5.0 vs 4.6

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

04-23-2006, 08:25 AM

1982 mustang 5.0

Senior Member

Thread Starter

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: El Paso TX

Posts: 431

5.0 vs 4.6

is it just me or does everyone on this forum think that 5.0 are slower then any 4.6 gt cuz when ever people ask what will win i read that 5.0 are slow and that a 4.6 will win WTF i know 4.6 are fast but i also know that 5.0 are not slow

04-23-2006, 08:28 AM

Lances03SVT

Super Moderator

Join Date: May 2005

Location: Carthage, Missouri

Posts: 9,684

Most are saying stock for stock.

Yes there are some very damn fast 5.0's around.There are alot in my area for sure.

04-23-2006, 08:29 AM

whitethunder46

Always Detailin'

Join Date: Oct 2005

Location: Dayton, OH

Posts: 3,556

From what I've always heard a 4.6 will win.

Stock vs Stock that is.

Like we've said, maybe your car vs. my auto could be a good race.

What do you run in the 1/4?

04-23-2006, 08:36 AM

1982 mustang 5.0

Senior Member

Thread Starter

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: El Paso TX

Posts: 431

down here we dont have a track with times we race at an old airport there are just light so i really dont know what i run

04-23-2006, 09:41 AM

spike_africa

Administrator

Join Date: Sep 2004

Location: Orlando,Florida

Posts: 11,974

stock heads and intake and cam n/a 5.0's are slow.

04-23-2006, 10:12 AM

matrixpuba

Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2006

Location: tennessee

Posts: 1,103

all things stock, the 5.0 wil jump ahead for a sec. after that its all over for the 5.0. put some money in both cars and things can change quick.

04-23-2006, 12:20 PM

1982 mustang 5.0

Senior Member

Thread Starter

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: El Paso TX

Posts: 431

well i just test drove an 03 4.6 auto and i have to say i was a little disapointed i was expecting more of a kick maybe cuz it was an auto

04-23-2006, 12:32 PM

matrixpuba

Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2006

Location: tennessee

Posts: 1,103

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1982 mustang 5.0

well i just test drove an 03 4.6 auto and i have to say i was a little disapointed i was expecting more of a kick maybe cuz it was an auto

i will say driving a 5.0 car off idle is alot more fun. the long runner length and more cubes make it feel faster than a 4.6, but beleave me it s not.

04-23-2006, 01:25 PM

1982 mustang 5.0

Senior Member

Thread Starter

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: El Paso TX

Posts: 431

thats what i was thinking but i really thought it would be faster

#10

04-23-2006, 03:06 PM

BraggStang

Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2006

Posts: 224

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1982 mustang 5.0

I just got back from the track and I beat a 85 5.0 He jumped out, but I caught in by the 1000ft and took the race. I also raced an 05 GT and I beat him also...So alot depends on the driver. The best win of the day was an Audi TT, he has the V6 Twin turbo system and I beat him twice today. I was loving it because he beat me last time!!! This time I smoked his ***!!!!! Saw a Cobra run an 11.9 today!!!! Those damn snakes are FAST!!!!

#11

04-23-2006, 03:15 PM

1982 mustang 5.0

Senior Member

Thread Starter

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: El Paso TX

Posts: 431

yeah cobras are fast i agree with you alot does depend on the driver ints not the car its the driver

#12

04-23-2006, 08:12 PM

whitethunder46

Always Detailin'

Join Date: Oct 2005

Location: Dayton, OH

Posts: 3,556

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1982 mustang 5.0

yeah cobras are fast i agree with you alot does depend on the driver ints not the car its the driver

Definately. At my local shop, theres an 05 GT with 4.10 gears and a few bold ons, he ran a 13.40. With the shop's owner, the car ran a 13.15@107, so definately driver helps.

#13

04-25-2006, 10:01 AM

the gillz

Bruce Leeroy

Join Date: Apr 2006

Posts: 678

the 4.6 is somewhat smaller, also lighter, and comes with more power.

