4.9L mustangs are slow as ass on the highway!!!

[atrain598]

Ive race a hand full of mustangs with the 4.9L engine and they can take me off the start but if I got one on the highway, see ya later. Im not sure what their top speed is but when im up aound 130-135 their putting on the breaks and givin up. I own a 95 Prelude VTEC with intake and wires and thats about it. I replacing the current engine with the Jdm type S engine. The last engine had too many miles on it 185,000. If anyone has pointers or ideas on the project feel free to let me know.

[civicHBsi91]

since when do mustangs have 4.9L engines?

[audi&benz]

the most recent engines in the mustang are 4.6L and 5.0L. there is no such thing as a 4.9L mustang. wow.

[DVS LT1]

Actually, the olde school "5.0" Mustangs were in fact 4.9L engines.

The Ford 302 cubic inch motor works out to exactly 4.94889 Liters - so depending on how many decimal places you round to, it could be 5.0 or 4.9 (but TECHNICALLY it was a 4.9).

And yes, the early-mid 90's 5.0L & 4.6L V8's were terribly inefficient motors - not hard for a modern import motor to outrun on the freeway.

[audi&benz]

it is understood to be a 5.0L just like the 351 windsor which ford called the 5.8L. really it was a 5.7###L engine.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally posted by audi&benz
the most recent engines in the mustang are 4.6L and 5.0L. there is no such thing as a 4.9L mustang. wow.

Go here and calculate the numbers.

The good ol' 302 had these specs:

Bore: 4.00 inches
Stroke: 3.00 inches
Cylinders: 8

Which equates to 302 cubic inches of displacement or 4.94 liters.

Don't know if that's what ol' boy is talking about, but a lot of people who know better call that motor the 4.9 instead of the 5.0.

Edit: DVS beat me to it.

[audi&benz]

i know that it is technically 4.9##L but go look on the side of a fox bodied mustang gt and what does it say.... 5.0L. it is distributed as a 5.0L v8.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally posted by audi&benz
i know that it is technically 4.9##L but go look on the side of a fox bodied mustang gt and what does it say.... 5.0L. it is distributed as a 5.0L v8.

Maybe atrain is one of those that know better.

There is a nice little winky smiley with his thread title...

[DVS LT1]

Ya, this was like only the biggest joke/scam of the 1980's Pony car scene - that the mighty "5.0" Mustang's were really 4.9 liters!, and the Chevy 305's were the only "REAL" 5 liter's on the street.

Would a 355 be a "REAL" 5.8L?????

[audi&benz]

not sure about the 355 ci being a 5.8L or not. they might just round it up like the 351 windsor.

[PWMAN]

Ford made the 351W a 5.8 because chevy was so famous for a 5.7L. They wanted to be different than chevy of course.
And since the 302 displaced 4.948 liters, that rounds up to 5.0 geniuses. Cutting off at the 4 means truncating, not rounding.

[HiFlow5 0]

Originally posted by DVS LT1
And yes, the early-mid 90's 5.0L & 4.6L V8's were terribly inefficient motors - not hard for a modern import motor to outrun on the freeway.

Actually no, the early 90's, 90-93 were very efficient, and had lots of potential. They were the same motor found in the 80's mustangs and almost identical to the other FI FOX motors. Except for 93 when Hypereutectic pistons were used. All in all the Fox Mustangs were very efficient for their time and were respectable on the street. The 94 and 95 5.0 motors were starting to lack what the new heavier body style needed to get up and go. The first generation 4.6L mod motor introduced in 96 was less then desirable, and was truly inefficient. I believe this is what you were refering to. The mod motors of today are far better then the original ones that were first introduced.

Originally posted by carrrnuttt
Don't know if that's what ol' boy is talking about, but a lot of people who know better call that motor the 4.9 instead of the 5.0.

You are the only person that I know that refers to the older stangs as 4.9's. Even though the real displacement is 4.94978, it has become common practice to call them 5.0's, cause that's what they were designed to be marketed as. How come Chevy didn't call the 305 a 4.9L either, cause it too was not a true 5.0L. It's true displacement is actually 4.99895L. Both were designed to be marketed as 5 liters, and both companies had different approaches to making a motor to suit their needs.

Originally posted by atrain598
Ive race a hand full of mustangs with the 4.9L engine and they can take me off the start but if I got one on the highway, see ya later. I'm not sure what their top speed is but when I'm up around 130-135 their putting on the breaks and givin up. I own a 95 Prelude VTEC with intake and wires and thats about it. I replacing the current engine with the Jdm type S engine. The last engine had too many miles on it 185,000. If anyone has pointers or ideas on the project feel free to let me know.

First off, I believe the Mustang is governed to shut down at high speeds, this could have been the case. Secondly, you were racing to 130-135 mph. Maybe you just have bigger ball, when the average person is worried about unsafe driving speeds, and the safety of others. There is NO need to race to those speeds on public roads what so ever! Take it to the track if you want to be a high speed racer. I'm sure you'll find competition there that will totally obliterate you whereas street racing has so many limitations to truly be a deciding factor.

[HiFlow5 0]

Originally posted by audi&benz
not sure about the 355 ci being a 5.8L or not. they might just round it up like the 351 windsor.

Do the math out and a 355CI motor comes out to be 5.81845L.

And I have to agree with PWMAN here.
Again do the math out and a 350CI motor comes out to be 5.7365L, or 5.7L.
Now a 351CI motor comes out to be 5.75289L, or 5.8L.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally posted by HiFlow5 0

You are the only person that I know that refers to the older stangs as 4.9's. Even though the real displacement is 4.94978, it has become common practice to call them 5.0's, cause that's what they were designed to be marketed as. How come Chevy didn't call the 305 a 4.9L either, cause it too was not a true 5.0L. It's true displacement is actually 4.99895L. Both were designed to be marketed as 5 liters, and both companies had different approaches to making a motor to suit their needs.

Nah, I still refer to them as 5.0's...especially since a lot of people would not know what I'm talking about.

There are however, quite a few times that I have called it a 4.9 due to some cocky kid talking smack about his 5.0. I also know people that call the car as such...

...Funny thing is, they're all Chevy boys.

PWMAN: The condescension was totally uneccesary. I know about the real numbers and how they should be properly rounded-off. The post I made was for the entertainment of the Mustang boys that I KNEW would flock to this thread. This 4.9-5.0 thing has been a long running joke ever since the pony wars.

[audi&benz]

so carrnutt you were just trying to be a jackass? j/k