What's the early 5.0s run? say 85-86

56oval · 12-29-2000, 11:35 AM

I raced one the other day, and I got to be honest, it was pretty dang slow. And he did one of those rice boy flybys on me also. What did they run? High 15s, low 16s.

I also ran a SVT Contour and I think the Contour would have taken the 5.0. The little Contour started to reel me back in, I think he would have waxed me if we would have kept running. What do they run in 1/4 mile? I'm guessing it's a low 15 or 14 second car.

Anyway, thanks for any info you can give me, I'm just trying to figure out how fast my car is.

------------------
56 bug, bored, stroked, ported. dual webers

spinemup · 12-29-2000, 11:54 AM

your guesses are right...
the 86 had 200hp @4,000 rpm and was the first efi. -high 15's

svt contour makes 200hp @6,600 rpm
and runs 15.6 @ 89 mph

------------------

THE MIGHTY NOTCH

LI STANG · 12-29-2000, 01:49 PM

I don't agree with high 15's, spinemup.
I had an '86 stock with 2.73's, 5spd, which would hang about half of car or at the back bumper with '87's.
Most of you know '87's were the fastest 5.0 made.
I figure an '86 can run high 14's.

smithbling · 12-29-2000, 02:09 PM

The 86 Stangs had the same engine and horsepower as the 87 - 93 5.0's (I am 98% sure of that). If I am not mistaken they are lighter too?

------------------
C ME FLY

88 coupe
14.75 @ 98 mph
Traction Limited

spinemup · 12-29-2000, 02:30 PM

ok lets look at the facts... the 86 heads are different than the 87-93 e7te heads. the 86' heads sucked they were cast with emissions in mind...not performance. high 15's are a guess. 3400 pound car and 200 hp comes out to be 15 whether it be high or low 15's i think you would really have to rape an 86 in order to get high 14's stock. im sorry i said high 15's.... how does low 15's sound..... either way you say it its still 15's

i think you are mistaken smithbling, the horse power #'s vary through the years of 86-93

------------------

THE MIGHTY NOTCH

89LXCarb · 12-29-2000, 02:33 PM

I agree with spinemup. the horsepower levels are different between 86 and 87.

Moxie · 12-29-2000, 03:28 PM

I bought a used '86 Capri 5.0. From the factory, it came with 2.73 gears, EFI, and those god-awful E6 heads. Yes, those are different than the heads used in '87-up. The hp rating was 200hp. The car weighed 3200 lbs.

I don't have any strip numbers in stock trim, however, when I bought it, I went to the track and baselined it. At that point, the previous owner had removed the cats, installed 3-chamber Flowmasters, and a 3.73 gear. On Kelly radials, the car went 14.81 @ 94.53 mph.

Incidentally, I installed a shifter and 235/60/15 BFG drag radials, and the car ran a 14.4 @ 95.4 mph. Traction helps.

------------------
Moxie Racing

56oval · 12-29-2000, 03:29 PM

This is great, I really think that SVT was faster then mid 15s. I talked to the guy and he was pretty cool. He said his car was stock. He also said it had 220 hp?

I know the SVT would be even faster, but it suffered from bad wheel hop in second and it spun most of first. That must be a hand full putting that much power in a front wheel drive. we raced for about 1/3 of a mile and he was flying. It was by far the quickest front driver I've raced. I've just killed, smoked and embarassed those Civics and Intergras. Course I know a lot of those guys put VTEC stickers on base cars, so it hard for me to tell what they really have.

Of course another possiblity is that the 5.0 was ragged out and the SVT was new. I know my car is slow right now because I'm running the stock heat exchangers( the heat on a VW comes off the exhaust) It possible that I'm only running low 15s or high 14s right now.

I know when I run the larger exhaust in the summer I have to go up two sizes on the main jets and that is quite a bit of fuel.
Thanks.

LI STANG · 12-29-2000, 04:26 PM

Ok, i didn't have any track #'s but just speaking for street raceing experience.

