RE. 5.0 vs 4.6 HP??

The only thing I could think of for that reasoning is that the 5.0 was a lighter motor. The 4.6 is a behemoth even if it is only 4.6L CID. The 4.6 has more top end HP while the 5.0 has more bottom end grunt. Apples/Oranges IMHO.

Its all about the torque. A pushrod engine will make more low rpm torque than a OHC engine. the flip side is an OHC engine will rev high and make more power. Also the new cars are heavier than the older Fox body Mustangs so it would need more power to run the same. Compare the torque curves of both engines and I think you'll se why the one was faster than the other.

MadDAWG

Maybe a stock NoOp 5.0 LX (light weight) would be close to a '99+ GT in terms of 0-60 and 1/4 mile, but my '00 GT was definitely close to a second faster than the '89 GT I had before it in both categories. The '94-'95 5.0 & '96-'98 4.6 were slower than the older 5.0's due to weight. Although the torque curve of the 4.6 starts a few hundred rpm higher, the curve looks the same and both peak around 300 lb.ft. The 4.6 needs launched and shifted at a higher rpm than the 5.0 to get similar power to the ground. The '99+ 4.6 was tuned for a bit more torque at low rpms and breathes better up top allowing a higher peak hp. I've owned one of each, I traded an '89 GT in for a '98 GT and was very disappointed. The '98 was then traded in for a '00 GT as soon as the loan went right side up.

** a higher peak hp. I've owned one of each, I traded an '89 GT in for a '98 GT ** and was very disappointed. The '98 was then traded in for a '00 GT as soon ** as the loan went right side up.

What transmission type/rear axle ratio was your '98 GT equipped with? I too, have driven older 5.0 GT's and a 98 GT, and found that the 5.0 was stronger up to about 60 mph, where the 4.6 would eat it's lunch. I suspect that your '98 had 2.73's out back or an auto transmission.

-JD

________________________________________________________ | | | 1998 Laser Red GT RAMFM Member Since 1997 | | M-5400-A Suspension http:/207.13.104.8/users/jdadams || Subframe Connectors & Seat Bracing, Strut Tower Brace || 4-point K-frame Brace, Tremec T-45 & OEM 3.27:1 Gears ||________________________________________________________|

It was a 5 speed and IIRC had the stock 3.08's. I never had it to the track but I know it was slower to 60 and to 100 than my '89 GT. Both put out the same 225 bhp/300 lb.ft. but the '98 was 200 or more pounds heavier? The '98 did have a tighter chassis than the '89 before the subframe connectors, it rode and handled better stock for stock but it was a bit heavy for the power.

98 has 225hp / 290 lb-ft torque Gearing stock is 3.27:1

-Mike

Actually the stock gearing for a 96-98 5-spd. GT is 2.73. Stock gears for AODE was 3.08. The "High Ratio" option for either tranny was

3.27. From 99-up the stock gear for either tranny is 3.27.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tom

1998 GT Coupe 5-spd. Bright Atlantic Blue K&N FIPK, Tri-Ax, 3.73's, FRPP Coated Shorties, SpeedCal, P&P 2K Heads, 2K Intake, Bassani X-Pipe and Cat-Back, Subframe Connectors, JMS Chip, Eagle Alloy Wheels

Oic. Mine musta had the "High Ratio" option then. Cool.

-Mike

soon ** as the loan went right side up.

up to about 60 mph, where the 4.6 would eat it's lunch. I suspect that

-JD,

I'm yet to see a stock '96-'98 GT, 3.27 geared or otherwise, run over

92, 93 maybe 94 mph in the 1/4, so I don't know how 'after 60 mph they'd be eating a 5.0's lunch.'

Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD

I've taken a couple 5.0's w/ 3.27 gears on the street (yaya i know i shouldn't, but I did--i don't do it often). The majority have beaten the snot outta me though. I took a buddy of mine yesterday night w/ the new 3.73 gears... took him pretty bad too.

-Mike

as > soon ** as the loan went right side up.

stronger > up to about 60 mph, where the 4.6 would eat it's lunch. I suspect that

Ok, the '98 had the 2.73's but the point is it was slower than the '89 GT it replaced. The 2000 kicked both their butts and the Cobra would suck their doors off. Heheheh...

** It was a 5 speed and IIRC had the stock 3.08's. I never had it to the track ** but I know it was slower to 60 and to 100 than my '89 GT. Both put out the ** same 225 bhp/300 lb.ft. but the '98 was 200 or more pounds heavier? The '98 ** did have a tighter chassis than the '89 before the subframe connectors, it ** rode and handled better stock for stock but it was a bit heavy for the ** power.

Hmmmm. If the '98 GT had 3.27's or 3.55's out back, I think your opinion would have been different. The '98's are definitely heavy though, and are even more so when frame strengthening equipment is added. Charlene wouldn't be worth a damn at the dragstrip, but she's an unholy terror in the twisties.

-JD

** 98 has 225hp / 290 lb-ft torque ** Gearing stock is 3.27:1 ** ** -Mike

Let's keep the facts straight here, Mike.

Stock gearing on all 5-sp. '98 models was 2.73:1. 3.27's were optional equipment that retailed for additional $200.00. I'd be happy to post both original invoicing and dealer brochures to verify these facts for you.

-JD

________________________________________________________ | | | 1998 Laser Red GT RAMFM Member Since 1997 | | M-5400-A Suspension http:/207.13.104.8/users/jdadams || Subframe Connectors & Seat Bracing, Strut Tower Brace || 4-point K-frame Brace, Tremec T-45 & OEM 3.27:1 Gears ||________________________________________________________|

** I'm yet to see a stock '96-'98 GT, 3.27 geared or otherwise, run over ** 92, 93 maybe 94 mph in the 1/4, so I don't know how 'after 60 mph ** they'd be eating a 5.0's lunch.'

I base this observation solely on street skirmishes, usually during a 2-into-1 lane change situation. On most occasions I spoke directly to the driver before the light changed, telling him that I intended to take the lane. Laughter usually follows, then the green light happens.

They *always* walk past me until I grab 3rd, then I overtake them. We then usually back off at about 70 mph for safety. If it weren't for manual gear changes which I would admit I perform far too slowly, the disparity would end at around 55 mph.

This isn't to say that 5.0 GT's are any faster or slower than decently-equipped 4.6's. Personally, I think they're pretty evenly matched on the street, and I do enjoy running them whenever public safety isn't a problem. I do secretly covet their low-end torque, but I don't think changing rear gears would do much to overcome this; 3.27's are pretty well suited for street use on these models.

-JD

Yes, I've already been corrected. Thanks anyway. And no, I don't need proof. Btw, just so you know.. u came off as an ass.

-Mike

I disagree... 3.73 gears are much better.. still VERY streetable. I don't think I woulda went with 3.73's.. but rather 4.10's if I didn't go on the interstate so often.

-Mike

3.55s are the lowest (numerical) gear that a competitive 5.0 should have unless the car's got over 375hp. 3.73s are perfect, 4.10s are even better with an automatic. 2 cents.

Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

wrote in news:2x_Jc.2870$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:

** Yes, I've already been corrected. Thanks anyway. ** And no, I don't need proof. Btw, just so you know.. u came off as an ass. ** ** -Mike

And you have always come off as immature and uninformed, yet I have tolerated you, until now. Give me a call when you've grown up a bit.

I've never driven an automatic 5.0... driven a couple 5-speed 5.0's.. man that's a great feeling too.. even with stock gears.

-Mike