|
1988 Gt - 1998 Gt Hp Each Year
I KNOW THAT 1999 - 2002 GT'S HAVE 260 HP STOCK, BUT HOW MUCH HP DOES EACH YEAR GT HAVE?
1988 GT? 1989 GT? 1990 GT? 1991 GT? 1992 GT? 1993 GT? 1994 GT? 1995 GT? 1996 GT? 1997 GT? 1998 GT? THANKS. |
96-97:215
98:225 The rest are 5.0s, so I'm not sure... |
thought 95 is 215 and 96-98 are 225
|
1987-1992 had 225hp
1993 supposedly had 215 1994-1995 had 225 1996-1997 had 215 1998 had 225 1999- 260 |
WHY DID THE HP DROP IN 93?
|
I remember reading in a Mustang book that the 215 in 1993 was more of a "guesstimate". The basically assumed it lost hp's due to the age of the set up, even though no changes were made. I may be wrong, I'll have to find the book.
wfd |
Rated HP.
1985 GT T5 210hp@4400rpm, 270lb/ft@3200rpm 1985 GT AOD 160hp@who knows/who cares? 1986 GT 200hp@4000rpm, 285lb/ft@3000rpm 1987 GT 225hp@4200rpm, 300lb/ft@3200rpm 1988 GT 225hp@4200rpm, 300lb/ft@3200rpm* 1989 GT 225hp@4200rpm, 300lb/ft@3200rpm* 1990 GT 225hp@4200rpm, 300lb/ft@3200rpm* 1991 GT 225hp@4200rpm, 300lb/ft@3200rpm* 1992 GT 225hp@4200rpm, 300lb/ft@3200rpm* 1993 GT 205hp@4200rpm, 285lb/ft@3200rpm 1994 GT T5 225hp@4200rpm, 300lb/ft@3200rpm 1994 GT AOD 215hp@4200rpm, 285lb/ft@3200rpm 1995 GT T5 225hp@4200rpm, 300lb/ft@3200rpm 1995 GT AOD 215hp@4200rpm, 285lb/ft@3200rpm 1985 was the introduction of the roller cam into the 5.0 and the T5 model came with a Holley 4bbl carb, but the CFI equipped AOD model got nothing for hp, and nothing for modding capability. Your average boat anchor. 1986 was the first year for SEFI SD fuel injection. Weak heads, small 58mm T/B, and a weak intake hampered power production, Ford added true dual exhuast. 1987 got truck heads "E7TE" (1987 Truck Engine is how that decodes). A larger 60mm T/B and better intake pushed a rated hp level to 225hp in bone stock form. 1988-1992 were not rated. The power ratings carried over from year to year despite significant revisions. They included less aggressive MAF computers and systems in 1988 for CA models, and 1989 for all 5.0s. A revised camshaft profile to reduce noise along with an air intake silencer, and a restrictive 55mm MAF sensor. 1993 was re-rated at 205hp (truely where probably all the 1989-1993 5.0s should have been). When Ford saw the drop in power, they blamed it on a change in rating systems :rolleyes: saying they went from maximum hp to average output. Anybody who dyno's 5.0's can voutch there is no 20hp difference between the best, and the average 5.0's. Some people who have no clue about which way is up try to blame the rating decrease on the introduction of cast hypereutic pistons in the '93 model year that replaced the TRW forged pistons from 1987+ 1994-1995 were officially rated at 215hp I believe, but the 5spds were re-rated at 225hp, probably to cover up for the pathetic AOD. 1996-1997 GT 215hp, 285lb/ft (it's like pulling ******* teeth getting the engine speed on these ratings) 1998 GT 225hp@4750rpm, 290lb/ft@3500rpm 1999 GT 260hp@5250rpm, 302lb/ft@4000rpm 2000 GT 260hp@5250rpm, 302lb/ft@4000rpm 2001 GT 260hp@5250rpm, 302lb/ft@4000rpm 2002 GT 260hp@5250rpm, 302lb/ft@4000rpm Keep in mind, ratings are showroom floor. The 5.0s can pick up an easy 15-20hp with totally free stuff. |
1996-1997 GT 215hp@4400rpm, 285lb/ft@3500rpm.
|
Actually Unit, the hp ratings don't change with the transmission. The factory rationg are at the flywheel only and have nothing to do with rearwheel horsepower numbers. The 94-95's had 215 hp. The 96-97 had 215 and 225 in '98 because of a hotter EEC tune. Also, I think in '93 they 5.0 was actually rated at 205 hp. This doesn't matter though because Ford just changed it's criteria for rating it's engines. The '93's will dyno about the same as a '92. The only differences between the two engines is that the '93 had hypereutectic pistons and different computer. I've also noticed something about the Cobra's ratings. Every new Cobra exceeds the Cobra R by 5 HP.
