20thdriven

iTrader: (2)

AE 5spd (Stillen Y & STS, Greddy evo) VS mustang GT 4.6 (exhaust)

we raced twice. both started at 80mph...didn't start walking until ~95. shut it down at 115. my guess is it wasn't a manual and my gas light was on to my advantage. he looked ****ed and didn't wave back. but he did to the fly by. so be confident racing these guys.

does anyone know the mustangs #'s (1/4 0-60) i wasn't expecting to walk this guy.

hawkdog

I've walked numerous 4.6 GT's autos and 5 speeds. They're not that fast. Only about 210 hp if I remember right.....

Jaws

Yeah, but the 2000+ GTs are 260hp. That would be a race.

hawkdog

I haven't had a real legit race with the new 260 hp version, but I'm pretty sure I'd get whooped. If you're racing at highway speeds the cobra from that generation is more of a better race. I stayed dead even with one all the way from 65 to 130 on the beltway.

nissanmaximas

Which reminds me, on the way to DPA 2 weeks ago, i did walk a Mustang but i couldnt see which one it was...i have a 2k Automagic with an intake, still felt good knowing it was a Mustang.

KLOOGY

iTrader: (12)

Those 4.6 Mustangs were the biggest piece of crap ever made ! They were hated even by Mustang owners like I was. The 4 Cam Cobra was different. Oh, and if you see a 2002 Cobra... DONT MESS WITH IT ! That thing will SMOKE YOU ! The regular GT, will beat a 5th Gen, but a 2K2 will make it closer..but you'll still lose..!

tbirdrob

I just traded a 1999 GT for a 2002 Maxima. The Max is quick, but it wouldn't beat the Mustang without some mods. Even back in '99, the GT had 260 hp and 302 lb/ft of torque, and it would do a quarter mile in 14 flat.

I wish the Max was rear-wheel-drive; I really miss the occasional fishtail around corners. I don't, however, miss the uncomfortable seats, no rear seat room, and back-breaking ride. Maybe the G-35 will cure this problem (if it ever comes out with a manual transmission!!)

Rob

Sandman2K

The crew is right on this one... the newest GT's are at 260 horses and run 0-60 in the mid-5's.

The 2003 Cobra is a different animal though. They have it at 390 horses (with a stock blower!) and estimate it running in the high-4's.

You might wanna plub a nice 100-hp NOS system into your Max to hang with that one.

jkratzer

From FreshAlloy.com:

That six-speed manual transmission in Infiniti’s G35 sports coupe will make its way into the G35 sedan after the $30,000 coupe hits the market this fall. Nissan folks say it’s a matter of allocating transmission production capacity among the G35 models and the new 350Z due this summer. Look for the manual option on the G35 sedan about two or three months after the coupe arrives in November.

tbirdrob

The Ford 4.6 modular V-8 has always had at least as much horsepower as the legendary 5.0 it replaced. In its 1995 debut, the engine put out 225 horsepower, which is exactly the same output as the 1994 5.0 Since 1999, it has been producing 260.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Mustang engine. It puts out a lot of torque for not a lot of money, and it can be very easily modified. The problem with the Mustang is that the only thing it has is engine. Ride quality, comfort, noise, stereo, room, etc... are all pretty bad.

I just felt it should be recognized for what it's worth instead of referring to it as crap.

mattattax

I gotta respectfully disagree. the Infiniti Q45 puts out 340hp and 333 tq., we all know Ford could've done better than what they have on the Stang but they're just too cheap to do it--Mustang owners are ****ed off that family sedans are nipping at their heels and even passing them in some cases--it can be very easily modified b/c of the genre of the car not b/c Ford did anything special to it--I can't say their crap b/c I don't know enough about 'em but you described it like it's a rip off, $23k for torque and nothing else

KLOOGY

iTrader: (12)

Sorry pal. I have been working on Mustangs since 1988. That first run of 4.6 Engines was a piece of crap ! They were VERIFIED to be 215HP . I saw dozens of stock 93's blow away the 4.6. As far as "EASILY MODDED " , the 4.6 motor was horrible when it came to the aftermarket. The parts were twice as much, and unless you had the 4 Cam Cobra.. you would always lose to a post 1993 5.0 , that only had exhaust. Like I said, I know the Mustang inside and out... The 2003 Cobra with the Blower, will eat and **** out many more expensive sports cars, for less money.....Just don't go praising Ford's biggest mistake of a motor !

