2010 WRX vs. 2012 Mustang GT - Page 8
+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 150

This is a discussion on 2010 WRX vs. 2012 Mustang GT within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Originally Posted by RayfieldsWRX Glad to have the "other opinion", here. I certainly never thought of the 4.6 as a ...

  1. #106
    Registered User Venom351R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by RayfieldsWRX View Post
    Glad to have the "other opinion", here. I certainly never thought of the 4.6 as a garbage motor..seems like they produced a little over 215hp when new in '94 (reasonable V8 numbers, at the time), and then went as high as 300 in normally aspirated form. I don't remember the pushrods making anything like that in stock, non-Cobra form. Unless I'm wrong, isn't the new 5.0 simply the latest evolution of the modular engine approach?
    The 4.6 was not made until 96. The 5.0 ( pushrod) was from the late 70's until 1995. 1996-1998 was the first 4.6 engines in the Mustang, the SOHC for the GT and the DOHC for the Cobra. When the 2000's hit then switched from the 2V 4.6 to the 3V. The 1994-1998 Mustang look the same other then the tail lights and a few other things on the outside that not many people pick up on but they had two different engines 5.0/4.6 which confuses a lot of people. Everyone thinks the 94/95 has the 4.6 b/c its the same body style as the 96-98.

    The 4.6 and 5.0 NA numbers were close, the 4.6 lacked torque and the 5.0 can be brought to 300+ in NA form when keeping it a stock 302, when stroking it out to a 347 it can get interesting. The aftermarket support for the 4.6 never really took off on in the 2V form.


    All in all the new 5.0 is just a nasty engine, ford did it right, they take boost like champ for having 11 in compression and they have been putting out impressive numbers and 1/4 times on the stock block. Anyone running against a new 5.0 who is also a decent driver had better have some decent mods to be a contender.
    Last edited by Venom351R; 08-31-2012 at 12:18 AM.
    2007 WRX STI- Stock 13.8@102

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #107
    Registered User Eric05mx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by Venom351R View Post
    The 4.6 was not made until 96. The 5.0 ( pushrod) was from the late 70's until 1995. 1996-1998 was the first 4.6 engines in the Mustang, the SOHC for the GT and the DOHC for the Cobra. When the 2000's hit then switched from the 2V 4.6 to the 3V. The 1994-1998 Mustang look the same other then the tail lights and a few other things on the outside that not many people pick up on but they had two different engines 5.0/4.6 which confuses a lot of people. Everyone thinks the 94/95 has the 4.6 b/c its the same body style as the 96-98.

    The 4.6 and 5.0 NA numbers were close, the 4.6 lacked torque and the 5.0 can be brought to 300+ in NA form when keeping it a stock 302, when stroking it out to a 347 it can get interesting. The aftermarket support for the 4.6 never really took off on in the 2V form.


    All in all the new 5.0 is just a nasty engine, ford did it right, they take boost like champ for having 11 in compression and they have been putting out impressive numbers and 1/4 times on the stock block. Anyone running against a new 5.0 who is also a decent driver had better have some decent mods to be a contender.
    I agree with the new 5.0 being an impressive machine. A friend of mine has one with just bolt on's and tune that turned an 11.48 @ 121 with drag radials. The only thing that would worry me about a new 5.0 is the cheap tranny they put in them.
    2012 WRX ice silver metallic
    Protuned by Agile Auto 315whp/342wtq @ 20.5psi

  4. #108
    Registered User Venom351R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    326
    I have heard the weak point is the transmission not sure if can be considered "cheap" though. I do know they have pushed the stock block/tranny past 600 at the wheels and into the 10's. How long it lasts beyond that I cannot say for sure or for how long.
    2007 WRX STI- Stock 13.8@102

