5.0 vs 4.6 what faster stock both 5 speed 95vs96

[PKRWUD]

Todd, Todd, Todd. You make a valid point, but it falls into the same trap as the computer processor megahertz myth. A bigger number doesn't mean it's going to be faster. Alot of people, in both cases, seem to think that if the number is higher, it must be faster, but we both know that's often not true. The 3.9L is a rocket in paper airplane clothing. The Mustang would be lucky (and faster) to get that engine.

Let's compare notes. The '94 De Tomaso came with a naturally aspirated 4.0L BMW V8 that was rated at a conservative 304hp, did 0-65 in less than 5 seconds, and had a top speed of 160 mph. In '95, there was a Ford built Aston Martin with a turboed 3.2L in-line six that developed 335hp and had a top speed of 162 mph. The Ferrari 348, the most common, average Ferrari sold, comes with a 300hp 3.4L V8. That's only 208 cubic inches! It does a 14.5 quarter mile, and has a top speed of 170 mph. Oh, and it's naturally aspirated too. Those are just 3 of dozens of examples in which a "tiny" engine yields plenty of power. One of the reasons we Americans have such a hard time with that idea is because we were raised on the pushrod V8's, and they aren't capable of such feats. Their primative design won't allow it.

Take care,
-Chris