In my 93 XLT totally stock I can beat 3/4 of the 5L mustangs(straight drags from light to light), but when i try to race the newer mustangs, like the GTs, they beat me by a fair size gap.

Every one says there is no replacement for displacement, which is kinda dumb to me, but what makes the newer stangs so much better?

I have a hard time believing that you can beat any mustang, including the 6 cylinder models. What gearing is your explorer? Is it a 5 speed? 2 wheel drive?

I think the "there is no replacement for displacement" thing refers more to the ricers who think their 1.9L can hang with the 454ci BBs.

But I'm pretty sure the new 4.6L Mustangs have more stock HP than the 5.0s did in 94.

I have no clue what the gears are. The only reason i can beat any 5L's are because all the people around here who drive them are complete morons, they are ricers with domestic cars, and dont know how to drive. But there is also kids just like them who dont know how to drive and drive newer stangs but still beat me badly.

Im just wondering what the signifigant change is between the older 5L and the newer 4.6L stangs are.

The most powerful "stock" stang with the 5.0 was the 93-95 cobra which had 235 hp. Then there was the 1995 Cobra R with the 351 with around 250 hp.

The most powerful "stock" stang with the 4.6 for 2002 is the 320hp Cobra. Gt's have 260 i beleive. But next year the cobra gets 390 hp.

I am unsure about the 96-98 years.

390HP!! Daaaamn

While the 5.0 is an age-old motor design, the 4.6 modular V8 is leaps and bounds ahead in technology. There are SOHC and DOHC versions, as well as many different heads, intakes, etc that can be bolted on. Hence: modular V8. When comparing similar motors, the larger one will be more powerful. However, technology is helping get the most power out of smaller packages (though the 4.6 is much larger overall than the 5.0).

That all being said: V6 Mustangs are a piece of cake, older 5.0s harder to beat; but even I can't beat a newer 4.6 Stang with a good driver in a full race. Though I can usually get an edge off a light with my torque. I've beat many with crappy drivers though :)

Originally posted by section525
390HP!! Daaaamn They come off the assembly line with a supercharger. :)

At my local race track they had spectator drags which is daily driver cars racing one lap around the track. This time i brought my camcorder and i am in the process of making some MPEGS. I hate ricers but you gotta see how much faster some of those cars are. Some of them were completely falling apart and they were driving circles around mustangs and camaro's.

There was one guy with a civic that actually came up from behind and passed a corvette. I couldnt believe my eyes.

The guy in the Corvette probably let him go just so he wouldn't have to worry about the other guy trying to hard and wrecking into the Corvette. It'd suck to ruin the side of a Corvette. The other guy probably wouldn't care if he tried to hard. so you total a Civic, you're out, what, 50 bucks? :)

I beleve Silverblade, in my 01 Sport 4.0 with just a kkm intake I can beet v6 stangs, and keep up with 5.0's, now the 4.6's walk away from me. zoom zoom

Originally posted by section525
390HP!! Daaaamn actually, ford is doing what chevy has done for a while with the LS-1's, they are under-rating it. i believe the rating on the new Cobra is 390 at the flywheel, and so far they have been laying down 380 or so rear-wheel. actually, they are closer to 430 at the flywheel. had one at the local dealership the other day and yes i want one.:D

Just to show the power difference between the two engines: When I was driving my sisters '97 V6 mustang I managed to beat quite a few 5.0's, but any 4.6 would smoke me.

I'll ping in here. My buddy driving a 98 er 97 Vette (just before new style) got beat multiple times by a Mustang GT. I think the GT was tuned a bit though.

I am sure the Vette would win at a track or at speeds above 80mph

the 5.0 mustang is a great engine.
some of the people that drive them give em a bad name though.
if you are beating them off the line they cant drive their cars.
i ran a 14.8 stock in my stang. ive yet too see an explorer pull that. (with the exception of Troll)

the main difference between the 5.0 and the 4.6 is that 4.6 is a SOHC. there is much better throttle response to that engine. but not as much torque.
my 90 5.0 is 225hp stock and 300tq
my buddy has a 98 4.6 with 225 hp and 285tq
the new stangs have 260 hp. but are still sluggish. one would think they would be faster but really arnt until your on the freeway.

id still rather have a 5.0 stang then a 4.6
they are much easier and cheaper to mod

The last years of the 5.0L Mustangs were a few tenths quicker in the 1/4 than the first few years of the 4.6L. The 5.0L would run upper 14s to mid 15s depending on whether it was a manual or automatic. The 4.6L only had 205-215 HP when it was first put into the Mustang and ran low 15s to high 15s. My '95 4.6L T-bird was rated at 205 HP and had the same engine as the '96 Mustang. Ford upped the HP through some tweaking and by making it DOHC which made them quite a bit quicker. Any V8 Mustang built since the early '90s would make any stock Explorer easy pickings, regardless of gearing or engine.

