Go Back   MustangForums.com > Ford Mustang Tech > 5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang > 5.0L General Discussion
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Search


5.0L General Discussion This section is for non-tech specific information pertaining to 5.0L Mustangs.

Welcome to Mustang Forums!
Welcome to Mustang Forums.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!


How much modification to get 300 - 350 hp out of a 88 GT?

Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-04-2009, 02:16 PM   #1
vagabond
1st Gear Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Vehicle: 2004 Ford Mustang V6
Location: Ontario
Posts: 91
Default How much modification to get 300 - 350 hp out of a 88 GT?

As the topic states I am curious how much money would I be looking at to push 350 or so rwhp on a 5.0?

I would be doing the work myself. Avoiding Nitrous though, what mods would get me there?

Thanks
This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members.
Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!
vagabond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 02:45 PM   #2
sgarrelts01
1st Gear Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Vehicle: 1994 Mustang GT
Location: MI
Posts: 74
Default

Cam, heads, intake.

you can buy the trick flow kit for like 2400 that suppose to give you 350-360 depending package, but i think your block has to be bored to get that.

Good set of heads, with a good intake and cam would get you to 300.
sgarrelts01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 02:47 PM   #3
NoGo95GT
4th Gear Member
 
NoGo95GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Vehicle: 95 Mustang GT
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,788
Default

A good H/C/I will net you around 300rwhp. A 331 or 347 with a good induction will give you 330-370rwhp. Bolton's plus a supercharger@8-10psi will give you 330-370rwhp. As for price, it all depends what route you want to go. But it won't be cheap.
__________________
95 Mustang GT: DSS SuperProBullet 331/ TFS heads, TFS-1 cam, GT-40 intake, AODE, Vortech@15psi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el5XYPGj4sM&feature (pre stroker)
95 Mustang GTS: CHP 347(10:5:1) AFR 185's, Comp XE274HR, Cobra Intake 382rwhp/423rwtrq
NoGo95GT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 02:48 PM   #4
NoGo95GT
4th Gear Member
 
NoGo95GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Vehicle: 95 Mustang GT
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,788
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sgarrelts01 View Post
Cam, heads, intake.

you can buy the trick flow kit for like 2400 that suppose to give you 350-360 depending package, but i think your block has to be bored to get that.

Good set of heads, with a good intake and cam would get you to 300.
Trickflow overrates that at the flywheel. Many of their kits put down 270-290rwhp.
__________________
95 Mustang GT: DSS SuperProBullet 331/ TFS heads, TFS-1 cam, GT-40 intake, AODE, Vortech@15psi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el5XYPGj4sM&feature (pre stroker)
95 Mustang GTS: CHP 347(10:5:1) AFR 185's, Comp XE274HR, Cobra Intake 382rwhp/423rwtrq
NoGo95GT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 03:05 PM   #5
sgarrelts01
1st Gear Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Vehicle: 1994 Mustang GT
Location: MI
Posts: 74
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoGo95GT View Post
Trickflow overrates that at the flywheel. Many of their kits put down 270-290rwhp.
I figured as much. I was reading the fine print and it says to get that hp your block needs to be a 306. Probably need the right pistons an so on.


I got a 331 stroker, an its very expensive and the f*ucker don't even run right lol. I have to drop another 800 for some crap to see if that will make it all better.
sgarrelts01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 04:45 PM   #6
vagabond
1st Gear Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Vehicle: 2004 Ford Mustang V6
Location: Ontario
Posts: 91
Default

Thanks for the answers guys. I'm looking at 87-93 models right now, but should I also take 94-95 into consideration? I've always heard the 5.0's were the best/cheapest to mod when compared to the newer stuff (4.6 SOHC), so as far as the fox and sn95 are concerned, are there any huge differences besides the fox being ~75 lbs lighter?
vagabond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 04:49 PM   #7
Back-in-Black
1st Gear Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Vehicle: 1989 Ford Mustang GT Vert.
Location: Florida
Posts: 79
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vagabond View Post
Thanks for the answers guys. I'm looking at 87-93 models right now, but should I also take 94-95 into consideration? I've always heard the 5.0's were the best/cheapest to mod when compared to the newer stuff (4.6 SOHC), so as far as the fox and sn95 are concerned, are there any huge differences besides the fox being ~75 lbs lighter?
Not much difference. You just need to figure out which body style you like more.
Back-in-Black is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 05:00 PM   #8
vagabond
1st Gear Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Vehicle: 2004 Ford Mustang V6
Location: Ontario
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Back-in-Black View Post
Not much difference. You just need to figure out which body style you like more.
So not much difference in suspension, rear end etc?

One won't handle more power without extra modification than the other?

Generally speaking, is one easier to work on than the other? Easier clearance to the undercarriage, better layout, etc etc?

I'm not worried about the looks per say, I think they're both nice cars, I just want to get a good starter. This will be the first 'project' car of mine.
vagabond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 05:09 PM   #9
AdderMk2
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Vehicle: 94 Cobra
Location: Lil' Rhody
Posts: 22,376
Send a message via AIM to AdderMk2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vagabond View Post
So not much difference in suspension, rear end etc?

