5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang Technical discussions on 5.0 Liter Mustangs within. This does not include the 5.0 from the 2011 Mustang GT. That information is in the 2005-1011 section.

were the 5.0's really 4.9s?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-07-2007, 12:40 AM
  #1  
BlackBetty93GT
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
BlackBetty93GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location:
Posts: 560
Default were the 5.0's really 4.9s?

hey

so were the 5.0s actually 4.9s?

or like before the 90's they were 5.0s and after that they were 4.9s but called 5.0's

i dunno some guy was tryin to tell me this today
BlackBetty93GT is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 12:42 AM
  #2  
SuperSlow5.0
 
SuperSlow5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location:
Posts: 36
Default RE: were the 5.0's really 4.9s?

All 5.0's are 4.9's. a real 5.0 is a 305 cubic inch motor, mustangs are only 302 cubic inches, making them a 4.9. But Ford thought 4.9 would sound kinda funny, as well as look dumb on the side of a car so they called em 5.0's
SuperSlow5.0 is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 12:45 AM
  #3  
ooticamitica
4th Gear Member
 
ooticamitica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: broomall
Posts: 1,010
Default RE: were the 5.0's really 4.9s?

they were all 4.9's, 305 is actually 5.0 (that awful chebby motor)
ooticamitica is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 12:46 AM
  #4  
HACKGT350
6th Gear Member
 
HACKGT350's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: new jersey
Posts: 6,635
Default RE: were the 5.0's really 4.9s?

its something like 4.9853456847463278548956903498 which rounds up to 5.0 so call it what you want
HACKGT350 is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 12:48 AM
  #5  
BlackBetty93GT
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
BlackBetty93GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location:
Posts: 560
Default RE: were the 5.0's really 4.9s?

ok guys...thanks for clearin that up
BlackBetty93GT is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 12:53 AM
  #6  
Drexl
3rd Gear Member
 
Drexl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location:
Posts: 513
Default RE: were the 5.0's really 4.9s?

302 cubic inches = 4.948893349 liters
Drexl is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 12:54 AM
  #7  
90mustang5.8
I ♥ Acer
 
90mustang5.8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Posts: 4,921
Default RE: were the 5.0's really 4.9s?

ORIGINAL: ooticamitica

they were all 4.9's, 305 is actually 5.0 (that awful chebby motor)
yessir^^^^^^^^^^lol
90mustang5.8 is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 12:54 AM
  #8  
92hatchLX
6th Gear Member
 
92hatchLX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location:
Posts: 8,439
Default RE: were the 5.0's really 4.9s?

4.95 rounded up
92hatchLX is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 12:55 AM
  #9  
Drexl
3rd Gear Member
 
Drexl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location:
Posts: 513
Default RE: were the 5.0's really 4.9s?

yeah maybe marketing a car with a 4.95 badge wouldnt have worked as well as five point ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Drexl is offline  
Old 03-07-2007, 03:20 PM
  #10  
Chitown racer
2nd Gear Member
 
Chitown racer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location:
Posts: 213
Default RE: were the 5.0's really 4.9s?

Well if it makes everyone feel better when you bore your 301.9 CID Stang engine .030", as most people do during a rebuild, itdisplaces 306.4 CID or 5.0209964096 liters.
Chitown racer is offline  


Quick Reply: were the 5.0's really 4.9s?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:56 PM.