What;s the deal on the different 5.0's?
 

Why did the Fox body Mustangs w/5.0L have 225HP and the 94-95 Mustangs only have 215HP? Is this for real or some ploy by Ford to keep insurance down or something?



------------------
K-9
No 'Stang just yet, but looking.

I think this has something to do with "net", and "sae" ratings, one is motor, and RWHP (rear wheel hp), but someone else will help you out im sure, the fox had a better computer than the sn95 style, i guess sn5's were for emmisions, but both can be modified to tear up some asphalt http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif i prefer the lighter fox body, but many people prefer sn95's because of handling and braking capabilities, but either way your looking the right way.... http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif good luck on the pony chase.

------------------
90 lx coupe: Mac cold air fenderwell, accel supercoil,ADS chip (not yet track tested),3-core radiatr, FMS alum D/S, Black magic fan, 3.27grs, 3chbr flows.
Best time: 13.9116(on 225/60/15 firehawks)
Best mph: 98.17
Best 60': 1.9607

next mods: subframes, mac h-pipe

They actually have the same power, but i think ford just decided to stop being lazy and correct the horsepower ratings. I've heard that when mustangs were converted to a Mass Air instead of speed density air metering system ('89 for all 5.0's, '88 for california 5.0's) the mass air flow meter actually costed about 3 horsepower because it was a minor restriction in the intake, and i think that there was a camshaft revision in the early 90's that dropped horsepower by 5 (...math doesn't add up, so there's probably something else or my numbers are off...whatever). This is just what i've heard though and have nothing to back this up. I guess ford just re-measured it or something, there wasn't anything specific in '94 that would cause the ratings to change i believe.

------------------
'84 Mustang 5.0 LX
My car

So, if I was to look into purchasing a 94-95 the performance should be about the same?

Is the motor the same? I mean, whatever I could do to a 91-93 is the same as I could do to the 94-95? And expect the same results?

I'm trying to keep my options open. I like the idea of getting better braking, traction and handeling with the 94-95. Especially here in the Midwest where we have to deal with a lot of snow and rain.

------------------
K-9
No 'Stang just yet, but looking.

perfromance is different, 94 up is heavier, and rated less power because of more restrictive intake manifold, to clear new hood on sn-95

A common misconception about the 93 5.0 and the 94... the 93 5.0's were rated at 205 hp, while the 92 was rated at 225 hp. Thus causing everyone to think that the 93's were slower, in all actuality, they are pretty much identical. Ford changed the way they measure horsepower in 93, instead of measuring peak hp, they measured average hp, thus the drop. And when the 5.0 ho's came out in 87, they tested them, and then just carried over the stats each year until 93. There were small changes through the years that dropped horsepower, and raised it here and there, and like previously stated, the change from speed density, to maf did account for about a 3 hp drop. And in 94 they rated the 5.0's as 215, partly to help boost sales so that ford could claim that the 94 5.0's were "new and improved." The 94's arent much different than the 93's engine wise, but are heavier, thus slightly less performance.