MoKo_04GT

176 hp......wow.....what was ford thinking, even releasing a "mustang gt" with such low hp.

just curious....please dont take this wrong (as i truely am curious)....but i wonder if most people know (or if you knew) the early 4.6's were the slowest mustangs ever produced, BEFORE purchasing the car? or is this something you found out, AFTER the purchase?

steve0914

i have always thought about that too, isometimes i don't understand fords ideas, they should have just redesigned the gt engine instead of getting the whole new body style... the 05-08 mustangs just arent my cup of tea... now i wish i had a 3v engine, but in 4 years when i am ready to get a new car, what am i going to do? i might have to just buy an f150

MoKo_04GT

in 2 or 3 years when i get rid of my GT, it will be for a 04 cobra ONLY.

i dont care if they are outdated by then, and have a ugly *** mustang GTs that come stock with 700hp....i just cant get with the new body style (and i absolutly LOVE the 99-04 bodystyle....for me its timeless.). and the cobra will be the one that i try to keep FOREVER....take super good care of it, baby it, maybe even and pass on to my son someday. lol fo real tho.

cliffyk

[/align][/align]The '79 302/5.0 was 119 HP at the crank, it hovered around 130 to 160 for a number of years and by '85 they hadit up to 210 with a 4-barrel. [/align][/align]With the introduction of EFI in the 90's they got it up to 200 to 220, the '94/'95 Cobra (with the 302) put out a whopping 240 at the crank.[/align][/align]By comparisonwith mostfactory 5.0s the 4.6 2V has nothing to be ashamed about. It hit the streets in '96 at 215 crank HP (same as the then current 5.0), went to 225 in '98 and to 260 in '99 with the PI intake/cams/heads. The 2001 Bullitt put out 265 at the engine.[/align]

MoKo_04GT

so does all of that mean most people know they are very slow, and only have 175rwhp....BEFORE purchasing the car? or after? b/c that was my question.

edit: i guess i should have used the words "one of" in my post...."one of the slowest mustangs produced" ...that way no one would go out of their way to make sure they pointed out i was wrong about it being the absolute slowest ever produced.

cliffyk

[/align][/align]Even a little bit of research would reveal that about GTs. I knew it when I bought mine, my supercharged '92 Miata at 12 psi would eat Mustang GTs; the look on the drivers face was priceless.[/align][/align]With the mods I have now and at 252 rwHP it's about as fast as the Miata at 8-10 psi. However I only haveone lifetime "traffic school" election left (good news is I'm over 60) so that's fast enought for me...[/align]

mystang4.6

yes i knew that the year i bought was one of the slowest production mustangs but at the budget i had that was the only year i could afford and i love mustangs so that was dissapointing for me but i knew it wasnt the fastest i could get. so to answer your question yes i knew that it wouldnt be very powerful before i bought the car

baino

oh well, on the bright side, the possibilites with mustangs are endless

cliffyk

Somewhat off topic, but sort of relevant nonetheless, one of the bestcomments I have seen (re: Camaros vs. Mustangs, and thatCamaros have always been faster) is that: [/align][/align]"You can make a Mustang fast, but you cannot make a Camaro look good..."[/align]

mystang4.6

exactly i agree with both those statements.