Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Kill Drive-Thru
94-98 Stang held with me , but HOW?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="XLR8-R" data-source="post: 67795" data-attributes="member: 2200"><p>I realize that the 4.6 was dogged by all the 5.0 guys for years(specifically 96-98) so now the shoe is on the other foot? I don't own a 5.0 or 4.6, but to say one is superior to the other without qualifying it (as Great White correctly did) in my opinion would be obviously wrong. And Mikie you did say a stock 5.0 would only run low 15s to high 14s, mine went 14.40s(stock) and I have the timeslips to prove it. Also I noticed on your website you write that the 99 Mustangs were 300 to 400 pounds lighter than the previous body style, where did you get your info? I work at a Ford dealer and according to my Sourcebooks the base weight of a 1995 GT Mustang is 3280, and a 99 is 3273. I have seen several stock 99-01 GTs run 13.90s at my local track, which is faster than any stock 5.0s I have seen, although I think a 93 Cobra would be real close. Does that make the 4.6 a "superior engine", or just faster in stock form? I have nothing against 4.6s, and the point could certainly be argued that they are more technologically advanced than a 5.0. I just don't see the need to say one Ford motor is better than another, there are too many variables. I say build the one you like and can afford. If being faster in stock form is "superior", go buy an LS1.</p><p></p><p>Carter</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="XLR8-R, post: 67795, member: 2200"] I realize that the 4.6 was dogged by all the 5.0 guys for years(specifically 96-98) so now the shoe is on the other foot? I don't own a 5.0 or 4.6, but to say one is superior to the other without qualifying it (as Great White correctly did) in my opinion would be obviously wrong. And Mikie you did say a stock 5.0 would only run low 15s to high 14s, mine went 14.40s(stock) and I have the timeslips to prove it. Also I noticed on your website you write that the 99 Mustangs were 300 to 400 pounds lighter than the previous body style, where did you get your info? I work at a Ford dealer and according to my Sourcebooks the base weight of a 1995 GT Mustang is 3280, and a 99 is 3273. I have seen several stock 99-01 GTs run 13.90s at my local track, which is faster than any stock 5.0s I have seen, although I think a 93 Cobra would be real close. Does that make the 4.6 a "superior engine", or just faster in stock form? I have nothing against 4.6s, and the point could certainly be argued that they are more technologically advanced than a 5.0. I just don't see the need to say one Ford motor is better than another, there are too many variables. I say build the one you like and can afford. If being faster in stock form is "superior", go buy an LS1. Carter [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Kill Drive-Thru
94-98 Stang held with me , but HOW?
Top