96 Mustang with a 5.0 ??? - Vintage Mustang Forums
 5Likes
  • 1 Post By Huskinhano
  • 1 Post By Hemikiller
  • 1 Post By 2nd 66
  • 1 Post By Huskinhano
  • 1 Post By GypsyR
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 14 (permalink) Old 01-29-2019, 12:08 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
74Rallye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Lynchburg VA
Posts: 639
96 Mustang with a 5.0 ???

I've been shopping around for a GT40 or GT40P engine for my 65. I have a wrecking yard telling me that they have a 1996 5.0 from a Mustang. My research tells me that the 5.0 was not available in a 96 Mustang, but the wrecking yard insist that that's what they have. I'm going to look at it Saturday.
Is there any chance a 96 Mustang could have a 5.0?
74Rallye is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 14 (permalink) Old 01-29-2019, 12:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tunkhannock PA
Posts: 19,623
It would not come from the factory with a pushrod 5.0 from the factory. However that was 23 years ago, who knows what POs have done?
samgupta likes this.

Tom

One thing great about getting older. A life in prison sentence is less of a deterrence

Huskinhano is offline  
post #3 of 14 (permalink) Old 01-29-2019, 12:25 PM
Senior Member
 
BigKoppa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Saint Louis
Posts: 186
From Wikipedia...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_M...rth_generation)

In 1996, Ford dropped the 302 CID Windsor V8 that was in production since 1968[12] and introduced the Modular 4.6 L SOHC V8. These engines were produced at two different plants, Windsor and Romeo. A "W" in the VIN 8th digit indicates a "Romeo" engine, while an "X" indicates a "Windsor".

The Windsor and Romeo have subtle differences. Valve cover bolt patterns are one. Romeo has fewer bolts than the Windsor. Another difference is the front cover bolts. The Windsor uses 8 mm and the Romeo uses 10 mm bolts. The Romeo uses jack screws on the main caps and the Windsor uses dowels. The new engine produced 215 hp (160 kW; 218 PS) at 4400 rpm and 285 lb⋅ft (386 N⋅m) of torque at 3500 rpm, matching the output of its predecessor. For 1998, the 4.6 L V8 received a small increase in output, resulting in 225 hp (168 kW; 228 PS) at 4750 rpm and 290 lb⋅ft (393 N⋅m) of torque at 3500 rpm. This was achieved through PCM calibration and a modified fuel system. Though capable of matching or exceeding the older 302 V8's output, the 4.6 L V8 was criticized for delivering inadequate performance, particularly against the larger displacement of the OHV V8 used in the Mustang's chief rival, the Chevrolet Camaro

1966 Sprint 200
Mostly stockish
BigKoppa is offline  
 
post #4 of 14 (permalink) Old 01-29-2019, 02:34 PM
Just some guy
Supporting Member
 
GypsyR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: SC foothills, USA
Posts: 18,893
Garage
There is a chance but it shouldn't be unless someone is mistaken about something. Like it's actually a '95 or something.

Running around somewhere around here there is a 1996 Mustang with a 1966 427 engine in it. I own two vehicles that aren't supposed to have 351W's in them but do. And one 1986 Mustang that isn't supposed to have a 5.0 in it but does anyway. You never know until you look. If you're not too familiar, Google up pictures of a 1995 Mustang 5.0 engine compartment and a 1996 4.6 to get an idea of what to look for.
GypsyR is offline  
post #5 of 14 (permalink) Old 01-29-2019, 03:16 PM
Senior Member
 
Hemikiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Killingworth, CT
Posts: 8,719
Garage
Easy way to search for that GT40-P

Car-Part.com--Used Auto Parts Market
New2me likes this.

Nothing worthwhile is ever quick, cheap or easy, those that can't do, complain

71 Mach 1

HOLLEY TECH PAGES
FORD OE TACH HOOKUP FORD OE TACH HOOKUP w/MSD (pg 7)
Hemikiller is online now  
post #6 of 14 (permalink) Old 01-29-2019, 05:51 PM
Senior Member
 
samgupta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskinhano View Post
It would not come from the factory with a pushrod 5.0 from the factory. However that was 23 years ago, who knows what POs have done?
totally agree. I have a 1996 Mustang GT which I purchased new. That was the first year of the 4.6 motor in the Mustang. I think one of two things happened--either the person on the phone is mistaken or someone swapped the 4.6 motor for the 5.0.

1966 A-code coupe...work in progress
samgupta is offline  
post #7 of 14 (permalink) Old 01-29-2019, 08:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 477
Externally, one of the differences are the tail lights.
Back when these were newer, tail light swaps were common.
It wont be a GT40 though. It was rated at 215HP, 10 down from the Fox body, because of the T-bird intake.
I kept the intake on my swap, fits a 65 well.
289vert is offline  
post #8 of 14 (permalink) Old 01-29-2019, 09:45 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
74Rallye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Lynchburg VA
Posts: 639
The price is right, so if it's a decent 5.0 I'll get it. Hopefully my next question will be which cam does it need.
Thanks.
74Rallye is offline  
post #9 of 14 (permalink) Old 01-29-2019, 10:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tunkhannock PA
Posts: 19,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by 74Rallye View Post
The price is right, so if it's a decent 5.0 I'll get it. Hopefully my next question will be which cam does it need.
Thanks.
The stock Mustang cam works pretty well especially with better breathing heads

Tom

One thing great about getting older. A life in prison sentence is less of a deterrence

Huskinhano is offline  
post #10 of 14 (permalink) Old 01-29-2019, 11:06 PM
Senior Member
 
2nd 66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New York
Posts: 9,332
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by 74Rallye View Post
The price is right, so if it's a decent 5.0 I'll get it. Hopefully my next question will be which cam does it need.
Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskinhano View Post
The stock Mustang cam works pretty well especially with better breathing heads

Huskinhano likes this.


Brad
2nd 66 is online now  
post #11 of 14 (permalink) Old 01-29-2019, 11:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tunkhannock PA
Posts: 19,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd 66 View Post

2nd 66 likes this.

Tom

One thing great about getting older. A life in prison sentence is less of a deterrence

Huskinhano is offline  
post #12 of 14 (permalink) Old 02-06-2019, 09:38 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
74Rallye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Lynchburg VA
Posts: 639
I took a look at the engine and it's 1986 Mustang engine that's been transplanted into a pickup truck. It has what looks like a smog carb instead of fuel injection. I can't see any advantage in going with this '86 5.0 engine for $400 vs a newer GT40P other than the exhaust issue.
Are there any redeeming qualities to the '86 5.0 engine that I don't know about?
74Rallye is offline  
post #13 of 14 (permalink) Old 02-06-2019, 10:13 AM
Just some guy
Supporting Member
 
GypsyR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: SC foothills, USA
Posts: 18,893
Garage
Nope. Equipped with what are widely considered to be the worst performance heads Ford ever put on a small block if it is stock.
Grimbrand likes this.
GypsyR is offline  
post #14 of 14 (permalink) Old 02-06-2019, 10:48 AM
Senior Member
 
2nd 66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New York
Posts: 9,332
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by 74Rallye View Post
I took a look at the engine and it's 1986 Mustang engine that's been transplanted into a pickup truck. It has what looks like a smog carb instead of fuel injection. I can't see any advantage in going with this '86 5.0 engine for $400 vs a newer GT40P other than the exhaust issue.
Are there any redeeming qualities to the '86 5.0 engine that I don't know about?
nope ,get an Explorer GT40P


Brad
2nd 66 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Vintage Mustang Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

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

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome