stock horsepower
05-11-2006, 05:57 AM
#11
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location:
Posts: 3,768
RE: stock horsepower
ORIGINAL: 94Cobrakid16
ive always heard in 93 they rated them at rear wheel horsepower, and in 87-92 it was rated for flywheel horsepower.
so 225 at the flywheel and 205 at the wheels, with t-5 ide assume.
ive always heard in 93 they rated them at rear wheel horsepower, and in 87-92 it was rated for flywheel horsepower.
so 225 at the flywheel and 205 at the wheels, with t-5 ide assume.
05-11-2006, 06:28 AM
#12
4th Gear Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location:
Posts: 1,267
RE: stock horsepower
ORIGINAL: FivePointGo
All 87-92s are rated at 225 hp. In 93 Ford changed the way they dynoed their engines, therefore resulting in the 205 rating. Regardless of the lower rating the 93s should perform the same as their older counterparts.
All 87-92s are rated at 225 hp. In 93 Ford changed the way they dynoed their engines, therefore resulting in the 205 rating. Regardless of the lower rating the 93s should perform the same as their older counterparts.
Your Cali car falls between 88 and 89, more power than an 89, but less than an 88, due to the MAF.
Ok, here's how it went down.
89 all cars got the MAF resulting in a 4-5hp drop, and a smaller profile cam, another 3hp, so 7-8hp drop in 89
90 got another camshaft change, but didn't affect output
91-92 a few small changes, nothing worth listing
93 pistons
The difference between an 87/88 and 93 is about 15hp with all the changes that were made. Not just because Ford decided to rate them differently.
93 wasn't rated at rwhp, it was just the state of dress that the motor was in was changed, and chose which engines to test differently.
05-11-2006, 06:37 AM
#13
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location:
Posts: 3,768
RE: stock horsepower
ORIGINAL: Liquid_02
That's not true at all. They may have been rated at that but that does not mean that's what they put out. Take the Hemi as a good example. They rated the 426 Hemi at 425, when it actually puts out 525.
Your Cali car falls between 88 and 89, more power than an 89, but less than an 88, due to the MAF.
Ok, here's how it went down.
89 all cars got the MAF resulting in a 4-5hp drop, and a smaller profile cam, another 3hp, so 7-8hp drop in 89
90 got another camshaft change, but didn't affect output
91-92 a few small changes, nothing worth listing
93 pistons
The difference between an 87/88 and 93 is about 15hp with all the changes that were made. Not just because Ford decided to rate them differently.
93 wasn't rated at rwhp, it was just the state of dress that the motor was in was changed, and chose which engines to test differently.
ORIGINAL: FivePointGo
All 87-92s are rated at 225 hp. In 93 Ford changed the way they dynoed their engines, therefore resulting in the 205 rating. Regardless of the lower rating the 93s should perform the same as their older counterparts.
All 87-92s are rated at 225 hp. In 93 Ford changed the way they dynoed their engines, therefore resulting in the 205 rating. Regardless of the lower rating the 93s should perform the same as their older counterparts.
Your Cali car falls between 88 and 89, more power than an 89, but less than an 88, due to the MAF.
Ok, here's how it went down.
89 all cars got the MAF resulting in a 4-5hp drop, and a smaller profile cam, another 3hp, so 7-8hp drop in 89
90 got another camshaft change, but didn't affect output
91-92 a few small changes, nothing worth listing
93 pistons
The difference between an 87/88 and 93 is about 15hp with all the changes that were made. Not just because Ford decided to rate them differently.
93 wasn't rated at rwhp, it was just the state of dress that the motor was in was changed, and chose which engines to test differently.
05-11-2006, 11:08 AM
#14
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 921
RE: stock horsepower
Hypereutectic pistons replace the forged aluminum pistons starting in 93. I also read somewhere due to this the engion was not as durable in regards to modifications. So to my knowledge out of all the fox stangs 93 is the worst year. Other than the cobra ofcourse.
