BlueSky Posted January 7, 2016 #26 Posted January 7, 2016 Its either a 5.0 or a 5.8 if its stock right? No, it's either a 5.0 or 4.6 if stock. I don't remember for sure when they went to the 4.6. I think it might be 96?
Chaharly Posted January 7, 2016 #27 Posted January 7, 2016 No, it's either a 5.0 or 4.6 if stock. I don't remember for sure when they went to the 4.6. I think it might be 96? I know 96 and up they went to the 4.6. I was thinking cobra, but he said GT on it. Perhaps its bored over?
BlueSky Posted January 7, 2016 #28 Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) I know 96 and up they went to the 4.6. I was thinking cobra, but he said GT on it. Perhaps its bored over? The Cobra had a 32 valve DOHC 4.6L engine. They came out in 96. Ford never put anything larger than the 5.0 in the Mustang after 1973. Prior to 96 the Cobra had a mildly modified 5.0. And sometime after 96, a Mach I was offered with the 4.6 DOHC and the Cobra had a supercharged 4.6 DOHC Edited January 7, 2016 by BlueSky
Chaharly Posted January 7, 2016 #29 Posted January 7, 2016 The Cobra had a 32 valve DOHC 4.6L engine. They came out in 96. Ford never put anything larger than the 5.0 in the Mustang after 1973. Prior to 96 the Cobra had a mildly modified 5.0. And sometime after 96, a Mach I was offered with the 4.6 DOHC and the Cobra had a supercharged 4.6 DOHC So that leaves me wondering what the little white convertible's got under the hood. Either way its gotta be better than my 94. It had the 3.8 V-6. A gutless little thing but it got great mileage!
BlueSky Posted January 7, 2016 #30 Posted January 7, 2016 So that leaves me wondering what the little white convertible's got under the hood. Either way its gotta be better than my 94. It had the 3.8 V-6. A gutless little thing but it got great mileage! 5.0, most likely the 5.7 is a typo. I bought a 95 Mustang V6 3.8L 5 speed for son #1 . It felt fairly powerful I thought. It had good low end torque. Those 3.8L V6s tend to blow head gaskets which my son's did. I think the thermostat stuck closed and caused it to overheat and that did it. About the same time, my 95 Mark VIII Lincoln that had the 4.6L 32 valve DOHC engine had a stuck closed thermostat. It didn't get very hot and I replaced the stat without hurting the engine. Later on, I bought son #2 a 2000 Mustang auto with the 3.8L V6. I changed the thermostat to a fail safe thermostat as soon as I bought it. I think Ford had fixed the head gasket issue by 2000 though. There are lots of discussions on the web about 3.8L engines blowing head gaskets.
Atoolnut Posted January 7, 2016 Author #31 Posted January 7, 2016 good info re 3.8 ..will change thermostat and coolant this spring before better half starts driving it..a little PM is always good....have to do the 08 venture this winter coolant change
BlueSky Posted January 7, 2016 #32 Posted January 7, 2016 Leaving the coolant in too long contributes to head gasket failure or so I've read because of corrosion.
Condor Posted January 7, 2016 #33 Posted January 7, 2016 5.0, most likely the 5.7 is a typo. Yeah sorry 'bout that. Had small block chevy on the brain. It has a 289HP-FI auto.... I'll edit the post...
BlueSky Posted January 7, 2016 #34 Posted January 7, 2016 Yeah sorry 'bout that. Had small block chevy on the brain. It has a 289HP-FI auto.... I'll edit the post... Where does the 289 HP number come from? The GT of that year 1994 was rated 215hp with 285 ft lbs of torque. The Cobra had 240hp and the same torque as the GT Do you mean 289 cu in high performance? The engines are 302 cu in. The 289 was phased out in the late 60's.
Condor Posted January 7, 2016 #35 Posted January 7, 2016 Groan....!! You assumed that the HP stood for Horse Power, and you know what they say about assumed. It stands for High Performance, and the 289 stands for cubic inches. But as an expert in all things Mustang, you knew that... yes?? I really don't give a damn about the horse power, just what it said on top of the motor......
BlueSky Posted January 8, 2016 #36 Posted January 8, 2016 Groan....!! You assumed that the HP stood for Horse Power, and you know what they say about assumed. It stands for High Performance, and the 289 stands for cubic inches. But as an expert in all things Mustang, you knew that... yes?? I really don't give a damn about the horse power, just what it said on top of the motor...... Mr. Condor, I apologize for irritating you. That was not my intention. When you posted the error, Chaharly was curious as to what engine the Mustang had and I was trying to help. Now, you have my curiosity up. Ford bored out the 289 cu in engine to 4" cylinders in 1968 making it a 302 cu in or as it later became known as, a 5.0L. The 289 was only made in 1965, 1966 and 1967.
Condor Posted January 8, 2016 #37 Posted January 8, 2016 Mr. Condor, I apologize for irritating you. That was not my intention. When you posted the error, Chaharly was curious as to what engine the Mustang had and I was trying to help. Now, you have my curiosity up. Ford bored out the 289 cu in engine to 4" cylinders in 1968 making it a 302 cu in or as it later became known as, a 5.0L. The 289 was only made in 1965, 1966 and 1967. Sorry for getting irritated.... Probably was a 5.0L....
Atoolnut Posted January 16, 2016 Author #38 Posted January 16, 2016 Brought mustang home and surprised her for her birthday...she loves it.....planning first trip on may (its off road till then)...going back to tennessee to drive all the roads we have ridden on the bike...hope top down is as much fun as two wheels ....but it wont!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now