When is 215 horsepower better than 215 horsepower? When it's the 215 horsepower in the 1996 Mustang GT.
Until now, the Mustang V-8 had been the big, heavy 5.0-liter (305 cubic inches) central camshaft, overhead valve iron monster. Fairly big on muscle, not much on engineering sophistication.Seemed like only a matter of time before Ford would drop its loudly applauded modular 4.6-liter (281 cubic inches) V-8 into a Mustang - the engine that got big kudos when it was chosen to power Crown Victorias and Lincoln Mark VIIIs.
The time is now. But while the Mustang has been given the 4.6, it's not with the four overhead camshafts, 32 valves and 295 horsepower that's in the Mark VIII. Instead, it's with two camshafts (one per bank of cylinders) and 16 valves.
Bottom line: The 4.6 delivers the same 215 horses as the old 5.0. And the same 285 foot-pounds of torque.
So? So Ford says the 4.6 is a smoother, more sophisticated engine than the old 5.0 (which, by the way, isn't being farmed out to that big dynamometer in the sky - it'll be dropped in the Explorer so Ford can at least keep the 220-horse Jeep Grand Cherokee within striking distance).
The 4.6 comes with better cooling and better lubrication, too, which should affect longevity.
It also revs higher - 6,000, to the 5.0's 5,000. That translates into more muscle at higher passing speeds while retaining the same low-end torque (both engines' torque peaks are about the same, mid-3,000s). So, the '96 Mustang GT 4.6 is a more advanced engineering exercise with a somewhat wider performance power band.
Meanwhile, over at General Motors, the Pontiac Firebird and Chevy Camaro are a couple of rather unsophisticated, dated engineering designs that just happen to put out 60 more horsepower - 275 from the LT1 Corvette engine. That was the engine that Ford engineers told their bosses GM wouldn't even think of putting in the F-bodied pony cars.
So why doesn't Ford drop its four-cam, 32-valve version into the Mustang? It has. Sort of. In the limited-production Mustang Cobra. Horsepower: 305. Ah ha, GM, gotcha!
Not quite. Pontiac's "Ram-Air" Firebird has already matched that number.
So what we have in the '96 Mustang GT 4.6 is a smooth-idling - but not sans that ominous rumble that has long given goose bumps to street racers and wannabes alike - high-revving, slick-shifting, quieter, somewhat smoother-riding version of the car that's been a hit with Americans for 32 years.
The tester I tried was a metallic dark green GT with beige leather upholstery that instantly tapped my memory bank to a similar presentation driven nearly 30 years ago by Steve McQueen in the prototype chase-scene movie "Bullitt." That chase down 19th Avenue in San Francisco and along the pre-freeway Pacific Coast Highway outside of Daley City, the real thing as opposed to the fairyland circus stunts on "Dukes of Hazzard," sure sold a lot of Mustangs and Dodge Chargers.
My tester launched to 60 in the mid-sixes. Those huge Goodyear Gatorback 245/45ZR17s were easy to light up, particularly with the new built-for-Mustang Borg-Warner five-speed and its thicker gears, accessed by a just-right short-throw selector.
Fuel mileage hasn't changed much: With the 4.6, you can expect to get mid-to-high teens mileage in a 50-50 mix of real-world city-highway driving.
With all this V-8 talk, you might think the Mustang has no other engine choice. Be advised: For those who like the looks of the coupe or convertible, but not their thrust or fuel bills, the base engine is the 3.8-liter "Essex" V-6: 150 horses, 215 foot-pounds of torque, upgraded in '96 to be quieter, stronger and more durable.
Back to the GT. The 4.6 brings with it slightly different caster and camber settings at the front, which helps the steering give better road feedback to the driver and helps the car itself corner flatter and smoother than the '95.
Throwing in a larger diameter anti-sway bar at the rear suspension, which remains the same solid axle that Henry Ford must have invented for the Model A, has helped cut down on understeer. If your layout is going to be rear-wheel-drive, as it's always been on the Mustang, you may as well do what you can to maximize your dry-road handling advantage over front-wheel-drive.
And while it was easy as pie to light up the tires, it was harder than Hades to do that to the brakes. Those four big discs, with their 388.3 square inches of swept area, stopped her on the proverbial dime every time, no fade.
Like its GM counterparts, the Mustang has long been long on performance-for-dollar, offering a fun, rocket-sled ride at a comparative pittance. All you had to do was tread lightly in corners and in inclement weather and not leave home without your Visa for the inevitable pit stop.
This year, it's much of the same, though the ride and performance have gone up noticeably.
The price ain't what she used to be, but it still can be easily mistaken for the price of what statistics tell us is that fabled average car sold in the United States.