HP?

RAINSTANG · 01-21-2001, 06:38 PM

The 1993, 5.0 factory horsepower rating dropped from 225 to 210. Were the last, 1994-95 engines the same 210 HP?

302 LX Eric · 01-21-2001, 08:33 PM

Calling UNIT5302, calling 5302...

I thought the 94-95's were rated at 215 at the crank, but I could be wrong. Unit can clear this one up.

E

------------------
1991 5.0 LX Coupe -37,800 miles

13.17 @ 106.14 mph w/ 2.138 60'

Pro-Charger D-1SC on the way!!!

Hethj7 · 01-21-2001, 10:29 PM

Yea, Unit will chime in, but the number was 215 for the last 5.0's, as well as the first year or two of the mod motor if I am not mistaken. Was it 1998 that the motor was again rated at 225?

Sac68 · 01-21-2001, 11:16 PM

I'm pretty sure that the 93 GT was rated at only 205hp, not 210.

I'm also pretty sure that the 94-95s had 215hp.

------------------
98 Mustang coupe 3.8L V6
87 Mustang GT hatchback 5.0L V8
87 Bronco XLT 4bbl 351W

My mom drives a 99 Mustang GT convertable.

97snakedriver · 01-21-2001, 11:50 PM

Yep. That's what they were rated at. But it gets a little weird in that Ford changed how they did their ratings, so comparing a 94 GT engine to a 93 or 89 GT isn't as straight forward as it would seem.

95mustanggt · 01-22-2001, 10:26 AM

Well, if I remember from reading Unit's posts in the past the 94-95 GT was rated at 215 HP. I also believe that Unit said the manuals were rated at 225 (?) I've never heard that from anyone but Unit. But considering the source, I tend to believe it.

I thought the 93's were rated at 205, but considering the way they reported the HP it was the same as previous years. Ford just used average HP not maximun or something like that. Unit does explain this the best I guess.

Where are you Unit??

------------------
White 1995 Mustang GT
Dynomax Cat-Back, Offroad H-pipe, K&N Filters w/o Air Silencer
My 1995 Mustang GT

97snakedriver · 01-22-2001, 12:28 PM

Actually, now that I think about, my brother, who has a 94 GT, told me the same thing about the ratings of the manuals vs. the automatics.

Unit 5302 · 01-22-2001, 03:40 PM

Unit 5302 responding, sorry for the delay, I must have been at the equivelent of the internet doughnut shop.

Here's how it worked.

1985 GT 210hp,260lb/ft manual
1986 GT 205hp,280lb/ft manual (tq is iffy?)
1987-1992 225hp,300lb/ft
'93 GT & LX 205hp,285lb/ft
'93 Cobra 235hp,280lb/ft
'94-95 GT 215hp,285lb/ft for the auto's
'94-95 GT 225hp,300lb/ft for the manual
'94-95 Cobra's 245hp
'95 Cobra R 280hp,340lb/ft
'96-97 GT 215hp,285lb/ft (all)
'96-98 Cobra 305hp
'98 GT 225hp
'99-01 GT 260hp
'99 & '01 Cobra 320hp

If there aren't any torque numbers, I'm not absolutely positive on the torque output. I think the new GT has like 310lb/ft and the new Cobra's have the same, I'm not sure though. The other DOHC Cobra's had like 300lb/ft.

All the hp numbers should be correct though.

Except for the fact that none of the 5.0's were rated after the '87 motor, until the '93, which they said the 205hp rating reflected the change in measuring from the highest output to the average output of the motor, which is a load, because as most people know, the 5.0's dyno pretty close. In reality, it's more likely the reflection of different computers, the addition of MAF, cam revisions, and other little changes. It's more likely that really the MAF cars had 205hp,285lb/ft, but since the numbers were never released from Ford, it'd be hard to truely "prove" this. I can only lend to the idea, the SD cars usually run 2-3 tenths quicker in stock form, which would indicate they have around 20hp more under the hood.

97snakedriver · 01-23-2001, 12:02 AM

The 95 Cobra R was rated at 300 hp @ 4,800 and 365 ft lbs @ 3,750

96-98 Cobra: 305 @ 5,800 and 300 @ 4,800
99 Cobra: 320 @ 6,000 and 317 @ 4,750

94-95 Cobra: 240 @ 4,800 and 285 @ 4,000

01-23-2001, 09:29 AM

Ahhh.. that explains why the DOHC cobras need gears. The max tq is high in the rpms.

Unit 5302 · 01-24-2001, 08:04 PM

Hmmm...

One of our sources is incorrect on the '95 Cobra R's performance numbers, 97snakedriver.

As tested in April 1995 by Motor Trend the production hp specs relased by Ford were

280hp@5250rpm, and 343lb/ft@3750rpm. Later they revisited those numbers in a later issue where they compare it to the one off SVE 6.1 Cobra CJR. Just to make sure I had to go through a couple boxes of old car mags.

