94/95 5.0L or 96-98 4.6L Mustang
06-12-2008, 10:43 AM
#71
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ
Posts: 1,206
RE: 94/95 5.0L or 96-98 4.6L Mustang
Just because you are partial doesnt mean logic shouldnt dictate your responce.
stop talking ricer hp or tq per liter. It either has it or doesnt. I dont care if a caddy with a 500 ci motor makes only 380 tq, it has more torque than a 4.6 or a 5.0. Put it in a mustang and good bye. No one cares about efficiancy. It has it or it doesnt. If you want to keep talking rice get your b18 out and start on its hp/tq:L. Otherwise make a logical argument. The 5.0 is a better motor.
stop talking ricer hp or tq per liter. It either has it or doesnt. I dont care if a caddy with a 500 ci motor makes only 380 tq, it has more torque than a 4.6 or a 5.0. Put it in a mustang and good bye. No one cares about efficiancy. It has it or it doesnt. If you want to keep talking rice get your b18 out and start on its hp/tq:L. Otherwise make a logical argument. The 5.0 is a better motor.
06-12-2008, 10:45 AM
#72
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location:
Posts: 798
RE: 94/95 5.0L or 96-98 4.6L Mustang
ORIGINAL: Slo5oh
Well, Mr. Science, if you had paid attention in physics class you would remember that the more mass there is the more inertia you potentially posess. So by your logic you defeat your purpose.
Well, Mr. Science, if you had paid attention in physics class you would remember that the more mass there is the more inertia you potentially posess. So by your logic you defeat your purpose.
ORIGINAL: Slo5ohAnd with the idea of force on the cam in mind, the force that is pressed down is equal to the force being returned by the lobe that has just compressed and is now on its way back. That a 0:0 loss. I love when thats argued because its rediculous.
I am talking about the angle that the lifters are being pressed onto the camshaft. A full circle is 360*. The lifters are placing force on the camshaft from two different ~ 90* angles. It essence, it is being pressed down from the top. There is going to be force that bows the camshaft from above. They are not placed 180* from each other.
ORIGINAL: Slo5ohAlso keep in mind your working with more (and longer) timing chains. 3 chains compaired to 1 (5 on the 4v) Pushrods and timing chains are the weak link in valvetrains. You can get stronger pushrods (easily) but you cant get stronger timing chains, and the ones that are "stronger" arent that much better. On top of that you can use a gear drive on a 5.0 so you have no chains whatsoever and with stronger pushrods you virtuially eliminate any potential for failure. Whereas if you start slacking on your chains (especially with nitrous or supercharging, if not managed properly causing detonation) it starts to get the cams degreed improperly, and possibly to the point of P:V clearance issues. Broken pistons shouldnt happen from "superior technology" 
There is NOT 3 timing chains on the 2V. Think about the 4V again...
You CAN get strong timging chains. They arecalled Billet sets. I have been there, done that.
Pushrods add weight!
Pushrods flex, you increase your chance for failure. Ever heard of a bent pushrod?
Do you not know anything about the 4.6L? They havetiming chain pumps that constantly keep pressure on the timing chain. Slack is not an issue!
Geez, you are no good at this. You are making this the easiest debate I have had in a couple years.
ORIGINAL: Slo5ohIdk why you insist on bringing in newer 4.6's into the discussion. 96-98. And if your going to compare newmotors to new motors atleast have the same year, not one that was made in 97 and one in 05. Thats almost a decade diffrence. Ill up the anty with the introduction of the LS7 in 2004 (applied in 06), a year before the 3v 4.6 with 505 horse for 7L at 72.14 hp per liter. Besides hp per liter is ricer talk. Now if you want to talk about superior motors, lets bring the new hemis into this...but logic should dictate that the discussion stay between 5.0's and 96-98 2v 4.6
I was comparing the latter 5.0L to the latter 4.6L. So I am doing what you are asking.
The new HEMI's are not even true HEMI's. There is nothing great about those engines. Keep reading your magazines.
So you want to bring the "best" 5.0L in the discussion against the most restricted 4.6L?