My point was that the '86's weren't the pigs people made them out to be. Yea, they lacked alittle HP cause of the heads, but some had no weight robbing options or even A/c so at around 3000 lb or less they could almost stay with most '87-'93 that were loaded.

Atleast mine did.

smithbling · 12-29-2000, 04:58 PM

Sorry guys.

I was quoting a friend and never bothered to check it out for myself.

I shall learn from my error!

Someone list all the motor differences between the 86 and 87's or 88's. Thanks.
------------------
C ME FLY

88 coupe
14.75 @ 98 mph
Traction Limited

[This message has been edited by smithbling (edited 12-29-2000).]

Unit 5302 · 12-29-2000, 11:29 PM

Here's the deal.

1985 GT Manual. 210hp with a holly 4bbl carb. That T-5 came with the more aggressive 3.35:1 1st gear ratio and a 7.5" rear end. I'm not sure what the gear ratio was.

1986 GT Manual. 200hp with SD SEFI. 58mm throttle body, special Mustang 5.0 HO specific heads that sucked big time. That T-5 also came with the 3.35:1 1st gear ratio. The car also received true dual exhaust, and an upgraded 8.8" rear end, with 2.73's I'm pretty sure.

1987 GT AOD/T-5. 225hp@4200rpm, 300lb/tq@3600rpm with SD SEFI. Enlarged 60mm throttle body, E7 truck heads promoting better breathing. The 87 weighed less than 100lbs more than the 85-86's when compared apples to apples. They got a new stronger rated T-5, the result of making the 1st gear ratio taller, to 2.95:1. That decreased performance off the line with the 2.73 rear end, but with the addition of 15lb/ft of torque, and 25hp the resulting difference in performance was notable.

1988 carried over the same as 87 except for the CA models, which got MAF.

1989-1992 all 5.0's were MAF SEFI, the cars retained the rating of 225 and 300, but since the engines were never actually tested the numbers are actually a little fuzzy. MAF cars lost about 2 tenths at the strip compared to the SD cars.

1993 GT 205hp, 285lb/ft. The 5.0 HO received hypereutic pistons, and the most passive computer of all the HO's. Ford said the new rating was a reflection of a new measuring system, but in reality the new system didn't deviate much from the old system, it's much more likely that the slight cam revisions, and the MAF system accounted for the loss of hp and torque as Ford was looking to eliminate warranty claims, especially on the T-5 cars.

1993 Cobra got GT-40 heads, a Cobra intake, roller rockers, cobra computer, 24lb injectors, and a cobra cam. Saddled with the worst computer in history that didn't allow the systems to go into open loop for a full 7 seconds this car was conservatively rated at 235hp, and 280lb/ft. In reality with a list of hardware that impressive it took very few mods to make these cars perform far better than that.

NO SLO PK · 12-30-2000, 12:27 AM

My buddy owns an SVT Contour. It's not that quick in stock form (mid 15s). Using a G-Tech, it ran 0-60 in 7.1 seconds.

Vortech used my buddy's SVT Contour for development work. They installed the V9 SQ head unit (smaller than the S-trim), and claimed it made 294 hp. We were disappointed when we ran it for the first time. No way did it make the HP that was claimed.

We G-teched it again with the Vortech. With a passenger, it ran mid to high 14s and 0-60 in low sixes. My friend was really disappointed. Now the SHO Shop has it, and they claim to have coaxed another 40 hp from it. It'll be done by next Friday, and can post the G-tech results again if anyone is interested.

------------------
'91 LX
Procharger, 3 row intercooler, extrude honed Cobra intake, Mac full Length Headers, 30# inj., 73mm C&L, 75mm tb, E303 cam, 289 rods, ported E7 heads, MSD, T-Rex w/255 lph Walbro, 5 lug conversion, Cobra R wheels, 3.27 gears and Moser Axles.

EZRIDN · 01-01-2001, 03:46 PM

Mine has run 14.0 @ 97.

Check sig for mods.

------------------
'86 GT.
Gears & Flows

FivepointOH · 01-01-2001, 06:42 PM

I'd be intrested in those numbers No SLO, post them if ya don't mind.