The V6 Mustangs up through '94 were a good match for most Explorers and slower than some. They had 1/4 times around 17.2. Around '95 or '96 Ford upped the HP on the V6 which lowered the 1/4 times to 15.8 with a 5-speed. The only stock Explorer that will come close to that is a 2002 with a 4.6L (15.9 in the 1/4). A 2WD SOHC Sport could beat a bad Mustang driver. I haven't seen the times for a later automatic equipped V6 Mustang but I imagine they would be in the lower 16s which would provide a good challenge for any SOHC or V8 Explorer.

edited to correct year (RE 8/8)

Originally posted by Robert
The last years of the 5.0L Mustangs were a few tenths quicker in the 1/4 than the first few years of the 4.6L. The 5.0L would run upper 14s to mid 15s depending on whether it was a manual or automatic. The 4.6L only had 205-215 HP when it was first put into the Mustang and ran low 15s to high 15s. My '95 4.6L T-bird was rated at 205 HP and had the same engine as the '95 Mustang. Ford upped the HP through some tweaking and by making it DOHC which made them quite a bit quicker. Any V8 Mustang built since the early '90s would make any stock Explorer easy pickings, regardless of gearing or engine.

The V6 Mustangs up through '94 were a good match for most Explorers and slower than some. They had 1/4 times around 17.2. Around '95 or '96 Ford upped the HP on the V6 which lowered the 1/4 times to 15.8 with a 5-speed. The only stock Explorer that will come close to that is a 2002 with a 4.6L (15.9 in the 1/4). A 2WD SOHC Sport could beat a bad Mustang driver. I haven't seen the times for a later automatic equipped V6 Mustang but I imagine they would be in the lower 16s which would provide a good challenge for any SOHC or V8 Explorer.

the 95 mustang had a 5.0 in it.
96 was the first year of the 4.6
i dont know much about t-birds but i know about stangs.

and if any mustang is running 15's except for the v6, its a crappy driver.

i have alot of experience with 5.0 and 4.6 engines.
and the 4.6 is a much more advenaced engine.

what i want to know is this- were do you guys find all of these relatively stock 5.0 stangs? in my area, there are NONE left that dont at least have heads/cam/intake. a fox body 5.0 with hardly no mods is just unheard of around here...

Originally posted by mikeresin


the 95 mustang had a 5.0 in it.
96 was the first year of the 4.6
i dont know much about t-birds but i know about stangs.

and if any mustang is running 15's except for the v6, its a crappy driver.

i have alot of experience with 5.0 and 4.6 engines.
and the 4.6 is a much more advenaced engine.

I wasn't positive of the first year Ford put the 4.6 in the Mustang, I thought the 5.0L was in the new body style for only the first year, I guess it was the first two. I've seen an early '90s Mustang GT convertible run 15.4 with an automatic and a '96 Mustang GT coupe run 15.5 with an automatic in Milan Michigan back in '96. The automatics seem to add about .5 - .75 in the 1/4. I'm sure the convertible added some time as well if the Mustang convertible is anything like the Camaro convertible was.

I know the 4.6L is a much more advanced engine. The one in my T-bird was very smooth and quiet. I still miss the exhaust tone of the dual pipes. It got good mileage for a 3700 lb. car. I got 27 MPG out of it once, usually got around 24 MPG though which is still 4 MPG better than I have ever gotten out of my Explorer. The thing that hampered my T-bird the most though was the 3.08 axle. It didn't take off very quickly, but once the revs got up it pulled OK. More bottom end torque or a taller gear would have helped tremendously off the line. When Ford dropped the SC in '96, they made a "Performance Package" which included 16" tires and a 3.73 LS axle. It dropped the 1/4 times by .5 seconds.

ive always been a fan of thunderbird s/c's
nice cars and look great when done up.

and yeh the convertables are generaly .4-.6 slower then hardtops. and the automatics generaly are a good .5 slower also.

any stock 5.0 or 4.6 hardtop 5spd should be able to hit mid to high 14's all day long.

and also fox bodies that are stock are very rare here too. it took me forever to find mine. the only thing the guy had done to it was pullies. it had 86k miles and relativly new paint also. for $4k

damn i lucked out findin this one.

ive been thinking about savin my money and getting another explorer though. so i can use it to drive around and make the mustang pretty much a weekend driver/track car.

id love to fine a 99-01 v8 in black with all the options.
man id make that thing fast too.

Never lost to a V6 stang when I had my 93 GT with just some bolt ons. V6 Camaro RS couldn't even keep up with my Mustang.....

94-95 = 5.0

96+ = 4.6

Yes autos are slower than a manual and the drop tops are said to be heavier and more prone to twisting under hard acceleration which can be cure with subframe connectors.

Can't wait to get some stuff done on my explorer.