Maximam

WOOPS! Check your facts!

Dave B

I think YOU guys need to check your facts. The 4.6 did indeed debut with 225hp in 1995 as a 1996 model. The 96-98 GT was never quite the performer because of an extra 250lbs gained in weight on the model change. The 99+ GTs got revised heads which kicked power up dramatically. A 99+ GT is good for 13s in the right hands, it's been done hundreds of times. The new GT is a quicker and faster car than the 87-93 5.0s ever could be stock. The old 5.0 suffocated at anything above 4800rpms. The 99+ 4.6 is good for about 5300rpms which is very significant. The DOHC 4.6 is wicked performer. A 3300lb coupe with 305-320hp and a super tall 3.27 gear that can go deep into the 13s is quiet an accomplishment if you ask me. Simply adding 4.10 gears to the Cobra will net you lower 13s. Go test drive a DOHC Cobra and your opinion that the 4.6 is a crappy motor will disappear. I have a really good feeling that the 5.0 (modular) is coming back in the new Mustang (based on the Thunderbird platform). Ford has been hinting at it for quite a while now.


Dave

KLOOGY

iTrader: (12)

Hey pal.. read my POST ! I said that the 4 Cam motor was a great motor !! I worked with local Speed shop dedicated to Fords here in SD on 4.6 Stangs.. Every guy who bought them , ended up spending too much money for too little performance ! If it was SO GREAT, why did Ford change ? The 5.0 ran from 1987 to 1993. The ONLY major change was in 1989 when they added a MAF meter ! Don't try to dish it out with me on Mustangs.. My former 12 second NATURALLY ASPIRATED STANG is a mile away from my house. I dare yoou to pull a 12 with a 4.6 without taking off the valve covers..Like I said even Ford said , go to the BIGGER MOTOR !

PrinzII

iTrader: (2)

I drove a '98 GT and found it was neutered in comparison to a '89 and a '93 LX 5.0. No off the line grunt at all.

Sandman2K

Wow... my head is spinning!

Basically-

'94-'95 Stangs: 215 hp with the good 'ol 5.0
(my favorite, new body, kick-**** old-school technology)
'96-'98 Stangs: 215 with the underdeveloped 4.6 SOHC
'96-'98 Cobras: 305 with the "new" 4.6 DOHC
'99-'02 Stangs: 260 with the improved 4.6
'99-'02 Cobras: 320 (but not exactly! Big scandal at Ford concerning the underpowered Cobras)
'03 Cobra: Overcompensation with 390 (some say 400+)

Believe me, I've been all over the board with an '83 Capri 5.0, '94 Stang 5.0, '00 Max SE 5-Speed, and a new Audi A4 1.8T.

Talk about different views of "driving"... the only things they have in common are 4 wheels!

And, sad to say, the Max has the least amount of performance parts available. Both the Stang and A4 can get huge power gains from relatively inexpensive parts, but all the Max has are a couple of air intakes and exhaust systems. And that's the reality. The Maxima crews are just getting into some real performance with the '00+ interations, Mustangs have been ripping it up since '82. So let's take it easy with calling things "crap".

mattattax

I'm not calling them crap b/c I don't know enough about 'em but you should at least try to make a LOGICAL argument as to why they're not.
No flame, but come on:
quality of a car = number of aftermarket parts available
with that theory Civics are the best cars ever made

Jaws

To top this thread off, the old '5.0' was actually a 4.9!

maxgsxr1

96-4.6 gt- 215 hp 14.9 1\4 mile ,98 4.6 gt 225 hp , 00 4.6 gt -260 hp.......14.00 1\4 mile

F23A4

In general, they're only crap when it comes to the quality of their parts BUT, Stangs are EASILY the most fun car to drive for less than $30G!! (Yes! More fun than the WRX!)

As for the original 1994 model, the reason why that's so watered down (and can be beaten by just about every Civic Si with I/H/E) is because Ford engineers weren't given enough time (by Ford Execs)to develop the new Mustang. In terms of powertrain, what we got in 1999 (260HP) is what the engineers were working on back in the early to mid-90s but the Ford execs just had to have a 30th anniversary model in the dealerships on time. The result: a sharp looking new Mustang with an underdeveloped and carried over 4.9L V8 (4942cc) from the previous platform (87-93).