05-11-2006, 11:10 AM
#15
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: long island, now florida
Posts: 250
RE: stock horsepower
liquid is correct, but that doesnt mean the 87/88 is the best car to own, anytime major mods are done you need to switch to a maf anyway, or youll be remapping evrytime you mod something. my 88 was faster than my 90 with bolt ons, but it didnt run as smooth. as far as cam changes go, if your serious about your car your swapping all that out anyway, the only one i would, well... not avoid but try to find anther year is the 93 cuz of the forged pistons in the 87-92 cars.
05-11-2006, 11:16 AM
#16
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 189
RE: stock horsepower
ORIGINAL: LX 5.0
Hypereutectic pistons replace the forged aluminum pistons starting in 93. I also read somewhere due to this the engion was not as durable in regards to modifications. So to my knowledge out of all the fox stangs 93 is the worst year. Other than the cobra ofcourse.
Hypereutectic pistons replace the forged aluminum pistons starting in 93. I also read somewhere due to this the engion was not as durable in regards to modifications. So to my knowledge out of all the fox stangs 93 is the worst year. Other than the cobra ofcourse.
Block goes before the pistons would, so I wouldn't be worried about it.
05-11-2006, 11:17 AM
#17
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: long island, now florida
Posts: 250
RE: stock horsepower
also realise this, when they rate cars for hp, they take a sample from a certain # of cars of the assembly line, i think i heard the first 100, dyno them and avg. them out, for every car that puts out 250 ther must be another that is only putting out 200, just to use round #'s, this explains why some cars come out as freaks.
05-11-2006, 11:20 AM
#18
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: long island, now florida
Posts: 250
RE: stock horsepower
ORIGINAL: nitr0x99
Block goes before the pistons would, so I wouldn't be worried about it.
Block goes before the pistons would, so I wouldn't be worried about it.
05-11-2006, 11:29 AM
#19
Join Date: May 2006
Location:
Posts: 2
RE: stock horsepower
ORIGINAL: Liquid_02
That's not true at all. They may have been rated at that but that does not mean that's what they put out. Take the Hemi as a good example. They rated the 426 Hemi at 425, when it actually puts out 525.
Your Cali car falls between 88 and 89, more power than an 89, but less than an 88, due to the MAF.
Ok, here's how it went down.
89 all cars got the MAF resulting in a 4-5hp drop, and a smaller profile cam, another 3hp, so 7-8hp drop in 89
90 got another camshaft change, but didn't affect output
91-92 a few small changes, nothing worth listing
93 pistons
The difference between an 87/88 and 93 is about 15hp with all the changes that were made. Not just because Ford decided to rate them differently.
93 wasn't rated at rwhp, it was just the state of dress that the motor was in was changed, and chose which engines to test differently.
ORIGINAL: FivePointGo
All 87-92s are rated at 225 hp. In 93 Ford changed the way they dynoed their engines, therefore resulting in the 205 rating. Regardless of the lower rating the 93s should perform the same as their older counterparts.
All 87-92s are rated at 225 hp. In 93 Ford changed the way they dynoed their engines, therefore resulting in the 205 rating. Regardless of the lower rating the 93s should perform the same as their older counterparts.
Your Cali car falls between 88 and 89, more power than an 89, but less than an 88, due to the MAF.
Ok, here's how it went down.
89 all cars got the MAF resulting in a 4-5hp drop, and a smaller profile cam, another 3hp, so 7-8hp drop in 89
90 got another camshaft change, but didn't affect output
91-92 a few small changes, nothing worth listing
93 pistons
The difference between an 87/88 and 93 is about 15hp with all the changes that were made. Not just because Ford decided to rate them differently.
93 wasn't rated at rwhp, it was just the state of dress that the motor was in was changed, and chose which engines to test differently.
05-11-2006, 11:54 AM
#20
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hamilton, NJ
Posts: 15,042
RE: stock horsepower
I dont know if this is true or not but I also heard that they rated the 93 GT at such low hp because they really wanted the cobra to look alot better. I mean be serious, who would pay all that extra money for a Cobra badge and 15-20 hp? I know I sure as hell wouldnt.