You are correct about the 240hp on the 94-95 Cobra's though, I dropped the ball on that one, guess my memory failed me there!

RAINSTANG · 01-24-2001, 10:39 PM

Right on Unit. Your numbers correspond exactly with mine. My understanding is that the hypereutetic pistons, introduced in the 93 engine caused the 15hp drop. Sound right to you?

97snakedriver · 01-25-2001, 12:14 AM

I got mine out of:

1. "SVT Mustang Cobra Reconition Guide"
2. An SVT Cobra R poster
3. An SVT Cobra R pamplet
4. A Steeda Poster
5. The "car test" program
6. Some random website I found: http://members.tripod.com/Mr5oh/95r.html

I'm kinda a Cobra fan.

Unit 5302 · 01-25-2001, 01:37 AM

Aren't we all? Yeah, I love the Cobra's as much as the next guy, but I'd have to say the 280hp number is more credible based on the trap speed M/T got out of it.

Here are the figures
0-60 5.2
1/4m 13.8@102.0mph.

We all know those guys couldn't drive a Mustang through the McDonald's drive thru, but the trap speed should be higher than 102 with your numbers. Guess that car is already on it's way to being shrouded in mystery like the Shelby Cobra's.

I would disagree with the idea the hyper pistons caused a performance drop. If anything hyper pistons would be a performance enhancement. They are lighter than their forged counterparts, with less weight, the engine should make more hp. The technical reason Ford gave for the decrease in performance from the '92 models to the '93 models was a new rating system. From best to average motor ratings. That's more likely a front for the power they couldn't pull out of the 5.0's they wanted to see. In truth no 5.0's were released with dyno numbers after 1987 models, and the drop in output from 225 to 205 is more likely related to the MAF system, de-tuned computers, cam revisions, and some other minor changes. 1993 models pretty much got the worst of the worst for computers too.

97snakedriver · 01-25-2001, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Unit 5302:

Here are the figures
0-60 5.2
1/4m 13.8@102.0mph.

We all know those guys couldn't drive a Mustang through the McDonald's drive thru, but the trap speed should be higher than 102 with your numbers.

We're talking about the same yahoos that could barely get a 96 Cobra into the 13s, and managed a 13.9 out of the SS. I think we both know that even a half drunk red neck can pull better numbers then that out of a SS. And anway, 102 sounds about right for a 3400 lb car with 300 fly wheel hp.

01-21-2001, 06:38 PM	#1
RAINSTANG Registered Member Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 98	HP? The 1993, 5.0 factory horsepower rating dropped from 225 to 210. Were the last, 1994-95 engines the same 210 HP?

01-21-2001, 08:33 PM	#2
302 LX Eric or '331 LX Eric' Join Date: Jan 1999 Location: Columbus, Ohio Posts: 2,142	Calling UNIT5302, calling 5302... I thought the 94-95's were rated at 215 at the crank, but I could be wrong. Unit can clear this one up. E ------------------ 1991 5.0 LX Coupe -37,800 miles 13.17 @ 106.14 mph w/ 2.138 60' Pro-Charger D-1SC on the way!!!

01-21-2001, 10:29 PM	#3
Hethj7 Mizzou Tigers Join Date: Apr 1999 Location: weston, MO United States Posts: 1,455	Yea, Unit will chime in, but the number was 215 for the last 5.0's, as well as the first year or two of the mod motor if I am not mistaken. Was it 1998 that the motor was again rated at 225?

01-21-2001, 11:16 PM	#4
Sac68 Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Pgh, PA USA Posts: 281	I'm pretty sure that the 93 GT was rated at only 205hp, not 210. I'm also pretty sure that the 94-95s had 215hp. ------------------ 98 Mustang coupe 3.8L V6 87 Mustang GT hatchback 5.0L V8 87 Bronco XLT 4bbl 351W My mom drives a 99 Mustang GT convertable.

01-21-2001, 11:50 PM	#5
97snakedriver Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Blacksburg, VA Posts: 1,526	Yep. That's what they were rated at. But it gets a little weird in that Ford changed how they did their ratings, so comparing a 94 GT engine to a 93 or 89 GT isn't as straight forward as it would seem.

01-22-2001, 10:26 AM	#6
95mustanggt Registered Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Kamloops, BC Posts: 2,875	Well, if I remember from reading Unit's posts in the past the 94-95 GT was rated at 215 HP. I also believe that Unit said the manuals were rated at 225 (?) I've never heard that from anyone but Unit. But considering the source, I tend to believe it. I thought the 93's were rated at 205, but considering the way they reported the HP it was the same as previous years. Ford just used average HP not maximun or something like that. Unit does explain this the best I guess. Where are you Unit?? ------------------ White 1995 Mustang GT Dynomax Cat-Back, Offroad H-pipe, K&N Filters w/o Air Silencer My 1995 Mustang GT

01-22-2001, 12:28 PM	#7
97snakedriver Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Blacksburg, VA Posts: 1,526	Actually, now that I think about, my brother, who has a 94 GT, told me the same thing about the ratings of the manuals vs. the automatics.