As a 3rd car in my household, I'd have no problem having a 94 Stang Convertible IF I got it for a good price.

Dave B

Okay, you're not really serious about the not being able to pull a 12-second pass without taking off the valve covers with a 4.6, right? There are plenty of Cobras that are deep in the 12s without taking off the valve covers. It's a simple recipe really. 96 Cobra, 4.10-4.33 gears, and 26" slicks and a 5000rpm launch. Of course there are a lot of Cobras running running gears, slicks, plus a whole host of intake and exhaust work that does NOT require pulling off the valve cover. If you were to pull of the valve covers on a Cobra, you'd either be doing a cam swap, head swap, or adding a larger block. Either way, there are only a handful of Cobras running like this. I too have many years working on 5.0s and 4.6s.


Dave

Sandman2K

A logical argument? The fact that Stangs have been at it (as in mopping up the streets) for decades validates the notion that they are accessible and easily modified.

You can't even compare the "Civic" movement with them. Not even touching on the early years, think back to the days of Grand Nationals, worked Trans Ams and IROC Z's. Where were the Civics then? You needed to spend a TON on a 300ZX Turbo or Supra Turbo and you'd still get schooled.

Now, don't get me wrong. The new Maximas are great cars (I bought the '00 SE instead of an '00 Mustang GT) because of much-improved comfort and refinement. But, to keep things in perspective, the Max runs 0-60 in 6.7 seconds (stock) with the highly vaunted VQ30DE engine, and funny enough, the '94 GT with 215 hp was able to do it at 6.7 as well. And toss in a cheap set of 3.73s (4.10s if you liked a really nasty launch), a pair of DOT-approved street slicks, twist up the timing to 14 degrees (which you could still do yourself in '94!) and you'd make a mess out of 99% of the cars on this board.

And whipping **** on the street spells quality to me.

mattattax

I'm not comparing stangs to Civics, I KNOW civics are crap. I was reffering to your statement that more aftermarket=higher quality


Maybe it's just me but I don't see any logic to this statement. Does this mean the stang is of higher quality than a Q45 or a Lincoln LS? I think not. But I guess I see your point if racing is your whole life, it's only a small part of mine.

tbirdrob

The Q45 is very impressive, but for the $30,000 difference in price, Mustangs can be made even more impressive.

Rob

GetSome681

I'm sure there's plenty of other factors which play, and to tell you the truth I really don't know too much, so don't flame me, but doen't anyone else notice the difference between American and euro/japan? I mean, 260 hp from 4.6 liters, and the new max 255 or so from only 3.5? i'm thinking there is a relation between torque and engine size maybe, but still? Sounds retarded, but just think what nissan could do with a 4.6 liter engine...who knows. Maybe I'm blinded by my fantasy, but all the specs for the max suck, and the mustang suck even more..can we say 333 hp from 3.2 liters?

Now to find someone who will trade such a beast (e46 M3) for my 2k max!!

KLOOGY

iTrader: (12)

AHH DAVE ! Will you please READ my posts.. I am a LONG TIME MUSTANG OWNER/ RACER ! When I say the 4.6 STINKS ! I mean the REGULAR 4.6... You keep bringing up the FREAKIN COBRA ! Thats NOT what I'm talking about. THE Double Cam 4.6 was a REAL fast car !! Please READ my posts...

KLOOGY

iTrader: (12)

100 % RIGHT ! Remember the Limited Edition GNX ? and the Turbo Trans Am with the Gn Engine...?

Adrenaline Rush

It's all about cost - Nissan does have an engine around 4.6 liters - the Q45 engine with 340 hp. However, good luck selling a Maxima for anywhere near its current price if you put that engine in it. Same with the M3 - sure its got great hp/liter but it also more than twice as expensive as a Max. Big displacement without too much tuning is the way to go for bang for the buck - and it's also very easy to modify them for more power.

Mississippi_Max

Another thing to consider:

1993 Ford changed their HP rating system and lowered the 5.0 from 225 to 205. Stang fans were PO'd, but the cars were just as fast.( I believe they rated brake HP instead of crank HP.) As for reliability, my 87 notchback gave me 7 years and 150k miles troublefree. I only removed the valve covers to change the gaskets (once). I hope my Max will run as well in 13 years considering its cost. A car is only as good as it's owner be it Ford or Nissan.

