how much HP?
06-17-2006, 07:05 PM
#8
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location:
Posts: 633
RE: how much HP?
I actually think everything after 92 (starting w/93) had hypereutectic pistons. They're supposed to be more oil-efficient. w/o costing HP.
87-95 were basically the same engine with the only REAL difference in HP coming from changing the speed density system to mass air, which gave the 5.0l engine a little less air to breathe due to more drag and a worse flow rate on the intake side, but that only cost about 1-2hp. The reason '93 is rated @ 205hp and 94-95 is rated @ 215hp is because of the different method of measuring crank HP. Besides that, they all had the same HP with that 1-2 speed density difference.
At least that's what I read hehe.
87-95 were basically the same engine with the only REAL difference in HP coming from changing the speed density system to mass air, which gave the 5.0l engine a little less air to breathe due to more drag and a worse flow rate on the intake side, but that only cost about 1-2hp. The reason '93 is rated @ 205hp and 94-95 is rated @ 215hp is because of the different method of measuring crank HP. Besides that, they all had the same HP with that 1-2 speed density difference.
At least that's what I read hehe.
06-17-2006, 07:22 PM
#9
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location:
Posts: 5,263
RE: how much HP?
hypert. pistons have tighter fit than forged since they dont expand and contract as much as forged. thats why less oil consumption
ORIGINAL: 93foxgt
I actually think everything after 92 (starting w/93) had hypereutectic pistons. They're supposed to be more oil-efficient. w/o costing HP.
87-95 were basically the same engine with the only REAL difference in HP coming from changing the speed density system to mass air, which gave the 5.0l engine a little less air to breathe due to more drag and a worse flow rate on the intake side, but that only cost about 1-2hp. The reason '93 is rated @ 205hp and 94-95 is rated @ 215hp is because of the different method of measuring crank HP. Besides that, they all had the same HP with that 1-2 speed density difference.
At least that's what I read hehe.
I actually think everything after 92 (starting w/93) had hypereutectic pistons. They're supposed to be more oil-efficient. w/o costing HP.
87-95 were basically the same engine with the only REAL difference in HP coming from changing the speed density system to mass air, which gave the 5.0l engine a little less air to breathe due to more drag and a worse flow rate on the intake side, but that only cost about 1-2hp. The reason '93 is rated @ 205hp and 94-95 is rated @ 215hp is because of the different method of measuring crank HP. Besides that, they all had the same HP with that 1-2 speed density difference.
At least that's what I read hehe.