-'93 R 235 -'94 Cobra 240 -'95 R 300 -'96 Cobra 305 -'00 R 385 -'03 Cobra 390 Why exactly are we talking about stock factory ratings anyway? It's rearwheel power we should be talking about. :D |
Wait, nevermind Unit, I'm an idiot you had everything correct. I was looking at someone else's post. :rolleyes:
|
Quote:
Thanks, DoranW |
The dyno numbers and track times point to the SD cars in 1987 and 1988 being 2-3 tenths quicker at the track, and a good couple mph faster through the traps as well. Unless the SD cars were underrated and really made 250hp, the MAF cars really did make closer to the 205hp they were rated at. Like I said earlier, you could certainly bump the timing up and remove the silencer to even it out, but a good bone stock SD car will not dyno 205rwhp. Wish they did, but 195rwhp is more accurate for a real good SD in stock form.
SLOW 97 in all reality, going to rwhp would make the newer cars with more hp look worse vs the older cars. The more power you make, the more you lose through the driveline. A T-45 isn't any more efficient than a T-5. Both lose about 17% of their power from the crank to the wheels. The Tremec is nearly the same, but the newer Cobra's are actually much stronger than their dynos suggest because the IRS robs significantly more power than a solid axle. The 99 Cobra with the fix is truely making closer to 340hp+ at the flywheel. The AOD sits at about 22% power drain, and the old C-4 at about 19%. I don't know about the new auto, but I'm sure it's probably in between the C-4 and AOD. Also, ratings will change with the transmission because they use a different computer. The 94-95 GT's had a 5500rpm fuel cutoff with the AOD, and they were seriously detuned for both T-5 and AOD. As I stated earlier, I think when Ford said 225hp for the T-5 they were trying to cover up for the power sucking slushbox AOD. I wouldn't want to compare Cobra ratings, they've been seriously skewed since it was re-introduced back in '93, hahahaah. |
Yeah I know. There aren't many differences between a T-5 and a T-45. If you ask me, they are both garbage trannys. I would venture to say the 4R70W puts power to the ground even better than the venerable C-4 because it's electronically controlled. It's a very good auto. as for the ratings, you do have a point with the computers being different and also the cams. I actually would like to see the auto industry switch to RWHP ratings but we all know that won't happen. I think a reason the '93's were rated so low is because the Cobra engine only made 10 more ponies. Let's be honest, who the hell will pay the extra money for a car that is less of a performance deal. You could buy a stripped LX for thousands less than the Cobra and still be as fast.
|
The T-5 is a lot stronger than it gets credit for, actually. A lot of people run them deep into the 12's for extended time frames. The T-5 was never designed to take even a mildly modified Mustang 5.0.
As far as the 93 Cobra, it dyno's closer to 220rwhp stock. They made about 260 at the crank. Saleen GTS put a full bassani exhuast (long tubes, X pipe, catback) onto his '93 Cobra and dynoed 265rwhp. That's about 320hp at the crank. The 1993 Cobra is no 235hp engine. Cobra Intake (200cfm) GT40 Heads (185cfm) 1.7:1 Roller rockers Cobra Crank underdrive pulley 24lb/hr injectors 65mm T/B 70mm MAF. It's basically a receipe for a 320hp Ford 5.0 crate engine. Just detuned all to hell. Gears, exhaust, MAF, A9L will put that car well into the 12's. You're talking $800 in mods to drop it into the 12's without pulling a valve cover. I could do those mods in a single day. The GT had HO intake (136cfm) E7TE heads (155cfm) 1.6:1 stamped rockers Standard pullies 19lb/hr injectors 60mm T/B 55mm MAF Do the comparison, if you really think the Cobra would only make 10hp more than the GT you can keep dreamin' :D As for the new tranny being more efficient than a C4, I'd be highly skeptical of that. Electronic controls don't really do much for efficiency. The valve body, line pressure, turning mass, and torque converter determine that. The C4 is very light, has a quick and responsive valve body, and it has a relatively small converter. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:14 PM. |