[Barnaby]

I really think there is a marginal difference in performance between the Bullitt and GT. They are neck 'n neck 99.9% of the time. The driver makes more of a difference than the car in this case.

 

[Barnaby]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-01-08 13:26, Cupfan wrote:
But WHY?

Bullitts have the ability to suck in and expel more air. It's there in black and white with the intake, throttle bodies, and Arvin mufflers.
More hp in lower ranges is not the answer to this question.
What is?
How could any of these three be a detriment?
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
They aren't a detriment, but they also may not be the bottleneck for airflow.

Why is it that aftermarket exhausts that worked so well on 5.0s are not worth much on 4.6s?

Why is it that larger throttle bodies on 5.0s worked so well and are not worth much on 4.6s?

Those aren't the bottlenecks in the air pump. The intake may have helped some, if nothing else it moved the powerband down some and broadened the curve.

I'll say it again, the performance difference between the 2 is marginal.

 

[Barnaby]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-01-08 16:23, 99svt32v wrote:
btw i gained 16rwhp from just an o/r h pipe so u can't say exhaust on a 4.6 dont do anything. The bullitt is marginally faster than a gt do to the better torque under the curve
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
Correct, but on the Bullitts only the mufflers were changed. The mufflers are not the bottelneck, the stock cats are.

Point to all this being that the Bullitts were a marketing Mustang, not an all'n'out performance Mustang. They are very comparable to GTs in the performance department.