Yeah, that sounds fair.
Facts are facts, not science as you state.
ORIGINAL: Slo5ohDont mean to sound rude, just a smart *** 
I would replace word smart, with dumb.
Good Luck!
Do some reading and come back.
06-12-2008, 11:11 AM
#73
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,049
RE: 94/95 5.0L or 96-98 4.6L Mustang
ORIGINAL: 5spd GT
Did you not read the above post? The 4.6L is way ahead in TQ per Liter. He was wrong and so are you.
Hmmm, my daily driven 4.6L is going on 136k currently and not an end insight. I am not easy on it either and never will be.
I never had a problem tieing or beating a stock 5.0L out of the hole. I pulled on them from jump-start.
Learn before posting.
ORIGINAL: redpony88
thank you adder, the 5.0 is a much better engine. once you go into torque the 5.0 would easily own on a 4.6.
i dont care if they are more efficient, stock for stock who's gonna BOLT out of the hole the 5.0 it's all about torque ratings
not to mention that once a 4.6 get's over 100k miles they start dieing.... the 5.0's you can still drive them like you stole them
thank you adder, the 5.0 is a much better engine. once you go into torque the 5.0 would easily own on a 4.6.
i dont care if they are more efficient, stock for stock who's gonna BOLT out of the hole the 5.0 it's all about torque ratings
not to mention that once a 4.6 get's over 100k miles they start dieing.... the 5.0's you can still drive them like you stole them
Hmmm, my daily driven 4.6L is going on 136k currently and not an end insight. I am not easy on it either and never will be.
I never had a problem tieing or beating a stock 5.0L out of the hole. I pulled on them from jump-start.
Learn before posting.
and if you're going to tell someone to learn before posting then i suggest you do the same
06-12-2008, 11:22 AM
#74
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ
Posts: 1,206
RE: 94/95 5.0L or 96-98 4.6L Mustang
ORIGINAL: 5spd GT
You still are not getting it. You do not want inertia in your valvetrain.
Incorrect. I am not talking about regenerative characteristic. Again you do not understand it.
I am talking about the angle that the lifters are being pressed onto the camshaft. A full circle is 360*. The lifters are placing force on the camshaft from two different ~ 90* angles. It essence, it is being pressed down from the top. There is going to be force that bows the camshaft from above. They are not placed 180* from each other.
Oh, so now you are comparing a 4V to the2V that is beingtalked about.Now you will really lose the HP/TQ per Liter. Bad choice...
There is NOT 3 timing chains on the 2V. Think about the 4V again...
You CAN get strong timging chains. They arecalled Billet sets. I have been there, done that.
Pushrods add weight!
Pushrods flex, you increase your chance for failure. Ever heard of a bent pushrod?
Do you not know anything about the 4.6L? They havetiming chain pumps that constantly keep pressure on the timing chain. Slack is not an issue!
Geez, you are no good at this. You are making this the easiest debate I have had in a couple years.
The 5.0L began in the 60's. Do you want me to bring those up? LOL.
I was comparing the latter 5.0L to the latter 4.6L. So I am doing what you are asking.
The new HEMI's are not even true HEMI's. There is nothing great about those engines. Keep reading your magazines.
So you want to bring the "best" 5.0L in the discussion against the most restricted 4.6L?
Yeah, that sounds fair.
Facts are facts, not science as you state.
ORIGINAL: Slo5oh
Well, Mr. Science, if you had paid attention in physics class you would remember that the more mass there is the more inertia you potentially posess. So by your logic you defeat your purpose.
Well, Mr. Science, if you had paid attention in physics class you would remember that the more mass there is the more inertia you potentially posess. So by your logic you defeat your purpose.
ORIGINAL: Slo5ohAnd with the idea of force on the cam in mind, the force that is pressed down is equal to the force being returned by the lobe that has just compressed and is now on its way back. That a 0:0 loss. I love when thats argued because its rediculous.
I am talking about the angle that the lifters are being pressed onto the camshaft. A full circle is 360*. The lifters are placing force on the camshaft from two different ~ 90* angles. It essence, it is being pressed down from the top. There is going to be force that bows the camshaft from above. They are not placed 180* from each other.
ORIGINAL: Slo5ohAlso keep in mind your working with more (and longer) timing chains. 3 chains compaired to 1 (5 on the 4v) Pushrods and timing chains are the weak link in valvetrains. You can get stronger pushrods (easily) but you cant get stronger timing chains, and the ones that are "stronger" arent that much better. On top of that you can use a gear drive on a 5.0 so you have no chains whatsoever and with stronger pushrods you virtuially eliminate any potential for failure. Whereas if you start slacking on your chains (especially with nitrous or supercharging, if not managed properly causing detonation) it starts to get the cams degreed improperly, and possibly to the point of P:V clearance issues. Broken pistons shouldnt happen from "superior technology"
There is NOT 3 timing chains on the 2V. Think about the 4V again...
You CAN get strong timging chains. They arecalled Billet sets. I have been there, done that.
Pushrods add weight!
Pushrods flex, you increase your chance for failure. Ever heard of a bent pushrod?
Do you not know anything about the 4.6L? They havetiming chain pumps that constantly keep pressure on the timing chain. Slack is not an issue!
Geez, you are no good at this. You are making this the easiest debate I have had in a couple years.
ORIGINAL: Slo5ohIdk why you insist on bringing in newer 4.6's into the discussion. 96-98. And if your going to compare newmotors to new motors atleast have the same year, not one that was made in 97 and one in 05. Thats almost a decade diffrence. Ill up the anty with the introduction of the LS7 in 2004 (applied in 06), a year before the 3v 4.6 with 505 horse for 7L at 72.14 hp per liter. Besides hp per liter is ricer talk. Now if you want to talk about superior motors, lets bring the new hemis into this...but logic should dictate that the discussion stay between 5.0's and 96-98 2v 4.6
I was comparing the latter 5.0L to the latter 4.6L. So I am doing what you are asking.
The new HEMI's are not even true HEMI's. There is nothing great about those engines. Keep reading your magazines.
So you want to bring the "best" 5.0L in the discussion against the most restricted 4.6L?
Yeah, that sounds fair.
Facts are facts, not science as you state.
ORIGINAL: Slo5ohDont mean to sound rude, just a smart ***
Good Luck!
Do some reading and come back.
[/quote]
Let me start by saying the "best 5.0" against the "worst 4.6" IS the discussion at hand, so yes thats fair.
Second, Hemis are true hemis, get your hands on a head and take a look. Its magazines that say its not...stop reading your magazines.
There is no need to bring in derogitory words into an otherwise civil discussion. Please do not.
I may be mistaken about the 3 chains on the 2v, it has been a few years since I have worked on one, but it does have 2. The billet chains arent that impressive, iv had them, iv slacked them too. You know as well as I do that the tensioners on the chains have issues.
Those FACTS aside...even if you got billet chains, thats not STOCK. Stock for stock, the 2v 4.6 has 2 weaker longer chains than the 5.0's single smaller chain. (again length increases the potential for failure)
Again, hp per liter and tq per liter is of no consiquence to my position.
Also, the 5.0 is a 4.9 in reality..so your compairison in hp/tq per L is incorrect.
It BOWS the cam!? WHAT! You have got to be kidding me! Theres a few things wrong there...A, it doesnt bow the cam. B. Even if there was bowing it would not bow because the lifters being pressed are seperated by those little parts on the cam that rest on the bearings
. That would eliminate any bowing. C. What would be diffrent about an overhead cam? The same exact forces are put on that in the same exact way.As far as inertia is concerned...Im fairly certian every cam I have held has weighed quite a bit more than the combined weight of all 16 pushrods and lifters. +1 cam +2 long chains +1 more cam gear= more weight on the valvetrain. I understand the cam rotates and it is not pressing the "full" weight as it turns on its axis but it still has to move that weight, and that weight is factored into the inertia.
Continue.