4.6> 5.0

#14

04-25-2006, 10:29 AM

floppy

Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2005

Location: royal palm beach, florida

Posts: 1,805

Quote:

Originally Posted by the gillz

the 4.6 is somewhat smaller, also lighter, and comes with more power.

4.6> 5.0

if you're talking about the engine alone yes but a 4.6 mustang (96-04) is larger and heavier than a 5.0 fox body... so that point is kinda invalid. and actually, now that you mention is the 4.6 is actually larger and heavier than the 5.0 i believe. the 5.0 has thinner walls than the 4.6.

5.0 foxes are very slow stock, everyone knows that. with heads/cams/intake they wake up, a lot...

#15

04-25-2006, 06:46 PM

Blk02stang

I 8urvtec!!

Join Date: Mar 2005

Location: Va

Posts: 815

We've dynoed alot of 4.6 sohc and dohc mustangs and a fair amount of 5.0's and by far the stock vs. stock the 4.6 kicks the 5.0's @**. As for modified...one was a '90 gt with GT40 ported/polished heads/GT40 intake mainfold and cam and CAI....228rwhp! The guy wasnt happy when we compaired his graph to a stock 4.6 graph. Took his car to 2 other shops and came back with his HP still in the 220's. When you add some forced induction to either one, usually the 4.6's handle it better since you can tune them a bit more with all of the electronics. We did a '88 5.0 with a big Vortec on it and a mass amount of other work...518rwhp, then tuned a '04 cobra with intake/ O/R x-pipe/full exhaust and pulley upgrade...548RWHP tuned with SCT!

In my book the 4.6 will get the 5.0 everytime.

#16

04-26-2006, 06:05 PM

1982 mustang 5.0

Senior Member

Thread Starter

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: El Paso TX

Posts: 431

a modded 4.6 will never beat a modded 5.0

#17

04-26-2006, 06:24 PM

Blk02stang

I 8urvtec!!

Join Date: Mar 2005

Location: Va

Posts: 815

Why are the 4.6's puttin out more power then? I see more and more of the 4.6 mod motors performing better than the 5.0's at the track and on the dyno charts.

#18

04-26-2006, 07:00 PM

1982 mustang 5.0

Senior Member

Thread Starter

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: El Paso TX

Posts: 431

there is nothing like a big engine its like saying a v10 is smaller then a v8 same thing. 302 is bigger than a 281

#19

04-26-2006, 07:19 PM

spike_africa

Administrator

Join Date: Sep 2004

Location: Orlando,Florida

Posts: 11,974

i'm not sure what you guys are talking about but the 5.0 engine is a ton lighter. The average 5.0 weights 450ish pounds while the average 4.6 4v weights almost 200 pounds more. i'm talking fully dressed motors.

#20

04-26-2006, 07:27 PM

Mug11

Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2005

Location: Lubbock/Houston, TX

Posts: 909

Quote:

Originally Posted by spike_africa

Not only is the engine a whole lot lighter. The Fox bodys weigh a ton less than sn95 or 99+ stangs. Plus almost equal power. 5.0 > 4.6 going stock for stock.

#21

04-26-2006, 07:37 PM

Jack The Ripper

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1982 mustang 5.0

a modded 4.6 will never beat a modded 5.0

uhh... doesent that depend on the mods? or are you saying a blown 4.6 will lose to a cammed 5.0? j/p i know what ya mean.

ROFL.

everything i have heared says the 4.6 will be faster. i beat 3 different 5.0's in my 4.6 when all i had was CAI, and one of them when i was completly stock.

so.... i gotta say my personal experience, plus everything ive heard sorta says... ya know... otherwise....

#22

04-26-2006, 08:22 PM

GREG@94GT

Guest

Posts: n/a

OK...

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 302 AND THE 281!

5.0 = an ol pushrod
4.6 = modular

personally... I thing that the 5.0HO has more potential then the 281SOHC

I also think that the 281DOHC has more potencial then the ol 351W(or most pushrod'd engines)... the DOHC 4.6s are probably 1 of the best engines made!

stock for stock... a 95 GT and 96 GT are basicly the same car as far as specs...

but with technology they're puttin into cars, these new modular dual over head camm'd engines are insane... They have more potential then any pushrod engine ever made...