------------------
92 AOD GT, K&N, ram air, pulleys, 2 ch. flowmasters, 4:10's, shift kit, 1 5/8 mac longtubes and offroad hpipe 14.249 @ 97.34 mph before the headers and hpipe

86GT · 01-01-2001, 09:10 PM

I have a good friend with a bone stock (ie paper air filter, air silencer still in place, etc..) and it ran 14.7@ 91.2 at St.Thomas Dragway on 225-60-15 firestone radial tires. It was a 5-speed and 2.73's with only 115,000 kilometers on it. He did that for the baseline for all his mods.. And myself, I had my 86 run 14.9 @ 92.3 with K&N filter and clutch (since the first one went).
Hope that helps.

dirtyGT · 01-02-2001, 03:36 PM

When mine was stock i outran a 94 gt and beat a aod 92lx and now i can stay within a car to my friends modded 90 so i guess i comes down to the tune and the driver because now i outrun lt1's

------------------
86GT-MACcatback-89heads,intake,TB,KENNYBROWNsubs,3.73's,HURST shifter,much more to come

red82gt · 01-06-2001, 02:14 AM

My friends 86GT, PI stallion converter 3.27 gears AOD, K&N Filter, no silencer, 14 deg. timing= 14.3@96 mph.

Could it be possible that the car youi raced might have been say an 82,83,84GT? Bone stock these things would be a high 15 (which wasa actually quick for a stock car back then).

------------------
GT-40 heads (ported, polished, + milled), B303 cam, 1.7rr's, JE pistons, Offy intake, Carter AFB 625cfm carb, Flowtech 1 5/8" shortys, Flowtech X-pipe, MAC Flowpath exhaust, MAC pulleys, 373's, subframes, Eibachs+Tokicos, B+M ripper, FMS Clutch, Zoom Quadrant+cable, 17" CSA Ultra rims, 235/45ZR17 Yokohama AVS S4's, MSD 6A ignition+coil, FMS 9mm wires, Carbed, Naturally Aspirated, and Nasty!

01-06-2001, 11:32 AM

NoSloPK the SVT Contour could have made that much power, was there traction. I think those G-Techs are off anyways aren't they. I know that the rice machines have a hard time finding traction.

I have a buddy with 320 hp (big turbo) at the wheels and with drag radials he barely dips into the 12.xx's with trap speeds of 114-115. He says the 60' times are HORRIBLE.

pro88 · 01-06-2001, 06:47 PM

The stock 85-86 should be in the 14.40's with someone with fairly decent drag-strip experience. Even with the hi-way gears, the 60ft. times may be terrible, the top end should make up for a lot of it. The person driving should never see 4th gear at all. You shouldn't even tach. all the way out in third for that matter.

Unit 5302 · 01-06-2001, 09:33 PM

pro88

I'm sorry but I'll have to strongly disagree any decent driver could pull 14.40's in a stone stock 85 or 86 GT 5spd. It would take an excellent performance to coax those numbers out of those car's in bone stock condition. Obviously with free mods like timing, removing some weight, (icing the intake, removing the silencer on the 86) those numbers become more feasable when driven well, but not from the factory.

A good pass for the '87 GT would be 14.40's. With freebies and very good driving real low 14's.

[This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 01-06-2001).]

12-29-2000, 11:35 AM	#1
56oval Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: GA.USA Posts: 8	What's the early 5.0s run? say 85-86 I raced one the other day, and I got to be honest, it was pretty dang slow. And he did one of those rice boy flybys on me also. What did they run? High 15s, low 16s. I also ran a SVT Contour and I think the Contour would have taken the 5.0. The little Contour started to reel me back in, I think he would have waxed me if we would have kept running. What do they run in 1/4 mile? I'm guessing it's a low 15 or 14 second car. Anyway, thanks for any info you can give me, I'm just trying to figure out how fast my car is. ------------------ 56 bug, bored, stroked, ported. dual webers

