Fork Ranch
Posts: 1,721
|
![]() Unit,
I'm going to ask you this with as much respect as I can muster... "What the he#$ are you talking about?" Like Mercury, I can't seem to find many threads at all started by you in this forum... so excuse me if I get a little miffed when you go ragging on our posters. Just so you know there are a few HIGHLY intelligent members who post here frequently and try to answer questions when they can. So I guess I'm a ricer, as well as SD Wheeler, Mustang92, and many others.... I admit that I don't know much about the 5.0, but that isn't the engine that I deal with most of the time. I don't care If an engine is a push-rod 5.0, SOHC\DOHC 4.6, a rotary, or a steam locomotive... It all comes down to HP,TQ,weight, traction, gearing, and your power curve.... (and some fluid dynamics for you engineers... ![]() I've been right next to and under my car every step of the way from a stock 15.3 timeslip to mid 12s. Intake\Heads disassembly\reassembly, pullies, nitrous, intercooler, the Procharger that leaked all into my induction setup.... TKO Tranny install... Man I guess I don't know a thing.... ![]() Mustang92 is one of the fastest N/A modular cobras out there... I guess he's just lucky... SDWheeler set up a WHOLE NEW ported and polished head and intake kit for early modulars that will absolutely rape a 99-02 GT. I guess he just fell into that right? These guys are just 2 of the many intelligent and knowledgable posters who frequent our board. You've got to understand that the 5.0 has been around a long time and a LOT of folks know the 5.0 inside and out. It's just not the same with the modulars yet. There is a reason we have this forum, its to help those who need help. And lets face it, most new\uninitiated stang drivers are going to get a modular. And to be honest, I'm glad the new folks come here. Post on the Corral and watch your post get buried. and if you think the IQs are dim here, I highly suggest you don't go to stangnet or Mustangworld.... I never said that ANY answer I gave to any question would always be correct. I'm not a mechanic, I'm not an engineer, I'm an old Navy squid who like to get dirty and go fast. But anyone who responds to a posted question does so because they want to HELP, if they didn't they just wouldn't respond. I suggest you take any advice you deem bad and ignore it. (Just like every other forum on the internet) I have the utmost respect for you Unit, but you just don't come onto this board and insult our posters. Its bad taste and doesn't help anyone or anything. I hope you understand...
__________________
Uncle Sam "What the hell is up with all the gauges? Calling Captain Kirk, your ride awaits... Phasers on stun...." |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sterling, VA
Posts: 43
|
![]() I'm a new poster who signed up on this board a few months after I bought my 2000 GT. I came across this board again earlier this week to ask some questions regarding my check engine light and I have found the posters on this board not only have a high level of knowledge, but are also extremely helpful. Like Hammer stated, try going to other Mustang boards on the internet and all you get is Ford sucks, Chevy rules or vice versa. This is the ONLY board where I received intelligent, helpful responses to my issues.
In regards to the 5.0 vs. the 4.6, I've driven both, an 88 LX hatchback which hasn't had a 5.0 in it since 1993 and my current 2000 GT. Arguing over which car is better, is like arguing if Filet Minon or Prime Rib is a better steak. Both are different yes, yet both are great. Just my 2 cents.
__________________
I eat Chevys, fart imports and crap Mopars.... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Registered Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 2,875
|
![]() LOL...
"defender of the early 4.6" Brilliant! There is nothing like pulling next to some smart a** at a light and you can tell he thinks he's going to smoke you. Then the light goes green and your gone, warp speed. The look is priceless, I never get bored of it. "but your suppose to be a slow 4.6...." The greatest thing about Mustangs (ALL Mustangs) is that they make great platforms to build fast cars, suprising so many people. Last edited by 95mustanggt; 04-26-2002 at 02:05 PM.. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Registered Member
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 5,246
|
![]() I made posts regarding the Gen 1 4.6L's reliability when the PI head swap is done. Technical posts looking for information on the cc size of the PI heads, dish of the 99+ 4.6L GT pistons, dish size of the 96-98 GT pistons, about valve reliefs, engine longevity, and power production within the last month or two.
Hammer did respond to at least one of my threads, with some useful information. I got many responses telling me how to incorrectly modify a 5.0, and that the 5.0 would be a lot cheaper to modify. I had to point out that their posts were inaccurate, and the threads received very little useful input, and no technical information. (I eventually found the tech after searching for hours on the net). As far as coming in here and saying whats up, you've said it yourself Hammer. You don't know a lot about the 5.0L, and neither do many of those posting in here. That's not my beef at all. My problem is the posts with blatently inaccurate and skewed information about an engine they don't know about. To me, allowing such BS to continue on this site is in poor taste. I'm not faulting anybody but the 5.0 guys and the dual owner guys on that. Nixing the crap when it first starts to hit the fan and educating people on the facts makes for a better informed and more respected group of enthusiasts. I was overwhelmed by the ridiculous comments on THIS thread. "A disheartened 4.6L owner" http://forums.mustangworks.com/showt...threadid=22610 I'm not hear to rag on the 4.6L, I have one. I wanted a Gen 1 that I could do a PI head swap too as well. They are nice engines, and they are a heck of a lot more refined than the 5.0L. My 87GT is a brute. Plain and simple. It's the closest you can get to a 60's Muscle car within the last 10 years, hands down. It's fun as hell. That's great for kicking it up on the weekends, but when it comes to getting back and forth to work, and crusin, the new GT is such a far superior car (not engine) that it's nuts. The thing I miss the most is the sound. When I shitcanned the 2001GT from a 15mph roll it's front end lifted and I was rewarded with a rich exhaust note. I knew I wouldn't even believe what my 87GT had done in the past if it didn't beat me, and to be honest, when the 4.6L was going I didn't think my friend would be able to close the gap of me being 1/2car ahead, and getting the jump. Was I ever wrong. There a split second after I hit it was this roar of an engine at my rear corner, it just kept climbing. It sounded soo badass. I have to admit, it was probably the coolest sounding car I've ever raced (now I know what the other guy feels like next to me, hehe) and the 87 just kept pulling until it was a good 1/2 car in front of me. It was going to blow me away. My friend then missed 2nd trying to add insult to injury with a hard bark of 2nd gear on my P245 Nitto cladded 87GT! Light at the end of the tunnel. I was already in second gear and I was able to fly past him. Had he hit his 2nd gear powershift attempt, it would have been over. My 87GT will pull to 75mph in 2nd gear and I know how it pulls on it's way there. All the stories of the 3rd gear 5.0L demon sucking all the my 87s power are apparently unheard by the white beast. I walk LT-1s with authority up to 120mph, and LS1's can't get away up to 100mph,anyway. I've never raced any LS1s after that speed. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
AKA "Dr. Evil"
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South Fork Ranch
Posts: 1,721
|
![]() All in all, I think its good that subjects and objections can be brought into focus on a message board and not have artillery fire start up...