KLOOGY

iTrader: (12)

MY 89 NOTCHBACK gave me 11 Years and 120 + K miles.... A lot of those were in DRAG RACING..Legal or not !

d_98SE

One question for you are you retired?

KLOOGY

iTrader: (12)

RETIRED ?

NuJerseyDrive

iTrader: (3)

at the quote in ur sig.

DrVolkl

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave B
[B]

I think YOU guys need to check your facts. The 4.6 did indeed debut with 225hp in 1995 as a 1996 model. The 96-98 GT was never quite the performer because of an extra 250lbs gained in weight on the model change. The 99+ GTs got revised heads which kicked power up dramatically. A 99+ GT is good for 13s in the right hands, it's been done hundreds of times. The new GT is a quicker and faster car than the 87-93 5.0s ever could be stock. The old 5.0 suffocated at anything above 4800rpms. The 99+ 4.6 is good for about 5300rpms which is very significant. The DOHC 4.6 is wicked performer. A 3300lb coupe with 305-320hp and a super tall 3.27 gear that can go deep into the 13s is quiet an accomplishment if you ask me. Simply adding 4.10 gears to the Cobra will net you lower 13s. Go test drive a DOHC Cobra and your opinion that the 4.6 is a crappy motor will disappear. I have a really good feeling that the 5.0 (modular) is coming back in the new Mustang (based on the Thunderbird platform). Ford has been hinting at it for quite a while now.


Hmmm. Well, I owned an '85 Stang GT. I ran a 14.7 at the track. I also owned a '96 GT (which had 215hp), they didn't go 225 until 1997. The 95 and 96 Gt's would run about a 15 at the track. Trust me...I owned it.

DrVolkl

[
Hmmm. Well, I owned an '85 Stang GT. I ran a 14.7 at the track. I also owned a '96 GT (which had 215hp), they didn't go 225 until 1997. The 95 and 96 Gt's would run about a 15 at the track. Trust me...I owned it.

^^^ Actually it was 1998...but whatever, who cares. The reason they don't pump super HP out of these big v8's is not because they CAN'T but because they don't want to. More HP means more GAS. Ford and all the other car companies out there need to meet certain gov't standards for emissions and fuel consumption of their vehicles. If you pump out as many SUV's as Ford does, it really hurts your average. Thus, you need to make some of your cars get better mileage. Thus, they wanted to offer the v8 in the Stang because it is a "muscle" car...or something like that. They left the tuning up to the owner, but found an acceptable HP rating that wouldn't kill the gas mileage. You know my stang would get 28mpg on the hiway? When I owned my stangs, I liked that they were easily modified (well, the 5.0 was anyhow) and no one knew what was under the hood until it was too late. Best of all, the insurance companies!
[/B][/QUOTE]

Sandman2K

Sorry for the long and protracted Mustang discussion, but it just goes to show how much history there is (unlike the Max, but we're getting there.)

But let's keep in mind, the Mustang was almost KILLED OFF before the '94 model run. There was an earlier post about the extremely limited budget Team Mustang had available to come up with something for '94. That's why they stuck with the 5.0 and basic chassis dating all the way back to '79. And when they decided to field the new 4.6, there was ZERO cash available for development, so the engine went right into the car in its low-rent "truck" configuration, with low HP but a nice amount of torque (around 285 in 96). Too bad the cars weighed 3,500 lbs, though.

Can you believe that even the 2003's still use a modified version of that same Fox-4 frame? That's where the Max (and even better, the new Altima) walk away from the Ford. Try and hit the brakes in a 94+ Mustang at around 80 mph. The front end dips so badly that you can almost scrape the ground. No kidding.

Even though the Max still has a live rear axle, ala Max, the difference a little development money makes is amazing.

And, if you're really into drag racing, remember this little secret: the latest Cobras from Ford have an independent rear suspension, and cannot get off the line quickly. While a live rear axle sucks for the twisties, it launches well. The IRS cars face a situation of axle-tramp that is so bad that most Max's can get a couple car-lengths on them. After that though, hope your Stillen SC is in full song...