  5. #109
    Administrator RayfieldsWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Old Folks Home
    Posts
    47,044
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by Venom351R View Post
    The 4.6 was not made until 96. The 5.0 ( pushrod) was from the late 70's until 1995. 1996-1998 was the first 4.6 engines in the Mustang, the SOHC for the GT and the DOHC for the Cobra. When the 2000's hit then switched from the 2V 4.6 to the 3V. The 1994-1998 Mustang look the same other then the tail lights and a few other things on the outside that not many people pick up on but they had two different engines 5.0/4.6 which confuses a lot of people. Everyone thinks the 94/95 has the 4.6 b/c its the same body style as the 96-98.
    My mistake! I'm not really a Mustang guy.
    --Ray
    Grandfather of the Bugeye Mafia
    2013 Subaru BRZ Limited
    2002 Subaru WRX Bugeyebrid Wagon

  6. #110
    Registered User Venom351R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    326
    common mistake, I know to much about them then I care to know at this point. Wish my knowledge of the Subaru WRX/STI was on par w/ that. I'm learnng more things every day though
    2007 WRX STI- Stock 13.8@102

  7. #111
    zax
    zax is offline
    \_(ツ)_/ zax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Neverland Ranch, Maryland
    Posts
    13,428
    I Support ClubWRX I Support ClubWRX
    I do know that Terminators make 600rwhp with ease.
    2015 CWP WRX STi ... But how did I get roped back into an EJ motor?!
    Zax's utterly unimaginably stock 2015 STi build thread
    Zax's Shaggin' Wagon Build Thread Now tuned for 99% pure Unicorn Jizz!

    Zach | Moderator -- Mid-Atlantic States, Tech & Modifying & General Repairs
    Rollin' with the Bugeye Mafia #302 | N.E.R.D. Subject Zero
    Facebook me here

    Your Mid-A local board: http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/mid-atlantic-states/

  8. #112
    Registered User Venom351R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    326
    ya, exhaust, pulley swap, intake, tune = something not to screw with lol
    2007 WRX STI- Stock 13.8@102

  9. #113
    The Fruit mangostick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    VB VA .. the ghetto on the sea
    Posts
    4,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Venom351R View Post
    The 4.6 was not made until 96. The 5.0 ( pushrod) was from the late 70's until 1995. 1996-1998 was the first 4.6 engines in the Mustang, the SOHC for the GT and the DOHC for the Cobra. When the 2000's hit then switched from the 2V 4.6 to the 3V. The 1994-1998 Mustang look the same other then the tail lights and a few other things on the outside that not many people pick up on but they had two different engines 5.0/4.6 which confuses a lot of people. Everyone thinks the 94/95 has the 4.6 b/c its the same body style as the 96-98.

    The 4.6 and 5.0 NA numbers were close, the 4.6 lacked torque and the 5.0 can be brought to 300+ in NA form when keeping it a stock 302, when stroking it out to a 347 it can get interesting. The aftermarket support for the 4.6 never really took off on in the 2V form.


    All in all the new 5.0 is just a nasty engine, ford did it right, they take boost like champ for having 11 in compression and they have been putting out impressive numbers and 1/4 times on the stock block. Anyone running against a new 5.0 who is also a decent driver had better have some decent mods to be a contender.
    yes.. ^ all that

    the reference to the 4.6 being a lesser engine was regarding the 2v engines. After those I wrote off the 4.6 and refused to mess with any more of them. Also, in reference to GM F-body cars..(ford also uses the "F" designator for the 79-93 mustangs) they flex too. Not as much as the mustangs but they do flex enough to jack up door alignment, just not enough that they wont open/close. Body shell to body shell the impreza is a much stiffer car. Its smaller too.. which will help in rigidity but still any car that comes from the factory with as much power and torque as a GM F body or a Fox body, SN95 or later mustang.. shouldn't flex like they do. That's just cheaping out.

    mushtang wise we were talking GT. The cobra is in many instances a different animal entirely. That came with IRS, that came supercharged.. and that is a car I would LOVE to own. And I stand firm that straight axles are for trucks and trucks only.
    OBP 2010 5dr *traded*
    SWP 2013 FRS
    My name is Shawn, I'm a Devout Practicalist and I'm addicted to flat4's
    This page has had 1,666 visits
    SUCH IS MANGO!

