MustangWorks.com : Ford Forums - View Single Post

Unit 5302 · 06-12-2002, 07:00 PM

By the way, there is almost ALWAYS a new know it all joining the boards who really has a lot to learn. If they stick around, they learn a ton, and very fast if they care to. Eventually they figure out a lot of us know what we're talking about.

Lemme throw a few BS 5.0 Tales out your way.

#1 The Fox Body Mustang GT weighs 200lbs more than the similar LX 5.0.

False. The true weight difference is closer to 20lbs.

#2 The 1987-1988 (non CA) Speed density 5.0's cannot except heads, cams or in some cases even intake modifications.

False. With a few minutes of tuning, speed density has proven itself with solid aftermarket heads, mild cams, and aftermarket intakes.

#3 The stock fuel injectors (19lb) must be upgraded when you use a mild to moderate N/A combo, or mild blower.

False. Properly functioning 19lb injectors will support around 350hp on a N/A engine with an adjustable regulator.

#4 The heads are the weakest part of the 5.0 combo.

False. The stock intake flows much worse than the heads at about 135cfm. The heads flow 155cfm.

#5 The HO cam is weak, and for a car to run quick an aftermarket cam must be used.

False. The HO cam has been putting full weight Fox cars into the 12's for a long time. It's the strongest part of the HO intake/cam/head combo.

#6 The 1993 5.0's cast piston's are what caused the lower 205hp rating.

False.

#7 The 1993 5.0's were rated by "average performance" a new Ford rating method which caused the hp rating to drop.

False, technically.

#8 The 1993 5.0's had less power than a 1988 CA to 1992 5.0.

False, technically.

The true answer to those questions is that the 5.0 was never rated from 1988-1992. Ford simply carried over the numbers dispite adding MAF, detuning the computers, making revisions to the air silencer, and the camshaft, along with other minor details. In truth, the 93 5.0's cast pistons would have made MORE power due to their lighter weight. Unfortunately, warranty claims caused Ford to detune the computers and the SN95 cars carried that trend out. In all reality, the 1988CA - 1993 5.0HO MAF engines should make the same power, with the same computer of course, and assuming the engines are built to the same degree of accuracy. There is no 20hp difference between the 93 and 92 cars, and Ford's reasoning is bogus. Dyno tuners know the 93 isn't 20hp weaker than a 92 car, and the dragstrip times prove it. It was all a bunch of BS to justify the lower rating when Ford re-rated the engine.

06-12-2002, 07:00 PM	#20
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	By the way, there is almost ALWAYS a new know it all joining the boards who really has a lot to learn. If they stick around, they learn a ton, and very fast if they care to. Eventually they figure out a lot of us know what we're talking about. Lemme throw a few BS 5.0 Tales out your way. #1 The Fox Body Mustang GT weighs 200lbs more than the similar LX 5.0. False. The true weight difference is closer to 20lbs. #2 The 1987-1988 (non CA) Speed density 5.0's cannot except heads, cams or in some cases even intake modifications. False. With a few minutes of tuning, speed density has proven itself with solid aftermarket heads, mild cams, and aftermarket intakes. #3 The stock fuel injectors (19lb) must be upgraded when you use a mild to moderate N/A combo, or mild blower. False. Properly functioning 19lb injectors will support around 350hp on a N/A engine with an adjustable regulator. #4 The heads are the weakest part of the 5.0 combo. False. The stock intake flows much worse than the heads at about 135cfm. The heads flow 155cfm. #5 The HO cam is weak, and for a car to run quick an aftermarket cam must be used. False. The HO cam has been putting full weight Fox cars into the 12's for a long time. It's the strongest part of the HO intake/cam/head combo. #6 The 1993 5.0's cast piston's are what caused the lower 205hp rating. False. #7 The 1993 5.0's were rated by "average performance" a new Ford rating method which caused the hp rating to drop. False, technically. #8 The 1993 5.0's had less power than a 1988 CA to 1992 5.0. False, technically. The true answer to those questions is that the 5.0 was never rated from 1988-1992. Ford simply carried over the numbers dispite adding MAF, detuning the computers, making revisions to the air silencer, and the camshaft, along with other minor details. In truth, the 93 5.0's cast pistons would have made MORE power due to their lighter weight. Unfortunately, warranty claims caused Ford to detune the computers and the SN95 cars carried that trend out. In all reality, the 1988CA - 1993 5.0HO MAF engines should make the same power, with the same computer of course, and assuming the engines are built to the same degree of accuracy. There is no 20hp difference between the 93 and 92 cars, and Ford's reasoning is bogus. Dyno tuners know the 93 isn't 20hp weaker than a 92 car, and the dragstrip times prove it. It was all a bunch of BS to justify the lower rating when Ford re-rated the engine.