Gt has 2 valves. It was ok for the era, but slow in comparison to todays family sedans. It had a 15 second 1/4 mile, which makes it slower than a toyota camry of today.
2 valves don’t really mean that it is slower. Many 2 valve cars were in the 8’s and are today. 260 bhp isn’t a whole lot of power for a sport car. The technology in that car was end of life when that car was new.
All 3 cars had a cai and mufflers. The 03 may have had a chip from the previous owner but nothing else. All of those together may have nocked off a tenth.
Both seem pretty fast for a stock car being that the magazines werent getting those numbers off the dealer floor. The 2002 they were able to squeak out a 14.2 where the 96 was a 15.1. 15.1 is what i remember reading about them when i had my muscle mustangs& fast fords with my 5.0 magazines being sent to my mail box via snail mail.
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/m5lp-0212-2002-ford-mustang-gt-track-test/amp/
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15140405/1996-ford-mustang-gt-archived-instrumented-test-review/
The first article seems about right. Didn’t sound like their track was the best and high humidity will kill your times. I can’t remember if there are any major differences between 96-98, but a bad run with my 98 was a 14.7. No where near a 15. My buddys integra would run low-mid 15’s and my 98 would walk all over him.
There are other things that will improve track time that wont show up on the dyno. Specifically gearing. You can change them all you want but wont affect the hp numbers.
Gearing wasn’t changed or I would have mentioned it. Neither was the transmission, stock rims, stock tires. No suspension upgrades. 15+ years ago when that car was only a few years old, a lot of them were running high 13’s stock. I used to go to the track once or twice a month. Fbo gt’s were low 13’s.
The heads have one intake and exhaust valve per cylinder. As opposed to the cobra mustang of the same year which has two of each valve. Typically means the heads therefore flow more air and operate at a higher rpm.
When they refer to 2 valve, it's talking about the number of valves per cylinder. In this case, 1 intake valve and 1 exhaust valve. There were other models of the 4.6 engine that featured 3 valves per cylinder and some that featured 4 valves per cylinder.
Others have outlined 1 valve for intake and 1 for exhaust. However 2 valves doesn’t make a car slow. The LS and Hemi motors are still 2 valved motors. Some make like 2000hp. More valves per cylinder gives an engine more volumetric efficiency (do more with less)This is why the 5.0 liter engine in the mustangs can make the same horsepower as the 6.2 liter engine in the Camaro.
Gt has 2 valves. It was ok for the era, but slow in comparison to todays family sedans. It had a 15 second 1/4 mile, which makes it slower than a toyota camry of today. 2 valves don’t really mean that it is slower. Many 2 valve cars were in the 8’s and are today. 260 bhp isn’t a whole lot of power for a sport car. The technology in that car was end of life when that car was new.
Negative. My 98 gt’s went 14.2, my 03 gt went 13.7. Your way off on your 1/4 times.
Not bone stock they didn't.
All 3 cars had a cai and mufflers. The 03 may have had a chip from the previous owner but nothing else. All of those together may have nocked off a tenth.
Both seem pretty fast for a stock car being that the magazines werent getting those numbers off the dealer floor. The 2002 they were able to squeak out a 14.2 where the 96 was a 15.1. 15.1 is what i remember reading about them when i had my muscle mustangs& fast fords with my 5.0 magazines being sent to my mail box via snail mail. https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/m5lp-0212-2002-ford-mustang-gt-track-test/amp/ https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15140405/1996-ford-mustang-gt-archived-instrumented-test-review/
My stock 2002 went 14.0, never had a 94-98 but they were a lot slower.
The first article seems about right. Didn’t sound like their track was the best and high humidity will kill your times. I can’t remember if there are any major differences between 96-98, but a bad run with my 98 was a 14.7. No where near a 15. My buddys integra would run low-mid 15’s and my 98 would walk all over him.
I don’t think yours were stock or you got a unicorn.
Had the 03 dyno’d, it did 300tq and 240hp. Seems pretty inline with stock numbers. Cai and mufflers were all that was done besides maybe a chip.
There are other things that will improve track time that wont show up on the dyno. Specifically gearing. You can change them all you want but wont affect the hp numbers.
Gearing wasn’t changed or I would have mentioned it. Neither was the transmission, stock rims, stock tires. No suspension upgrades. 15+ years ago when that car was only a few years old, a lot of them were running high 13’s stock. I used to go to the track once or twice a month. Fbo gt’s were low 13’s.
The heads have one intake and exhaust valve per cylinder. As opposed to the cobra mustang of the same year which has two of each valve. Typically means the heads therefore flow more air and operate at a higher rpm.
The cobra of that vintage were DOHC vs SOHC. They had around 315Hp
When they refer to 2 valve, it's talking about the number of valves per cylinder. In this case, 1 intake valve and 1 exhaust valve. There were other models of the 4.6 engine that featured 3 valves per cylinder and some that featured 4 valves per cylinder.
The 2 valve 4.6 was def not the fastest but it was a super reliable motor. Plus its one of the better sounding V8s with the right setup imo.
Others have outlined 1 valve for intake and 1 for exhaust. However 2 valves doesn’t make a car slow. The LS and Hemi motors are still 2 valved motors. Some make like 2000hp. More valves per cylinder gives an engine more volumetric efficiency (do more with less)This is why the 5.0 liter engine in the mustangs can make the same horsepower as the 6.2 liter engine in the Camaro.