As far as your concerns Unit, they are not without merit, but in my opinion you've exagerrated them a little bit... I checked out the thread you mentioned, and other than the stupid "ricer" comment, I really didn't see anything altogether offensive.... As far as the price of parts: I sell parts part-time on my Saturdays and in my experience parts for the modular (especially the non-engine parts) are just about the same price as comparable stuff for the fox bodies. But I do notice a constant 2-7 percent retail increase for anything that's on a 98 or above. I think a lot of this is companies knowing that these years is where most of the "new" money is coming from... so they bump up the prices a bit... As far as parts such as intakes and heads: In general (retail), the prices for these parts have dropped dramatically in the last 24 months as more companies start supporting the 4.6 platform... and although I still see about a typical 2-5% increase in price in general for the modular parts over the good ol' 5.0, if you look on the net hard enough, you can find some deals nowadays. (Wish I was in the market for heads now. You don't want to know how much I paid for my FRPP setup almost 2 years ago) [After some checking, SDWheeler has got one HECK of a deal going on for the heads\intake upgrade... ![]() Overall, there are still more choices for a 5.0 owner, but the 4.6 market is growing by leaps and bounds..... Now as far as information passed out on the 5.0 on our various forums, well as long as there are no flame wars and people play nice, I'm fine. To be honest, if you want info on the 5.0, I wouldn't be reading in the mod madness forum anyway....feel free to defend the 5 litre, but just try to remember we're all mustangers here. And as far as bad info pertaining to the 4.6, if I know its incorrect, I'll post a correction. But to be honest, that is the nature of the beast on any message board, not just here... I would ignore the inconsistencies and move on.... As far as your 87 GT is concerned, it sounds like a hot little number, do you have any timeslips\dyno runs in it? How about the 2001? Once again, thanks for the mature response Unit. I appreciate it....
__________________
Uncle Sam "What the hell is up with all the gauges? Calling Captain Kirk, your ride awaits... Phasers on stun...." |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3
|
![]() I don't quite understand all the comparisons and complaining. I have had the pleasure of owning and working on both 5.0 and 4.6 motors and enjoy them equally. I have driven 12 Sec. cars and now drive a 2002 GT. I really admire anyone for working on their car and just getting pleasure out of driving around. The new Mustang is not the same as a stroked 5.0 and I don't expect it to be. I get my enjoyment out of the new Mustang for what it is, not what is isn't.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Registered Member
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 5,246
|
![]() Hammer,
While the aftermarket for the 4.6L isn't all that big when it comes to engine parts, it's quality. That's a big plus. If it was small and filled with low quality junk, that would be something altogether different. I don't really come in here looking for information on the 5.0L, which I know a lot like the back of my hand, but I did come here looking for how the 4.6L compared. It seems quite ironic to me that Ford stock heads are as good if not better than many aftermarket choices in the 5.0L arena as well as the 4.6L. The GT40P heads for the 5.0L and the PI heads for the 4.6L are both great heads for a quick street car. I don't have any numbers on the '87, mostly due to their being no tracks within a 3hr drive, overpopulation at the tracks that are around, and it's extremely expensive to run here thanks to the short season. I did run it once on a whim with a Gtech. 14.19 @ 103.8mph. There were a lot of factors that contributed to a very crappy run in that case, including a terrible launching surface. All I know is the 87 is a total freak of nature, and even my friends think there must be some hidden work done to it that I haven't detected. I can rule out hidden N20, cause it would certainly have run out of happy gas 3 years after buying it!! LOL. $40 at Moorhead (About 3.5hrs) 3+ passes $80 at Rock Falls, WI (About 3hrs) 2-3 passes $130 at Brainard International Raceway (About 3hrs) 1-2 passes I can't justfiy paying $100-$200+ for 1-3 passes and a full day of driving. The 2001GT I picked up Monday of last week, and returned it to the dealer after a different dealer discovered $10-$15k of accident damage that had been professionally repaired the day after I got it. On my way home from returning that car, I stopped in at the dealer that discovered the problem, and bought the 2002 brand new off the lot. That was Wednesday of last week. Heh, the car probably won't see the track, at least for a while as I'm not even sure they are open yet. Mixed rain/snow today. Ack. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
President Bush | RBatson | Blue Oval Lounge | 57 | 04-30-2004 12:55 AM |
Why Dan??? | fast88 | Blue Oval Lounge | 45 | 08-02-2002 01:59 AM |
First time at track for me | StoplightWarrior | Stang Stories | 11 | 09-09-2001 08:59 PM |