  10. #114
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Venom351R View Post
    The 4.6 was not made until 96. The 5.0 ( pushrod) was from the late 70's until 1995. 1996-1998 was the first 4.6 engines in the Mustang, the SOHC for the GT and the DOHC for the Cobra. When the 2000's hit then switched from the 2V 4.6 to the 3V. The 1994-1998 Mustang look the same other then the tail lights and a few other things on the outside that not many people pick up on but they had two different engines 5.0/4.6 which confuses a lot of people. Everyone thinks the 94/95 has the 4.6 b/c its the same body style as the 96-98.

    The 4.6 and 5.0 NA numbers were close, the 4.6 lacked torque and the 5.0 can be brought to 300+ in NA form when keeping it a stock 302, when stroking it out to a 347 it can get interesting. The aftermarket support for the 4.6 never really took off on in the 2V form.


    All in all the new 5.0 is just a nasty engine, ford did it right, they take boost like champ for having 11 in compression and they have been putting out impressive numbers and 1/4 times on the stock block. Anyone running against a new 5.0 who is also a decent driver had better have some decent mods to be a contender.
    Why doesn't the 4.6 4v n/a motor get any love? They had enough torque to "keep up" with 5.0's. 305hp 320tq which many people think were under rated from the factory. Stock cars were putting 270-285 down on a dyno.
    2013 STI Limited: on order as of 08/18/2012
    2005 F250: Lifted sitting on 38's. Current daily driver.
    2004 MACH 1: Fast, Loud, Sold
    1992 Bronco: Sold
    2002 Civic SI: SLOWMO

  11. #115
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric05mx View Post
    I agree with the new 5.0 being an impressive machine. A friend of mine has one with just bolt on's and tune that turned an 11.48 @ 121 with drag radials. The only thing that would worry me about a new 5.0 is the cheap tranny they put in them.
    The tranny isn't necessarily cheap. It is assembled in china but the parts and design come from Germany. I believe their failures is less than wrx/sti ring land failures. It is easier to tear up a transmission with 400hp than the older gt's that had 300hp. In a report I read it was less than 2% of people had a "real" issue. But it is a new design and bugs have to be worked out.
    2013 STI Limited: on order as of 08/18/2012
    2005 F250: Lifted sitting on 38's. Current daily driver.
    2004 MACH 1: Fast, Loud, Sold
    1992 Bronco: Sold
    2002 Civic SI: SLOWMO

  12. #116
    Pro Manscaper Mikie13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Palmyra, NJ
    Posts
    21,190
    5.Slow


    5.Troll


    The Hawk-Eye Alliance #90|The Blobeye Syndicate #0|The Stink-Eye Mob #0|N.E.R.D. Founding Member & #3
    2012 Lightning Red WRX Sedan
    ProcessWest TMIC Cobb SF Intake w/airbox Invidia Catless Downpipe Invidia Q300 Catback Kartboy Short Shifter
    OpenSource tuned by: Matty @ WTF Tuning

  13. #117
    Registered User gunz4me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by zax View Post
    I do know that Terminators make 600rwhp with ease.
    After a few months of owning my 2006 GT, I regretted not looking for a 2003/2004 Cobra. While I liked the retro look of mine in the beginning, I believe I would have been happier with the Terminator. Of course, now I am so bitter towards Ford, they would have to pay me to own one because I am not giving them another penny of my money anytime soon. Maybe in 2016 when I forget about the pains I had with my 2006, I may consider giving them another try.

  14. #118
    Registered User gunz4me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by zax View Post
    I do know that Terminators make 600rwhp with ease.
    After a few months of owning my 2006 GT, I regretted not looking for a 2003/2004 Cobra. While I liked the retro look of mine in the beginning, I believe I would have been happier with the Terminator. Of course, now I am so bitter towards Ford, they would have to pay me to own one because I am not giving them another penny of my money anytime soon. Maybe in 2016 when I forget about the pains I had with my 2006, I may consider giving them another try.