06-12-2008, 11:23 AM
#75
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 761
RE: 94/95 5.0L or 96-98 4.6L Mustang
Wow this is probably the most headted 5.0 vs 4.6 debate I've seen since joining, which wasn't that long ago [8D].
It really comes down to what you prefer. Each has their own pros and cons. I originally wanted a Terminator but cost was probably going to put me into a GT when I first started looking at Mustangs. I'm actually an old-school guy as far as car preference goes and I love the old pushrod V8s. The aftermarket is also real good so I can use the lower initial cost to close the performance gap if I wanted. I also love the way the 5.0 sounds compared to the 4.6.
PS:HP and TQ per liter is a ricer argument. Real racers compare power to weight ratios (of whichany Mustang isn't that great).
It really comes down to what you prefer. Each has their own pros and cons. I originally wanted a Terminator but cost was probably going to put me into a GT when I first started looking at Mustangs. I'm actually an old-school guy as far as car preference goes and I love the old pushrod V8s. The aftermarket is also real good so I can use the lower initial cost to close the performance gap if I wanted. I also love the way the 5.0 sounds compared to the 4.6
.PS:HP and TQ per liter is a ricer argument. Real racers compare power to weight ratios (of whichany Mustang isn't that great)
.
06-12-2008, 11:25 AM
#76
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,049
RE: 94/95 5.0L or 96-98 4.6L Mustang
ORIGINAL: 5spd GT
The 5.0L began in the 60's. Do you want me to bring those up? LOL.
I was comparing the latter 5.0L to the latter 4.6L. So I am doing what you are asking.
The new HEMI's are not even true HEMI's. There is nothing great about those engines. Keep reading your magazines.
So you want to bring the "best" 5.0L in the discussion against the most restricted 4.6L?
Yeah, that sounds fair.
Facts are facts, not science as you state.
The 5.0L began in the 60's. Do you want me to bring those up? LOL.
I was comparing the latter 5.0L to the latter 4.6L. So I am doing what you are asking.
The new HEMI's are not even true HEMI's. There is nothing great about those engines. Keep reading your magazines.
So you want to bring the "best" 5.0L in the discussion against the most restricted 4.6L?
Yeah, that sounds fair.
Facts are facts, not science as you state.
ORIGINAL: 5spd GT
I would replace word smart, with dumb.
Good Luck!
Do some reading and come back.
I would replace word smart, with dumb.
Good Luck!
Do some reading and come back.
so how about you do some reading and come back
06-12-2008, 11:51 AM
#77
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location:
Posts: 798
RE: 94/95 5.0L or 96-98 4.6L Mustang
ORIGINAL: Slo5oh
At the beginning of the thread, yes. Not currently.
No they are not. The old true HEMI heads had the combustion chamber the size of the bore. The new heads look like a true hemispherical chamber, but they have steps built into them, that decrease emissions. They are not a true HEMI. Think of the north and southern "HEMI's" on the earth. They are half circles. The new ones are not.
You got it. I apologize.
You are mistaken and yet you posted it like it is fact in your unwielding attempt to discredit the 5.0 vs. 4.6.
I have never had issues with the tensioners. Neither have my friends.
Length does increase potential, but the stock 5.0L did not have tensioners. The tensioners were installed for this very reason to solve a potential issue. It did, and I am living proof.
Okay, but I was proving a point that many on here were refuting.
Yep, it is301.594. There are 4.94224 Liters there. One cubic inch isequal to.01638706 liters.
The "4.6L" is 4.600832 liters.
If you want to do the comparison of HP/TQ per cubic inch, have at it! I guarantee there is less than a 1-2% difference in figures.
That is known as negligible. So again, those that say the 5.0L puts out more HP/TQ per liter or cube would be wrong yet again, on two accounts.
You need to speak with Jay Allen.
A. Yes it does bow a cam. That is why there are Billet options for camshaft. Guess what? Your favorite engine of all time (HEMI) uses a billet camshaft for that very reason.