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Two 5.0's at the same time and turbo probe smack down.	Dark_5.0	Stang Stories	9	08-09-2002 09:26 AM
Does any1 know if early 80's Ranger rotors will fit an 85 GT?	Violent84	Stang Stories	0	03-27-2002 10:02 PM
My stang vs. early 90's 5.7's?	stanger8172	Stang Stories	10	08-25-2001 11:37 PM
Early 90's Firebird	withamc	Stang Stories	1	07-10-2001 07:28 AM
Early Bronco Owners?	mustangII460	Built Ford Tough	0	02-07-2001 12:14 AM

12-29-2000, 11:54 AM	#2
spinemup Registered Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: middleboro,ma, usa Posts: 734	your guesses are right... the 86 had 200hp @4,000 rpm and was the first efi. -high 15's svt contour makes 200hp @6,600 rpm and runs 15.6 @ 89 mph ------------------ THE MIGHTY NOTCH

12-29-2000, 01:49 PM	#3
LI STANG Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: syosset,n.y. usa Posts: 45	I don't agree with high 15's, spinemup. I had an '86 stock with 2.73's, 5spd, which would hang about half of car or at the back bumper with '87's. Most of you know '87's were the fastest 5.0 made. I figure an '86 can run high 14's.

12-29-2000, 02:09 PM	#4
smithbling Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Kitchener Ontario Canada Posts: 239	The 86 Stangs had the same engine and horsepower as the 87 - 93 5.0's (I am 98% sure of that). If I am not mistaken they are lighter too? ------------------ C ME FLY 88 coupe 14.75 @ 98 mph Traction Limited

12-29-2000, 02:30 PM	#5
spinemup Registered Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: middleboro,ma, usa Posts: 734	ok lets look at the facts... the 86 heads are different than the 87-93 e7te heads. the 86' heads sucked they were cast with emissions in mind...not performance. high 15's are a guess. 3400 pound car and 200 hp comes out to be 15 whether it be high or low 15's i think you would really have to rape an 86 in order to get high 14's stock. im sorry i said high 15's.... how does low 15's sound..... either way you say it its still 15's i think you are mistaken smithbling, the horse power #'s vary through the years of 86-93 ------------------ THE MIGHTY NOTCH

12-29-2000, 02:33 PM	#6
89LXCarb Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2000 Location: Columbus Grove, Ohio, USA Posts: 267	I agree with spinemup. the horsepower levels are different between 86 and 87.

12-29-2000, 03:28 PM	#7
Moxie Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Plymouth, MI Posts: 254	I bought a used '86 Capri 5.0. From the factory, it came with 2.73 gears, EFI, and those god-awful E6 heads. Yes, those are different than the heads used in '87-up. The hp rating was 200hp. The car weighed 3200 lbs. I don't have any strip numbers in stock trim, however, when I bought it, I went to the track and baselined it. At that point, the previous owner had removed the cats, installed 3-chamber Flowmasters, and a 3.73 gear. On Kelly radials, the car went 14.81 @ 94.53 mph. Incidentally, I installed a shifter and 235/60/15 BFG drag radials, and the car ran a 14.4 @ 95.4 mph. Traction helps. ------------------ Moxie Racing

12-29-2000, 03:29 PM	#8
56oval Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: GA.USA Posts: 8	This is great, I really think that SVT was faster then mid 15s. I talked to the guy and he was pretty cool. He said his car was stock. He also said it had 220 hp? I know the SVT would be even faster, but it suffered from bad wheel hop in second and it spun most of first. That must be a hand full putting that much power in a front wheel drive. we raced for about 1/3 of a mile and he was flying. It was by far the quickest front driver I've raced. I've just killed, smoked and embarassed those Civics and Intergras. Course I know a lot of those guys put VTEC stickers on base cars, so it hard for me to tell what they really have. Of course another possiblity is that the 5.0 was ragged out and the SVT was new. I know my car is slow right now because I'm running the stock heat exchangers( the heat on a VW comes off the exhaust) It possible that I'm only running low 15s or high 14s right now. I know when I run the larger exhaust in the summer I have to go up two sizes on the main jets and that is quite a bit of fuel. Thanks.