One won't handle more power without extra modification than the other?

Generally speaking, is one easier to work on than the other? Easier clearance to the undercarriage, better layout, etc etc?

I'm not worried about the looks per say, I think they're both nice cars, I just want to get a good starter. This will be the first 'project' car of mine.

the frame and suspension was virtually unchanged from 79-04... many use the same or similar parts. It ultimately comes down to which one you like better (looks)
AdderMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 06:26 PM   #10
5.0stang123
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Vehicle: 1990 mustang lx 5.0
Location: Courtenay B.C
Posts: 405
Default

Fox would be better for the easier to work on part. Foxes are lighter but the 94+have bettre brakes and suspension and are 5 lug.
__________________
5.0stang123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 07:09 PM   #11
mjr46
D.R. THE PATHETIC DORK
 
mjr46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Vehicle: 85 mustang
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 30,304
Default

wrong section, this is the tech section op, and I have warned you before 3rd time and thread will be deleted
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by EUTARD View Post
Suggest having a conversation with the highly INEXPERIENCED clowns....D.R the Dork, THE BarnyYard smells like......again and finally staring the highly intelligent and I must say skilled Eutard! UH where did de' go George
mjr46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 07:32 PM   #12
JayBanion
3rd Gear Member
 
JayBanion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Harleysville PA
Posts: 956
Default

Go with the foxbody they look so much better, also..remember that the 87 and 88 year(except cali cars for 88) were speed denstiy instead of mass air. And yes a good H/C/I setup will do fine.
__________________
88' Shortblock - GT40P Heads, Comp 986 Springs, Comp 1.6 Roller Rockers, TFS Stage 1 Cam, BBK Long Tubes, Shorty o/r H, Dumped Flows, FRPP 4.10s, FRPP Aluminum Driveshaft, Edelbrock 289 Performer Intake, Holley 650, MSD 6A, duraspark distributor, FRPP 9mm Wires, Crane Fireball Coil, Holley Blue Pump, Holley Regulator, Jegs Fuel Cell, Hurst Shifter, King Cobra HD Clutch kit, probobly forgot somethin...
JayBanion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 07:34 PM   #13
vagabond
1st Gear Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Vehicle: 2004 Ford Mustang V6
Location: Ontario
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayBanion View Post
Go with the foxbody they look so much better, also..remember that the 87 and 88 year(except cali cars for 88) were speed denstiy instead of mass air. And yes a good H/C/I setup will do fine.
What's the difference between speed density and mass air?
vagabond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 08:24 PM   #14
86blackgt
1st Gear Member
 
86blackgt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Vehicle: 86 ford mustang
Location: az
Posts: 85
Default

Do you plan on running it at the track? What et number are you planning on running?
__________________
stock 86 bottom end with 210k, e303 cam, e7 heads with 1.6 rollor rockers, victor 50 intake, 19 lb injectors, kirban adj regulator, 75mm tb, 76 mm air meter, mac cold air, electric fan, stock pressure plate with mcleod disc, 3.73 gears,qa1 kmember w coil overs, stock rear controll arms, and 26x11.50 et streets, 11.56 @ 121 on a 125 shot, 12.65 on motor
new motor gt40p heads,hurricane, carb236,232 and 565,545lift cammotion cam 150 wet kit11.26 @125, on motor 12.17 @ 112
86blackgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 10:26 PM   #15
vagabond
1st Gear Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Vehicle: 2004 Ford Mustang V6
Location: Ontario
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 86blackgt View Post
Do you plan on running it at the track? What et number are you planning on running?
Around 12 would be nice.
vagabond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 09:48 AM   #16
vagabond
1st Gear Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Vehicle: 2004 Ford Mustang V6
Location: Ontario
Posts: 91
Default

I was reading about the transmission (T5) and it seems like it would have trouble handling any extra power. Would I have to replace the entire transmission to be able to handle 300-350 rwhp?
vagabond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 09:59 AM   #17
Back-in-Black
1st Gear Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Vehicle: 1989 Ford Mustang GT Vert.
Location: Florida
Posts: 79
Default

All depends on you driving ability. I have seen some have no problem with a stock T5 and 300-350 RWHP. Then I also have a friend that has been through 5 T5's in four years because he can not drive a manual trans for chit! If you beat on it daily expect to fix it more often. You could get a TKO, it will handle more power.
Back-in-Black is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 09:59 AM
MustangForums
Ford Mustang




Paid Advertisement

 
 
 
Reply

Tags
300, 306, 350, 50, 5l, 87, 95, body, cats, fox, hci, horsepower, hp, mustang, supercharger

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Port/Polishing stock heads tonkpils555666sas GT S197 General Discussion 28 01-23-2008 08:33 PM

Advertising

Featured Sponsors
Vendor Directory
New Sponsors
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:33 AM.

© Internet Brands, Inc.


This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company
Emails Backup