_______________________________________________

Now... is the 281 better then the 302? NO!
they're different engines...

Is the 302 Slow? NO NO NO!
the 302s may not be as fast as many newer 281 powered mustangs but they sure as hell arent slow...

and they're easier to maintain, parts are cheaper, and (in my opinion) are more of muscle cars then these new modular engines!

YEEHAW!
302 FOR THE WIN!

#23

04-26-2006, 09:05 PM

spike_africa

Administrator

Join Date: Sep 2004

Location: Orlando,Florida

Posts: 11,974

a 5.0 vs a 96 GT non pi headed car yeah that would be the 5.0 win
a 5.0 vs. a PI headed 99-04 GT its not a contest the 99-04 is way faster stock. I dont really see what there is to argue about that. Stock for stock of course.

#24

04-26-2006, 09:13 PM

LOOT

Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: Missouri

Posts: 315

Quote:

Originally Posted by GREG@94GT

I totally agree Greg. This is my third 4.6 that I've owned. My first was a 94 Mercury Cougar 4.6, second is my 99 F-150 4.6 (still own) and the third is my '02 Mustang. I can't say anything but great things about this engine. I agree 100% that this is one of the best engines made right now. My dad's buddy had like 300,000 miles on a 4.6 and the thing didn't even leak a drop and barely used any oil at all! My cougar had like 140,000 miles or so and the same for me too. Still ran excellent, no leaks, etc. My old 88 cougar had the 5.0, and I had to keep a giant piece of cardboard under the car to absorb the oil. hehe.. I know that's an easily fixed problem but my point is the 4.6 in my opinion is a very well designed engine. Ford really has a good thing going with this one.

#25

04-27-2006, 07:51 AM

floppy

Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2005

Location: royal palm beach, florida

Posts: 1,805

Quote:

Originally Posted by spike_africa

thats what i said, the 5.0 is smaller and lighter than the 4.6.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1982 mustang 5.0

a modded 4.6 will never beat a modded 5.0

thats a very ignorant thing to say... especially since 4.6's beat 5.0's all the time... there is a replacement for displacement and its called technology.

#26

04-27-2006, 09:19 AM

GREG@94GT

Guest

Posts: n/a

EH...

I really think this is a dumb arguement...

The ford 302 is (IMO) ford's best small block and 1 of the best small blocks... just like chevy's 350...

Now the 4.6 is completely different... Its so hard to compare them...

I'll tell ya what... I'd rather have a 5.0HO over any SOHC4.6...
__________________________________________________ __

And that car you've got there is a classic... 25 years old and hard to find... Easily a show car...

have fun with it and dont listen to what people say about being slow

#27

04-27-2006, 03:26 PM

1982 mustang 5.0

Senior Member

Thread Starter

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: El Paso TX

Posts: 431

oh belive me i know what i have thats why i bought it i also know the potential it has.

#28

04-28-2006, 07:06 AM

floppy

Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2005

Location: royal palm beach, florida

Posts: 1,805

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1982 mustang 5.0

oh belive me i know what i have thats why i bought it i also know the potential it has.

:ban:

why do you even bother asking a question if you already have this preconceived notion that everyone here is wrong? and you will refuse to believe that newer technology is better than your 1982 engine which produced 157hp when stock...

any car can be made to be faster than any other car depending on how much money is put into it... your first question "which car is faster" is very very vague... you didnt even mention if we're supposed to be comparing modded cars or not.

Quote:

Big news came for 1982 in the form of a new "High Output" (HO) version of the 5.0-liter V8 making a healthy (for the time) 157 horsepower with two-barrel carburetion in a revived Mustang GT hatchback. Backed by a four-speed manual transmission and wearing many of the '79 pace car's body pieces, the '82 Mustang GT wasn't quite a return to the glory days of high-performance, but it was a step in the right direction.

from edmunds.com