B. Incorrect. Yikes.
C. No the same forces are not put on it. Have you not read the last few post? Way less spring pressure and valvetrain weight on the OHC engines. There are two camshafts, so divide by 2 to keep it simple.
I want to say a stock camshaft weighed 18 lbs, correct me if I am wrong. An OHC camshaft from my '98 was 11 lbs IIRC. I need to go verify that back behind the house.
A cam gear, "long chain" and camshaft has nothing to do with straight weight on the valvetrain. I am talking about the weight (in grams) of weight on the camshaft. You got it backwards.
Why do you think the bearings take the brunt of the friction losses? Could it be forces pressing onto the camshaft?
Sure, this is easy. 
ORIGINAL: Slo5ohLet me start by saying the "best 5.0" against the "worst 4.6" IS the discussion at hand, so yes thats fair.
ORIGINAL: Slo5oh Second, Hemis are true hemis, get your hands on a head and take a look. Its magazines that say its not...stop reading your magazines.
ORIGINAL: Slo5ohThere is no need to bring in derogitory words into an otherwise civil discussion. Please do not.
ORIGINAL: Slo5ohI may be mistaken about the 3 chains on the 2v, it has been a few years since I have worked on one, but it does have 2. The billet chains arent that impressive, iv had them, iv slacked them too. You know as well as I do that the tensioners on the chains have issues.
I have never had issues with the tensioners. Neither have my friends.
ORIGINAL: Slo5ohThose FACTS aside...even if you got billet chains, thats not STOCK. Stock for stock, the 2v 4.6 has 2 weaker longer chains than the 5.0's single smaller chain. (again length increases the potential for failure)
ORIGINAL: Slo5ohAgain, hp per liter and tq per liter is of no consiquence to my position.
ORIGINAL: Slo5ohAlso, the 5.0 is a 4.9 in reality..so your compairison in hp/tq per L is incorrect.
The "4.6L" is 4.600832 liters.
If you want to do the comparison of HP/TQ per cubic inch, have at it! I guarantee there is less than a 1-2% difference in figures.
That is known as negligible. So again, those that say the 5.0L puts out more HP/TQ per liter or cube would be wrong yet again, on two accounts.
ORIGINAL: Slo5ohIt BOWS the cam!? WHAT! You have got to be kidding me! Theres a few things wrong there...A, it doesnt bow the cam. B. Even if there was bowing it would not bow because the lifters being pressed are seperated by those little parts on the cam that rest on the bearings . That would eliminate any bowing. C. What would be diffrent about an overhead cam? The same exact forces are put on that in the same exact way.
. That would eliminate any bowing. C. What would be diffrent about an overhead cam? The same exact forces are put on that in the same exact way.
A. Yes it does bow a cam. That is why there are Billet options for camshaft. Guess what? Your favorite engine of all time (HEMI) uses a billet camshaft for that very reason.
B. Incorrect. Yikes.
C. No the same forces are not put on it. Have you not read the last few post? Way less spring pressure and valvetrain weight on the OHC engines. There are two camshafts, so divide by 2 to keep it simple.
ORIGINAL: Slo5ohAs far as inertia is concerned...Im fairly certian every cam I have held has weighed quite a bit more than the combined weight of all 16 pushrods and lifters. +1 cam +2 long chains +1 more cam gear= more weight on the valvetrain. I understand the cam rotates and it is not pressing the "full" weight as it turns on its axis but it still has to move that weight, and that weight is factored into the inertia.
A cam gear, "long chain" and camshaft has nothing to do with straight weight on the valvetrain. I am talking about the weight (in grams) of weight on the camshaft. You got it backwards.
Why do you think the bearings take the brunt of the friction losses? Could it be forces pressing onto the camshaft?
ORIGINAL: Slo5ohContinue.
This is all in fun and I hope noone gets their panties in a bunch.
Keep it up!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
NorthAmericanTuning
Vendor For Sale / Group Buy Classifieds
5
11-09-2016 11:45 AM
NorthAmericanTuning
S550 2015-2023 Mustang
3
03-18-2016 11:21 AM