12-29-2000, 04:26 PM	#9
LI STANG Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: syosset,n.y. usa Posts: 45	Ok, i didn't have any track #'s but just speaking for street raceing experience. My point was that the '86's weren't the pigs people made them out to be. Yea, they lacked alittle HP cause of the heads, but some had no weight robbing options or even A/c so at around 3000 lb or less they could almost stay with most '87-'93 that were loaded. Atleast mine did.

12-29-2000, 04:58 PM	#10
smithbling Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Kitchener Ontario Canada Posts: 239	Sorry guys. I was quoting a friend and never bothered to check it out for myself. I shall learn from my error! Someone list all the motor differences between the 86 and 87's or 88's. Thanks. ------------------ C ME FLY 88 coupe 14.75 @ 98 mph Traction Limited [This message has been edited by smithbling (edited 12-29-2000).]

12-29-2000, 11:29 PM	#11
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	Here's the deal. 1985 GT Manual. 210hp with a holly 4bbl carb. That T-5 came with the more aggressive 3.35:1 1st gear ratio and a 7.5" rear end. I'm not sure what the gear ratio was. 1986 GT Manual. 200hp with SD SEFI. 58mm throttle body, special Mustang 5.0 HO specific heads that sucked big time. That T-5 also came with the 3.35:1 1st gear ratio. The car also received true dual exhaust, and an upgraded 8.8" rear end, with 2.73's I'm pretty sure. 1987 GT AOD/T-5. 225hp@4200rpm, 300lb/tq@3600rpm with SD SEFI. Enlarged 60mm throttle body, E7 truck heads promoting better breathing. The 87 weighed less than 100lbs more than the 85-86's when compared apples to apples. They got a new stronger rated T-5, the result of making the 1st gear ratio taller, to 2.95:1. That decreased performance off the line with the 2.73 rear end, but with the addition of 15lb/ft of torque, and 25hp the resulting difference in performance was notable. 1988 carried over the same as 87 except for the CA models, which got MAF. 1989-1992 all 5.0's were MAF SEFI, the cars retained the rating of 225 and 300, but since the engines were never actually tested the numbers are actually a little fuzzy. MAF cars lost about 2 tenths at the strip compared to the SD cars. 1993 GT 205hp, 285lb/ft. The 5.0 HO received hypereutic pistons, and the most passive computer of all the HO's. Ford said the new rating was a reflection of a new measuring system, but in reality the new system didn't deviate much from the old system, it's much more likely that the slight cam revisions, and the MAF system accounted for the loss of hp and torque as Ford was looking to eliminate warranty claims, especially on the T-5 cars. 1993 Cobra got GT-40 heads, a Cobra intake, roller rockers, cobra computer, 24lb injectors, and a cobra cam. Saddled with the worst computer in history that didn't allow the systems to go into open loop for a full 7 seconds this car was conservatively rated at 235hp, and 280lb/ft. In reality with a list of hardware that impressive it took very few mods to make these cars perform far better than that.

12-30-2000, 12:27 AM	#12
NO SLO PK Registered Member Join Date: Mar 1999 Location: Arcadia, CA, USA Posts: 731	My buddy owns an SVT Contour. It's not that quick in stock form (mid 15s). Using a G-Tech, it ran 0-60 in 7.1 seconds. Vortech used my buddy's SVT Contour for development work. They installed the V9 SQ head unit (smaller than the S-trim), and claimed it made 294 hp. We were disappointed when we ran it for the first time. No way did it make the HP that was claimed. We G-teched it again with the Vortech. With a passenger, it ran mid to high 14s and 0-60 in low sixes. My friend was really disappointed. Now the SHO Shop has it, and they claim to have coaxed another 40 hp from it. It'll be done by next Friday, and can post the G-tech results again if anyone is interested. ------------------ '91 LX Procharger, 3 row intercooler, extrude honed Cobra intake, Mac full Length Headers, 30# inj., 73mm C&L, 75mm tb, E303 cam, 289 rods, ported E7 heads, MSD, T-Rex w/255 lph Walbro, 5 lug conversion, Cobra R wheels, 3.27 gears and Moser Axles.