  15. #119
    Registered User cjm1991's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by 2013STI View Post
    Why doesn't the 4.6 4v n/a motor get any love? They had enough torque to "keep up" with 5.0's. 305hp 320tq which many people think were under rated from the factory. Stock cars were putting 270-285 down on a dyno.
    I agree the 4v doesn't get enough love in NA form, but they respond very well to boost and can take a beating. My friend had a 99 cobra with simple mods and it walked all over cars with equal or a little more hp. It had longtubes, x pipe, catback, cold air intake, tune and 4.10s with a little weight reduction. It was a good race with my camaro that made more numbers, from 1st I had to play catch up because of his Toyo r888's... Those baby's stick like glue on a warm day. Unfortunately it was t boned by a 90 year old lady and totaled about 5 months ago
    Chris
    02 Camaro z28 T-Tops, m6 49k miles
    Bolt ons and tuned - 349rwhp/362rwtq
    02 Ws6 T-Top,m6 80k miles
    Bolt ons/Cam/tune - 436rwhp/424rwtq

  16. #120
    Registered User Venom351R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by mangostick View Post
    yes.. ^ all that

    the reference to the 4.6 being a lesser engine was regarding the 2v engines. After those I wrote off the 4.6 and refused to mess with any more of them. Also, in reference to GM F-body cars..(ford also uses the "F" designator for the 79-93 mustangs) they flex too. Not as much as the mustangs but they do flex enough to jack up door alignment, just not enough that they wont open/close. Body shell to body shell the impreza is a much stiffer car. Its smaller too.. which will help in rigidity but still any car that comes from the factory with as much power and torque as a GM F body or a Fox body, SN95 or later mustang.. shouldn't flex like they do. That's just cheaping out.

    mushtang wise we were talking GT. The cobra is in many instances a different animal entirely. That came with IRS, that came supercharged.. and that is a car I would LOVE to own. And I stand firm that straight axles are for trucks and trucks only.
    so far the 03/04 Cobra is the only one to come with IRS, some loved it some hated it. Drag racers hated it and swapped a lot of them out for the regular 8.8 rear ends. Not sure about the shelbys as far as IRS goes I dont really follow those as much b/c they are to expensive although I wouldn't pass up the chance to have a Super Snake if the option ever presented its self lol


    Quote Originally Posted by 2013STI View Post
    Why doesn't the 4.6 4v n/a motor get any love? They had enough torque to "keep up" with 5.0's. 305hp 320tq which many people think were under rated from the factory. Stock cars were putting 270-285 down on a dyno.
    in stock form a 2V did not put down 270-285 on the dyno. I think your mixing it up w/ the 4V Cobra which was rated at 305. If they were putting down 270 on the dyno then they would have had around 320 at the engine not 305 which is not uncommon for ford to underrate performance especially in the Cobra's. The 2V 4.6 probably put down around 185 and 220 TQ. Even guys with the full PI Swaps were putting down less then 250.

    it was mostly b/c of the lack of aftermarket support. All these years later they are now just getting other cylinder head options. For a long time the only option was the PI swap which was a better flowing head and intake from ford that they put on the later 4.6's but it was still no huge power jump like going full aftermarket like with trick flow. The 96-98 2V 4.6 was a step back for ford but also paved the way for the new 5.0 which they got completely right. The 96-98 Cobra 4V was a nice engine but the 2V just never got any aftermarket love and never really took off as a performance engine. Ive never owned a 4.6 Ive had 5 Mustangs all pushrods from 5.0's (302) to 5.8's (351W) but I would not mind owning a Modular engine Mustang if it was one of the specialty ones like the 2000 Cobra R which has a 5.4 Modular. Id love to see a comparison test between a 2000 Cobra R, the new Boss 302 and a WRX/STI as far as the road course/ AutoX. The Boss would beat out all of them based on HP but I'm speaking in pure terms if handling, would be quite inserting. I think secretly Id be pulling for the 2000 R just b/c its such an awesome rare Mustang. My friend Mike has one I envy him every time I see it, which is only in his garage b/c he never drives the damn thing lol
    Last edited by Venom351R; 09-01-2012 at 03:46 AM.
    2007 WRX STI- Stock 13.8@102

+ Reply to Thread

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself. We strongly suggest that you stay away from using aol, yahoo, msn, and hotmail accounts. Sometimes the mail server blocks the emails from our server. As a result you will not receive any notifications including the confirmation email.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •