Help- project due =1/4 times

redhotrod · 08-27-2001, 10:55 AM

Hey, I'm doing a presintation on 79-93 Ford Mustangs for my class, I need some help. Since yall have helped me in the past, I figured you couold do it again.
1) What are the stock 1/4 mile times for a 92-93 Mustang 5.0 - 5-speed?
2) What is the 1/4 mile (stock) for a 92-93 Slowmaro (camaro)with the 350 ?
3) How much Horsepower did the 92 5.0 have
anyone got a realistic stock #?
4) How much horsepower did the 4-cylinder have and what size was it?
5) What was the weight of the LX 5.0 or GT 5.0?
Thanks D

fiveohpatrol · 08-27-2001, 06:22 PM

i can cover #3 and 4

the 92 5.0 had 225hp

the 4cyl was a 2.3L and it ranged from 88hp to 140hp, 92 had105hp

im not positive about your other questions so i wont try to confuse you

------------------
88 Notch, B&M Ripper, 3.73's, Ported E7's, Explorer int. w/ ported lower, pulleys, 1.7RR's, BBK headers, off-road H-pipe, flowmasters, subframes, 65mm TB, March ram air ,MSD coil, U/L control arms, 155lph f/p, Crane Adj.FPR, Nitto drag radials, best 1/4--> 13.76@101.4 on a 2.17 60ft

[This message has been edited by fiveohpatrol (edited 08-27-2001).]

Stang Runner · 08-27-2001, 06:41 PM

5)I have a 88 lx that is the same thing as a 87-93 lx Hatch
The wieght of my car was 3060lbs now that was no power stering and a pin on hood and no a/c and a full tank of gas so the wieght of a stock one is about 80lbs more with out the a/c. The GT's are a bit hevier than the LX and the coupe's are like 50Lbs litter than the Hatchback's
1)The times are about 14.2-14.6@95-98Mph this does not Include Convertibles 14.9-15.1@93-90MPH do to the more wieght.
3)The # givin are right and that was what they were is real life.
Good luck on the presintation!

------------------
14.28@103.0 on a G-Tech Engine: Steal Mounts, Under drive pulleys, K&N, Home ported Lower Intake, No power steering, No A/C
Drive Train: 3.55, World Class T-5,
NOW it is time for Real power STUFF I Have and will put on after I get everthing: Mac cold intake, 70MM TB, Valve covers (COOL ONES)255 Fuel pump.
Next to get: rocker arms,Cam,TFS Heads,Injectors 26,Holley intake, What might I need???

Unit 5302 · 08-27-2001, 08:00 PM

#1 1992 Mustang 5.0 14.6-14.8@98 14.8-15.2@94 (auto)
1993 Mustang 5.0 14.7-14.9@97 14.9-15.2@94 (auto) Those times are for hatch's and coupes.

#2 1992 Slowmaro Z28. The 350 version was auto ONLY. 15.0@94 (slow). 1993 Z28 manual LT1 14.1-14.4@101. Auto 14.3-14.5@99.

#3 1992 Mustang 5.0 not technically rated, the last 5.0 rating was 1987. Listed at 225hp@4200rpm, 300lb/ft@3200rpm. 1993 205hp@4200rpm, 285lb/ft@3200rpm. The difference in power between 92 and 93 was a worse computer. In actuality, the 92 probably made more like 215.

1992 Slomaro 350 (auto only) 240hp@4400rpm, 345lb/ft@3200rpm. 1993 Z28 275hp@5000rpm, 325lb/ft@2400rpm.

1987-1990 2.3L SOHC I-4 8v. SEFI naturally aspirated. Rated 88hp@@4000rpm, 132lb/ft@2600rpm. 1991+ 2.3L I-4 8v. SEFI naturally aspirated, but with the addition of HSC (High Swirl Combustion) cylinder heads. 105hp@4600rpm, 135lb/ft@2600rpm.

#5 The 1987 (same except for MAF system) LX Coupe weighed 3000lbs. LX Hatch 3059lbs. GT Hatch 3080lbs. Add about 10lbs to that number. Add another 75lbs for AOD, up to 30lbs for options.

The F body also came with a 3.1L V-6 rated at 140hp@4400rpm, 180lb/ft@3600rpm a 5.0 TPI V-8 rated at 230hp@4400rpm, 300lb/ft@3200rpm for the manual Z28. Also a 5.0L TBI V-8 170hp@4000rpm, 255lb/ft@2400rpm in the Camaro RS. Pontiac Counterparts to the Camaro are the same. In 1993 the only option was the 5.7L, the base model got a 3.4L OHV V-6 making 160hp@4600rpm and 200lb/ft@3600rpm.

Expect an F body to tip the scales at 3400lbs+.

All in all the Fox body owned the Camaro in 1992, but it was outgunned in 1993 with the LT-1. Stock for stock. The LT-1 is a ***** to modify, and the 5.0 is easy. The 5.0 could literally drop nearly 1/2sec off it's quarter and run right with the LT-1 with a good driver, bumped timing, and a $40 K&N panel filter with the air silencer removed. Some driver's can get more out of their 5.0 than others. The GM auto beats the AOD in that year, pretty good too. The manual was the T-5 for both cars in 1992, in 1993 the Camaro got the upgrade to the T-56, so it got 6spds, and the capability to run the LT-1 with a manual strong enough to take it. Base models GM for performance. The 2.3L is the Iron Duke of the Ford line, kinda like a 2.5 OHV 4 banger of GM. It's not uncommon to see little 4 bangers running around with mileage well above 150k. The Mustang had far superior reliability than any of the F-bodies. The 2.3L auto had it's share of problems with it's A4LD crap tranny though. There are a bunch of ways to look at the comparison. If you are looking for paper reasons to choose Mustang over Camaraslo. Reliability, quality, performance modifications, stock performance 1992, bang for the buck V-8 models, just plain a better car. Why do you think the Mustang has been outselling the F bod 3:1 for quite some time?

Unit 5302 · 08-27-2001, 08:01 PM

Stupid double post.

[This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 08-27-2001).]

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Check out these times and tell me how i can get better!	1jimmy__d	Stang Stories	6	06-24-2003 01:07 PM
project names!	my9250GT	Blue Oval Lounge	10	06-23-2003 11:56 PM
Track Times With the new Tires!!!!!	Stang Runner	Stang Stories	6	10-20-2002 08:31 PM
New Track times On the good old SD and STOCK Short block	Stang Runner	Stang Stories	1	10-10-2002 06:25 PM
Is anyone elses car Therapy during hard times??	Mercury	Blue Oval Lounge	4	06-11-2001 04:33 PM

08-27-2001, 10:55 AM	#1
redhotrod Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Durham Posts: 9	Help- project due =1/4 times Hey, I'm doing a presintation on 79-93 Ford Mustangs for my class, I need some help. Since yall have helped me in the past, I figured you couold do it again. 1) What are the stock 1/4 mile times for a 92-93 Mustang 5.0 - 5-speed? 2) What is the 1/4 mile (stock) for a 92-93 Slowmaro (camaro)with the 350 ? 3) How much Horsepower did the 92 5.0 have anyone got a realistic stock #? 4) How much horsepower did the 4-cylinder have and what size was it? 5) What was the weight of the LX 5.0 or GT 5.0? Thanks D

08-27-2001, 06:22 PM	#2
fiveohpatrol I'd rather be basketweaving Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 2,551	i can cover #3 and 4 the 92 5.0 had 225hp the 4cyl was a 2.3L and it ranged from 88hp to 140hp, 92 had105hp im not positive about your other questions so i wont try to confuse you ------------------ 88 Notch, B&M Ripper, 3.73's, Ported E7's, Explorer int. w/ ported lower, pulleys, 1.7RR's, BBK headers, off-road H-pipe, flowmasters, subframes, 65mm TB, March ram air ,MSD coil, U/L control arms, 155lph f/p, Crane Adj.FPR, Nitto drag radials, best 1/4--> 13.76@101.4 on a 2.17 60ft [This message has been edited by fiveohpatrol (edited 08-27-2001).]