I think that my roommate from college runs 14.8s on his '94 Mustang GT, and that 302 has over 150k miles on it. His '67 Mustang has a fuel-injected 351W in it, and it runs 11.7s, and he still has more tuning before he puts the blower on it. It would normally run faster with the heads and intake that he has, but the compression is 8.0:1 since he intended it to be a blower motor. He said that while the 4.6L Mustang is newer in technology, the limiting factor is the lack of airflow (which is finally solved with the Bullitt intake) and the lack of torque (pushrod vs. SOHC). I personally am not convinced of the new modular motors (mostly the 4.6L due to a lack of torque). If I buy a Mustang anytime soon, it might be old enough to have a 302 so that I know that I have low end torque & so that I can swap engine parts between the Stang and the Mountaineer.

the new 4.6 in the GT packs 302ft lbs, not too bad. They respond only modestly to minor boltons, but they respond much better to boost than the 5.0 did.

The new V6 stangs do run in LOW 16s to mid 15s depending on auto, vert and driver.

5.0: 225hp 300tq
96-97 4.6: 225hp 290tq
98: 235hp 290tq
99+ 264hp 300tq

and yes tyhe 4.6 likes boost alot better then the 5.0

the 5.0 is best kept n/a, or sprayed

the 4.6 takes blowers really well

and they both fly with turbos on them

My 1991 Special Service Package 5.0 coupe with a 302, 5-speed, and 3.08 gears went 13.90's@100 mph stock. The 1999 and up Mustangs do really respond to power adders well, but nobody really bothers with trying to make them fast naturally aspirated. Sean Hyland Motorsports and DSS Racing engines both offer built short blocks for those people who do want to make serious power with a 4.6, but it is still much cheaper to build and older Fox body to go fast. I built mine for around $13,000, and it gets 17 mpg and runs low 11's to high 10's and is driven two hours to the track.


http://www.shakesfear78.com/pix/mustang68.JPG

Originally posted by Jason_25
I have a hard time believing that you can beat any mustang, including the 6 cylinder models. What gearing is your explorer? Is it a 5 speed? 2 wheel drive?
Exactly thats what I'm saying, I'm not calling you a lier or anything Silverblade, but even a 5.0 auto w/ 3.08 gears will still smoke your ass very bad. They have to be starting off in 3rd or something if you can beat them. 1st gen 4dr ohv will run 0-60 in about 10.5 seconds stock and in the 17's-18's for the quarter.

A stock 5.0 will be able to run mid-high 14's and even with a bad launch they will stay in the 15's.

And your right about getting beat badly by the 4.6 Mustangs, they are a hell of a lot faster than 5.0's.
My friend with his 2001 GT stock 5 speed and 3.27 gears ran a best of 13.91 at Morroso. Even an auto 4.6 will run a mid 14.

Even if they got a bad launch they would still smoke you bad and even if they start in 2nd they'll still beat you, unless they are a complete dumbass and try launching at 5000 rpms and then wonder why they stay in the same spot after they launch:rolleyes:

Gotta love the modular 4.6, thats why I'm getting an 02' 4.6 Mounty, they will run a 15.8 stock at the quarter, the best I could get out of my moms 5.0 Mounty was about a 16.3, the 5.0 gets too winded even with mods, unlike the 4.6 which pulls hard as hell all the way to redline. My neighbors 02' 4.6 Ex. ran a 15.8 at Morroso also, shows you how quick the 02's are;)

You wouldn't even come close to keeping with an 02' 4.6 Ex/Mounty, so I have no idea how you beat 5.0s unless they seriously launch at 5000 rpm.

has anyone besides me noticed that if you take a 2.3 ohc out of a pinto. Weld 2 of em together and throw fuel injection in the middle you have a 4.6? Motor's not so advanced after all. Just a couple pinto motors welded together.

then add the inverter and a leaf blower and you have the new cobra's!

Wooohoooo!!!!! Think I saw some of them leaf blowers on e-bay. Gotta get me ona those. Outta make my otherwise stock X run 13's, and climb any rock I see:confused:

Originally posted by SaleenEXP



And your right about getting beat badly by the 4.6 Mustangs, they are a hell of a lot faster than 5.0's.
My friend with his 2001 GT stock 5 speed and 3.27 gears ran a best of 13.91 at Morroso. Even an auto 4.6 will run a mid 14.

.

i wouldnt say a hell of alot faster.
a if you lined up a stock 1990 5.0 and a stock 2000 4.6
both with under 90k miles on them the difference would be less than .4 secs.

thats not very much.

5.0s get a bad name becuase there are alot out there with very high milage and tired engines.

and the 5.0 explorer/mounty is a little different then the mustang 5.0

different cams.

my gt is modded and so is my buddies 4.6.
when we race we are just about dead even. he only pulls away at high speeds becuase hes done more suspension work to keep him on the ground.

Modular DOHC is the way to go!!!!!!!

Originally posted by jasonf83
Modular DOHC is the way to go!!!!!!!

too expensive to mod
if ya have the money then cool.
but its way too expensive

and ya can build 5.0s to be 7 sec cars alot easier then 4.6's