95 GT At vs. 5spd horsepower

[Jerm95gt]

Hi, im trying to figure out if it is true that the 95 gt with an at has 215hp while the 5spd has 225....i've heard this in a couple other posts but my freind argues. He says they dyno before the flywheel so its impossible that they have different hp..obviously the 5spd gets more to the wheels but does it have 10 more hp stock? Also does anyone know what a 5spd stock gt 5.0 specs 0-60 are? 0-100?

As far as i know the auto and manual horsepower ratings are the same. I do believe that they either measure horsepower at the tail end of the transmission or at the flywheel, more likely the flywheel since there's no variance. the '87-'92 mustangs were rated at 225 horsepower for both autos and manuals, and in '93 Ford did something remeasuring and got 215 horsepower even though everything was identical to the previous years (for the most part, i've heard also that horsepower steadily dropped because of camshaft changes and that the mass air flow meter itself dropped horsepower by 2 or 3 because it was a slight restriction in the intake tract), so maybe Ford just decided to finally make the rating updated after several years. The ratings for 215 horsepower are from '93 to '95 when the last 5.0L mustangs were produced. If i'm wrong someone correct me, but i believe this info is correct.

------------------
'84 Mustang 5.0 LX
My car

I believe the hp rating at the fw is the same....it's how it transfers to the rw's. I've heard the auto loses about 10% more than the manual.

------------------
'90 LX 5.0; 12K original miles (no sh*&); 3.55 gears; pulleys;Edelbrock Performer Heads; BBK shorties; MSD 6AL box w/ blaster 2 coil; Motorsport E303 cam; Pro-M 75mm MAF; BBK 70mm TB; Eibach spring kit; Southside welded subs; K&N cone filter charger; Hurst shifter; fiberglass turbo hood; A/C-less; rear seat-less; cat-less; 2 chamber Flos; Corbeau racing seats (fronts);
30# injectors; JMS Chip; 190 lb fp; TFS track heat Intake (12.299 @ 113)

[Unit 5302]

Ford's factory rating for the 1994-1995 Mustang GT's goes like this.

215hp, 285lb/ft for the auto.

225hp, 300lb/ft for the manual.

While the tranny should not affect engine hp, the computer calibrations will. I don't know why Ford would calibrate an auto computer that poorly though, especially considering the manual computer is SEVERELY detuned already.

My best guess is that in the real world, the auto and manual cars make the same power, Ford just wanted to cover up for the blatently obvious shitbox of a tranny they stuck into the auto cars. The AOD is the laughing stock of just about every manufacturer outside Ford in the performance world. Sickly inefficient, it cost's the engine about 22% of the power made, compared to 17% by the T-5, and 19% on the C-4. Furthermore, the AOD's shifting is slow, and soft with little responsiveness. Add in a crappy torque converter and you have a recipe for performance nightmares.

Dispite that, the AOD can be made into a performance tranny. All it requires is a new torque converter, a shift kit, and some low *** gears to compensate for it's inefficientcy.

[Unit 5302]

Expect a factory T-5 equipped SN95 5.0 to run about 6.5sec 0-60, and take around 15.5 seconds to hit 100mph.

Standing quarter mile times should be in the very high 14's.

[This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 06-13-2001).]

[red82gt]

All the press info and everything I've seen has the 87-92 rated at 225hp, 300ft/lbs
93 205hp, 280ft/lbs (not 100% sure on the torque)
94-95 215hp, 285 ft/lbs.
Never seen a 94-95 GT rated at 225hp, 300ft/lbs.

[Jerm95gt]

0-60 in 6.5....i see 6.7 a lot and also 6.1..........is 6.1 possible by a stock 5.0?