08-27-2001, 06:41 PM	#3
Stang Runner Registered Member Join Date: Jun 1999 Location: Walker, MI, USA Posts: 1,202	5)I have a 88 lx that is the same thing as a 87-93 lx Hatch The wieght of my car was 3060lbs now that was no power stering and a pin on hood and no a/c and a full tank of gas so the wieght of a stock one is about 80lbs more with out the a/c. The GT's are a bit hevier than the LX and the coupe's are like 50Lbs litter than the Hatchback's 1)The times are about 14.2-14.6@95-98Mph this does not Include Convertibles 14.9-15.1@93-90MPH do to the more wieght. 3)The # givin are right and that was what they were is real life. Good luck on the presintation! ------------------ 14.28@103.0 on a G-Tech Engine: Steal Mounts, Under drive pulleys, K&N, Home ported Lower Intake, No power steering, No A/C Drive Train: 3.55, World Class T-5, NOW it is time for Real power STUFF I Have and will put on after I get everthing: Mac cold intake, 70MM TB, Valve covers (COOL ONES)255 Fuel pump. Next to get: rocker arms,Cam,TFS Heads,Injectors 26,Holley intake, What might I need???

08-27-2001, 08:00 PM	#4
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	#1 1992 Mustang 5.0 14.6-14.8@98 14.8-15.2@94 (auto) 1993 Mustang 5.0 14.7-14.9@97 14.9-15.2@94 (auto) Those times are for hatch's and coupes. #2 1992 Slowmaro Z28. The 350 version was auto ONLY. 15.0@94 (slow). 1993 Z28 manual LT1 14.1-14.4@101. Auto 14.3-14.5@99. #3 1992 Mustang 5.0 not technically rated, the last 5.0 rating was 1987. Listed at 225hp@4200rpm, 300lb/ft@3200rpm. 1993 205hp@4200rpm, 285lb/ft@3200rpm. The difference in power between 92 and 93 was a worse computer. In actuality, the 92 probably made more like 215. 1992 Slomaro 350 (auto only) 240hp@4400rpm, 345lb/ft@3200rpm. 1993 Z28 275hp@5000rpm, 325lb/ft@2400rpm. 1987-1990 2.3L SOHC I-4 8v. SEFI naturally aspirated. Rated 88hp@@4000rpm, 132lb/ft@2600rpm. 1991+ 2.3L I-4 8v. SEFI naturally aspirated, but with the addition of HSC (High Swirl Combustion) cylinder heads. 105hp@4600rpm, 135lb/ft@2600rpm. #5 The 1987 (same except for MAF system) LX Coupe weighed 3000lbs. LX Hatch 3059lbs. GT Hatch 3080lbs. Add about 10lbs to that number. Add another 75lbs for AOD, up to 30lbs for options. The F body also came with a 3.1L V-6 rated at 140hp@4400rpm, 180lb/ft@3600rpm a 5.0 TPI V-8 rated at 230hp@4400rpm, 300lb/ft@3200rpm for the manual Z28. Also a 5.0L TBI V-8 170hp@4000rpm, 255lb/ft@2400rpm in the Camaro RS. Pontiac Counterparts to the Camaro are the same. In 1993 the only option was the 5.7L, the base model got a 3.4L OHV V-6 making 160hp@4600rpm and 200lb/ft@3600rpm. Expect an F body to tip the scales at 3400lbs+. All in all the Fox body owned the Camaro in 1992, but it was outgunned in 1993 with the LT-1. Stock for stock. The LT-1 is a ***** to modify, and the 5.0 is easy. The 5.0 could literally drop nearly 1/2sec off it's quarter and run right with the LT-1 with a good driver, bumped timing, and a $40 K&N panel filter with the air silencer removed. Some driver's can get more out of their 5.0 than others. The GM auto beats the AOD in that year, pretty good too. The manual was the T-5 for both cars in 1992, in 1993 the Camaro got the upgrade to the T-56, so it got 6spds, and the capability to run the LT-1 with a manual strong enough to take it. Base models GM for performance. The 2.3L is the Iron Duke of the Ford line, kinda like a 2.5 OHV 4 banger of GM. It's not uncommon to see little 4 bangers running around with mileage well above 150k. The Mustang had far superior reliability than any of the F-bodies. The 2.3L auto had it's share of problems with it's A4LD crap tranny though. There are a bunch of ways to look at the comparison. If you are looking for paper reasons to choose Mustang over Camaraslo. Reliability, quality, performance modifications, stock performance 1992, bang for the buck V-8 models, just plain a better car. Why do you think the Mustang has been outselling the F bod 3:1 for quite some time?

08-27-2001, 08:01 PM	#5
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	Stupid double post. [This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 08-27-2001).]