01-01-2001, 03:46 PM	#13
EZRIDN Registered Member Join Date: Jan 1999 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 504	Mine has run 14.0 @ 97. Check sig for mods. ------------------ '86 GT. Gears & Flows

01-01-2001, 06:42 PM	#14
FivepointOH Registered Member Join Date: Jan 1999 Location: Sugar Land, Tx USA Posts: 478	I'd be intrested in those numbers No SLO, post them if ya don't mind. ------------------ 92 AOD GT, K&N, ram air, pulleys, 2 ch. flowmasters, 4:10's, shift kit, 1 5/8 mac longtubes and offroad hpipe 14.249 @ 97.34 mph before the headers and hpipe

01-01-2001, 09:10 PM	#15
86GT Sniffed too much n20 Join Date: Oct 1998 Location: Ont, Canada Posts: 1,018	I have a good friend with a bone stock (ie paper air filter, air silencer still in place, etc..) and it ran 14.7@ 91.2 at St.Thomas Dragway on 225-60-15 firestone radial tires. It was a 5-speed and 2.73's with only 115,000 kilometers on it. He did that for the baseline for all his mods.. And myself, I had my 86 run 14.9 @ 92.3 with K&N filter and clutch (since the first one went). Hope that helps.

01-02-2001, 03:36 PM	#16
dirtyGT Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: INDIANA Posts: 658	When mine was stock i outran a 94 gt and beat a aod 92lx and now i can stay within a car to my friends modded 90 so i guess i comes down to the tune and the driver because now i outrun lt1's ------------------ 86GT-MACcatback-89heads,intake,TB,KENNYBROWNsubs,3.73's,HURST shifter,much more to come

01-06-2001, 02:14 AM	#17
red82gt Sober voice of Reason Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Kelowna, B.C., Canada Posts: 1,514	My friends 86GT, PI stallion converter 3.27 gears AOD, K&N Filter, no silencer, 14 deg. timing= 14.3@96 mph. Could it be possible that the car youi raced might have been say an 82,83,84GT? Bone stock these things would be a high 15 (which wasa actually quick for a stock car back then). ------------------ GT-40 heads (ported, polished, + milled), B303 cam, 1.7rr's, JE pistons, Offy intake, Carter AFB 625cfm carb, Flowtech 1 5/8" shortys, Flowtech X-pipe, MAC Flowpath exhaust, MAC pulleys, 373's, subframes, Eibachs+Tokicos, B+M ripper, FMS Clutch, Zoom Quadrant+cable, 17" CSA Ultra rims, 235/45ZR17 Yokohama AVS S4's, MSD 6A ignition+coil, FMS 9mm wires, Carbed, Naturally Aspirated, and Nasty!

01-06-2001, 11:32 AM	#18
88GT5.013.02 Guest Posts: n/a	NoSloPK the SVT Contour could have made that much power, was there traction. I think those G-Techs are off anyways aren't they. I know that the rice machines have a hard time finding traction. I have a buddy with 320 hp (big turbo) at the wheels and with drag radials he barely dips into the 12.xx's with trap speeds of 114-115. He says the 60' times are HORRIBLE.

01-06-2001, 06:47 PM	#19
pro88 Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: roseburg, oregon Posts: 87	The stock 85-86 should be in the 14.40's with someone with fairly decent drag-strip experience. Even with the hi-way gears, the 60ft. times may be terrible, the top end should make up for a lot of it. The person driving should never see 4th gear at all. You shouldn't even tach. all the way out in third for that matter.

01-06-2001, 09:33 PM	#20
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	pro88 I'm sorry but I'll have to strongly disagree any decent driver could pull 14.40's in a stone stock 85 or 86 GT 5spd. It would take an excellent performance to coax those numbers out of those car's in bone stock condition. Obviously with free mods like timing, removing some weight, (icing the intake, removing the silencer on the 86) those numbers become more feasable when driven well, but not from the factory. A good pass for the '87 GT would be 14.40's. With freebies and very good driving real low 14's. [This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 01-06-2001).]