New 5.0 and the old uh 5.0 (4.9)
06-30-2011, 09:24 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
New 5.0 and the old uh 5.0 (4.9)
OK, so it seems that people really just dont seem to understand that the new 5.0 is not derived from and has nothing in common with the old 5.0.
yes, they both are called 5.0 and both are roughly 302ci displacement and Ford did that for a reason however, they are not even remotely similar.
Anyway, please stop saying that the 5.0 is a 'proven' design or that it has any kind of history. The only history it has is in the new mustang and at this point, thats less history than the EB has.
I get hammered on a lot for speaking up in EB threads where I disagree with the claims being made so I figure I'd go on the record here asking 5.0 guys to stop making claims that prove how little they actually know.
yes, they both are called 5.0 and both are roughly 302ci displacement and Ford did that for a reason however, they are not even remotely similar.
Anyway, please stop saying that the 5.0 is a 'proven' design or that it has any kind of history. The only history it has is in the new mustang and at this point, thats less history than the EB has.
I get hammered on a lot for speaking up in EB threads where I disagree with the claims being made so I figure I'd go on the record here asking 5.0 guys to stop making claims that prove how little they actually know.
06-30-2011, 10:37 AM
#2
People are saying that not because of the displacement but because it's a naturally aspirated V8. Which is a proven design that ford has built for years and years. Not saying that the ecoboost Is not good. It has shown it self to be a great engine in other vehicles.
06-30-2011, 12:33 PM
#5
just taking a guess here, but maybe by 'proven' they are referring to a naturally aspirated engine, or the direct injection -which is the only reason I went with the 5.0 versus the ecoboost.
Trending Topics
06-30-2011, 12:54 PM
#8
Administrator
What I don't get (as if it matters) is why all of a sudden when referring to the old 5.0L 302, its now 4.9 once the new one came out.
For the record-
Old 5.0L= 4942cc
New 5.0L= 4951cc
I know its now refered to as the "4.9L" because you round up or down and its a method of segrigation between the two designators, but lets not disrespect or belittle what made the Mustang great (it certainly wasn't its handling or looks).
For the record-
Old 5.0L= 4942cc
New 5.0L= 4951cc
I know its now refered to as the "4.9L" because you round up or down and its a method of segrigation between the two designators, but lets not disrespect or belittle what made the Mustang great (it certainly wasn't its handling or looks).
Last edited by Lenn; 06-30-2011 at 12:56 PM.
06-30-2011, 01:15 PM
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
What I don't get (as if it matters) is why all of a sudden when referring to the old 5.0L 302, its now 4.9 once the new one came out.
For the record-
Old 5.0L= 4942cc
New 5.0L= 4951cc
I know its now refered to as the "4.9L" because you round up or down and its a method of segrigation between the two designators, but lets not disrespect or belittle what made the Mustang great (it certainly wasn't its handling or looks).
For the record-
Old 5.0L= 4942cc
New 5.0L= 4951cc
I know its now refered to as the "4.9L" because you round up or down and its a method of segrigation between the two designators, but lets not disrespect or belittle what made the Mustang great (it certainly wasn't its handling or looks).
As for the technology, no, it may not be new but it sure is completely different than the old 302 in just about every way imaginable except that its still NA and still not DI.
06-30-2011, 01:22 PM
#10
Administrator
^ Well I understand that... but I'd be willing to bet that before you got your 5.0L F150, you always referred to the fox Mustangs as "5.0's". If you say you didnt, I'd not believe you (again, as if it mattered). I think you're just irritated that there's some ignorant/inexperienced people that see the name and jump to a correlation. I probably would be, too.