MustangWorks.com - The Ford Mustang Power Source!

Go Back   MustangWorks.com : Ford Forums > Mustang & Ford Tech > Modular Madness
Register FAQ Members List Calendar

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 05-07-2002, 05:14 PM   #1
steedamustang01
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Florence, KY
Posts: 120
Default 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.
__________________
MODS: - Painted Side Mirrors, Straight Pipes, K&N Filtercharger, Modified Air Silencer, Steeda Tremex 3650 Short Throw Tri-Ax Shifter, Saleen MOMO Shifter, Custom Painted Interior, Modified Saleen Racecraft Progressive Sport Springs SLAMMED 3 1/2 inches, Saleen S-281 Wing, Saleen chrome wheels 18x9 front and 18x10 rear, Saleen Locking Lugs, 265-35-ZR18 Toyo Proxes T1-S's, White Face Indiglo Gauges, 9007 Silver Star HID Headlights, Personalized Licence Plate " 2L8 I 1 " (To Late I Won), Chrome Bumper Decal inserts, Lowered Windshield Wiper MOD, MAC Offset rack bushings, 5% Limo Window Tint.
steedamustang01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2002, 05:23 PM   #2
Hammer
AKA "Dr. Evil"
 
Hammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South Fork Ranch
Posts: 1,721
Default

96-97:215
98:225

The rest are 5.0s, so I'm not sure...
__________________
Uncle Sam
"What the hell is up with all the gauges?
Calling Captain Kirk, your ride awaits... Phasers on stun...."
Hammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2002, 06:21 PM   #3
Dkvby
Registered Member
 
Dkvby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Van, B.C.
Posts: 13
Default

thought 95 is 215 and 96-98 are 225
Dkvby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2002, 06:32 PM   #4
StoplightWarrior
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Nor-Cal
Posts: 1,311
Default

1987-1992 had 225hp
1993 supposedly had 215
1994-1995 had 225
1996-1997 had 215
1998 had 225
1999- 260
__________________
Black 2000 GT Auto
V2-SQ, Full Steeda G-trac Suspension, Baer Brakes, Saleen Body Kit, Corbeau CR1s, Chrome Cobra R's, etc, etc...
341rwhp, 338 torque

1994 Cobra #4343
Bolt on's only...

Cofounder of Raccoon Racing
StoplightWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2002, 06:34 PM   #5
steedamustang01
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Florence, KY
Posts: 120
Default

WHY DID THE HP DROP IN 93?
__________________
MODS: - Painted Side Mirrors, Straight Pipes, K&N Filtercharger, Modified Air Silencer, Steeda Tremex 3650 Short Throw Tri-Ax Shifter, Saleen MOMO Shifter, Custom Painted Interior, Modified Saleen Racecraft Progressive Sport Springs SLAMMED 3 1/2 inches, Saleen S-281 Wing, Saleen chrome wheels 18x9 front and 18x10 rear, Saleen Locking Lugs, 265-35-ZR18 Toyo Proxes T1-S's, White Face Indiglo Gauges, 9007 Silver Star HID Headlights, Personalized Licence Plate " 2L8 I 1 " (To Late I Won), Chrome Bumper Decal inserts, Lowered Windshield Wiper MOD, MAC Offset rack bushings, 5% Limo Window Tint.
steedamustang01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2002, 09:00 PM   #6
wfd146
Registered Member
 
wfd146's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 32
Default

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
__________________
2002 True Blue GT coupe
Zaino, Zaino, Zaino!!!

Career firefighter - IAFF local 1590
"Always keep the Brothers in mind"
wfd146 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2002, 10:13 PM   #7
Unit 5302
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 5,246
Default

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 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.
Unit 5302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2002, 12:53 AM   #8
Unit 5302
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 5,246
Default

1996-1997 GT 215hp@4400rpm, 285lb/ft@3500rpm.
Unit 5302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2002, 08:51 AM   #9
SLOW 97
Registered Member
 
SLOW 97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Arlington Heights,IL
Posts: 231
Default

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.
__________________
'97 Laser Red GT Coupe
Stock 2V (Pulled Silencer)
4R70W Automatic
Ripped off a BLISTERING 15.37@90MPH
With a 2.21 60ft
Just Installed- K&N Air Filter
Coming Soon......
-4.10's
-Flowmaster A/T or Magnapack Cat-Back
SLOW 97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2002, 02:28 PM   #10
SLOW 97
Registered Member
 
SLOW 97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Arlington Heights,IL
Posts: 231
Default

Wait, nevermind Unit, I'm an idiot you had everything correct. I was looking at someone else's post.
__________________
'97 Laser Red GT Coupe
Stock 2V (Pulled Silencer)
4R70W Automatic
Ripped off a BLISTERING 15.37@90MPH
With a 2.21 60ft
Just Installed- K&N Air Filter
Coming Soon......
-4.10's
-Flowmaster A/T or Magnapack Cat-Back
SLOW 97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2002, 07:10 PM   #11
Sonics2042
Registered Member
 
Sonics2042's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 381
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Unit 5302
Rated HP.

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 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+
I disagree. I think they (93s) were underrated. The cobras of the same year were rated at 235, although stock they were notorious for dyno'ing higher than stock. I personally think it is because they wanted the new body style to have an increase in HP to make it seem like a better car than the previous year (even if it did way a bunch more).

Thanks,
DoranW
__________________
What I have:
1990 Red Mustang 5.0 LX:
[BBK X-Pipe]-[MAC Cat-Back Exhaust]
[MAC Cold Air Intake]-[BBK Equal Shorties]
[3.55 Gears]-[Cobra Intake Manifold (Upper and Lower]
[E-303 Cam]-[Granetelli Mass Air Flow Sensor]
[Front and rear sway bars]-[New black carpet and seats.]
[Adjustable Fuel Regulator]-[T5 Conversion w/ K. Cobra Clutch/Hurst STS]
[Cobra Throttle Body]-[130A Alt. Conversion]

Thinking about:
Aftermarket Heads!
Vortech A-Trim
Sonics2042 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2002, 07:37 PM   #12
Unit 5302
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 5,246
Default

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.
Unit 5302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2002, 02:48 PM   #13
SLOW 97
Registered Member
 
SLOW 97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Arlington Heights,IL
Posts: 231
Default

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.
__________________
'97 Laser Red GT Coupe
Stock 2V (Pulled Silencer)
4R70W Automatic
Ripped off a BLISTERING 15.37@90MPH
With a 2.21 60ft
Just Installed- K&N Air Filter
Coming Soon......
-4.10's
-Flowmaster A/T or Magnapack Cat-Back
SLOW 97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2002, 07:26 PM   #14
Unit 5302
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 5,246
Default

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'

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.
Unit 5302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Last year of Functional Side Scoops? 95mustanggt Blue Oval Lounge 2 08-30-2001 05:37 PM
Best GT year? #1 Pony Blue Oval Lounge 6 08-30-2001 02:00 PM
GT and LS-1 get into Tangle. GT WINS!! Mercury Stang Stories 8 06-26-2001 12:49 PM
1988 GT with only 854 miles???? K-9 Windsor Power 4 05-31-2001 09:13 AM
Year 2000 Mustang GT Mods thebean311 Modular Madness 3 05-18-2000 08:58 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:29 PM.


SEARCH