01-22-2001, 03:40 PM	#8
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	Unit 5302 responding, sorry for the delay, I must have been at the equivelent of the internet doughnut shop. Here's how it worked. 1985 GT 210hp,260lb/ft manual 1986 GT 205hp,280lb/ft manual (tq is iffy?) 1987-1992 225hp,300lb/ft '93 GT & LX 205hp,285lb/ft '93 Cobra 235hp,280lb/ft '94-95 GT 215hp,285lb/ft for the auto's '94-95 GT 225hp,300lb/ft for the manual '94-95 Cobra's 245hp '95 Cobra R 280hp,340lb/ft '96-97 GT 215hp,285lb/ft (all) '96-98 Cobra 305hp '98 GT 225hp '99-01 GT 260hp '99 & '01 Cobra 320hp If there aren't any torque numbers, I'm not absolutely positive on the torque output. I think the new GT has like 310lb/ft and the new Cobra's have the same, I'm not sure though. The other DOHC Cobra's had like 300lb/ft. All the hp numbers should be correct though. Except for the fact that none of the 5.0's were rated after the '87 motor, until the '93, which they said the 205hp rating reflected the change in measuring from the highest output to the average output of the motor, which is a load, because as most people know, the 5.0's dyno pretty close. In reality, it's more likely the reflection of different computers, the addition of MAF, cam revisions, and other little changes. It's more likely that really the MAF cars had 205hp,285lb/ft, but since the numbers were never released from Ford, it'd be hard to truely "prove" this. I can only lend to the idea, the SD cars usually run 2-3 tenths quicker in stock form, which would indicate they have around 20hp more under the hood.

01-23-2001, 12:02 AM	#9
97snakedriver Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Blacksburg, VA Posts: 1,526	The 95 Cobra R was rated at 300 hp @ 4,800 and 365 ft lbs @ 3,750 96-98 Cobra: 305 @ 5,800 and 300 @ 4,800 99 Cobra: 320 @ 6,000 and 317 @ 4,750 94-95 Cobra: 240 @ 4,800 and 285 @ 4,000

01-23-2001, 09:29 AM	#10
rbatson Guest Posts: n/a	Ahhh.. that explains why the DOHC cobras need gears. The max tq is high in the rpms.

01-24-2001, 08:04 PM	#11
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	Hmmm... One of our sources is incorrect on the '95 Cobra R's performance numbers, 97snakedriver. As tested in April 1995 by Motor Trend the production hp specs relased by Ford were 280hp@5250rpm, and 343lb/ft@3750rpm. Later they revisited those numbers in a later issue where they compare it to the one off SVE 6.1 Cobra CJR. Just to make sure I had to go through a couple boxes of old car mags. You are correct about the 240hp on the 94-95 Cobra's though, I dropped the ball on that one, guess my memory failed me there!

01-24-2001, 10:39 PM	#12
RAINSTANG Registered Member Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 98	Right on Unit. Your numbers correspond exactly with mine. My understanding is that the hypereutetic pistons, introduced in the 93 engine caused the 15hp drop. Sound right to you?

01-25-2001, 12:14 AM	#13
97snakedriver Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Blacksburg, VA Posts: 1,526	I got mine out of: 1. "SVT Mustang Cobra Reconition Guide" 2. An SVT Cobra R poster 3. An SVT Cobra R pamplet 4. A Steeda Poster 5. The "car test" program 6. Some random website I found: http://members.tripod.com/Mr5oh/95r.html I'm kinda a Cobra fan.

01-25-2001, 01:37 AM	#14
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	Aren't we all? Yeah, I love the Cobra's as much as the next guy, but I'd have to say the 280hp number is more credible based on the trap speed M/T got out of it. Here are the figures 0-60 5.2 1/4m 13.8@102.0mph. We all know those guys couldn't drive a Mustang through the McDonald's drive thru, but the trap speed should be higher than 102 with your numbers. Guess that car is already on it's way to being shrouded in mystery like the Shelby Cobra's. I would disagree with the idea the hyper pistons caused a performance drop. If anything hyper pistons would be a performance enhancement. They are lighter than their forged counterparts, with less weight, the engine should make more hp. The technical reason Ford gave for the decrease in performance from the '92 models to the '93 models was a new rating system. From best to average motor ratings. That's more likely a front for the power they couldn't pull out of the 5.0's they wanted to see. In truth no 5.0's were released with dyno numbers after 1987 models, and the drop in output from 225 to 205 is more likely related to the MAF system, de-tuned computers, cam revisions, and some other minor changes. 1993 models pretty much got the worst of the worst for computers too.