Twotone93stang

I was readin a site and it said this "In 1993, with no explanation as to why, Ford switched to cast eutectic pistons in all 5.0's, and also re-rated the GT at 205 horsepower and 275 lb.ft torque, without doing anything that would reduce power. Skeptics say this was to make the soon to be released 4.6 mustangs look better on paper. This was actually only a change in how Ford rated the horsepower. Instead of using the hp figure from the strongest engine dynoed, they used the average figure from of all engines tested" i think it is and 93 5.0s do have the same hp and tq as all the other fox bodies 87-93. What do you think?

Goosepoop302

i think thats what ive herd as well, and im pretty sure its true

VigCS

I thought it was because in 93 they started rating all of the engine w/ the accessories all running on them.

Goosepoop302

that = rating them differantly no?

lookinforastang

ah man this is such a debatable question

mustanggt.org says the down ratings were for a number of reasons. most notably for the upcomming 1993 Mustang SVT Cobra. The first limited production cobra since the 70's, ford wanted to go out with a bang for this model. They cautiously rated the standard GT/LX 5.0's at 205hp to make the conservatively rated Cobra look faster (it is indeed alot faster).

Another reason is because fords big hit, the fox body mustang was getting ALOT of attention from insurance companies. This car, that could be ordered for less than $14,000 (with few options) was outselling EVERYTHING and had the biggest horsepower ratings for the buck. Premiums were going up with the horsepower ratings, so Ford wisely down-rated them to get the insurance companies off their backs (This is also why the Cobra was "conservatively" rated at just 235hp).

Personaly I see very little to if any change in performance. Although it is true over the years ford changed a few things like the camshaft, speed density to mass air, forged pistons to hyperereutic (sp?), and some other small things. The most noticable changes performance wise would be the SD to MAF and the slight camshaft change.

IMO, the #1 reason is for the Cobra model. Why didn't they down rate them in 1992? Every 5.0 mustang was supposed to get the GT-40 parts but at the last minute Ford decided to scrap it, and make a very limited production model... god I hate marketing [:@]

Twotone93stang

so do u think they do have the same hp ratingand torque rating as the 87-92 the 5.0 gt's and lx's that is. Because i do believ that they r the same

5Liter Import Eater

yea basically all u have to know is that from 87-93 the foxes were basically the same as far as performance, despite a few changes throughtout the years.

FullAuto

I'd say it was because the hypereutectic motors were listed as 9.0:1 compression and the forged motors were 9.2:1.

lookinforastang

^^ where did you hear that?

FullAuto

I have a ~450 page hard back Mustang encyclopedia that talks about all the cars and styles from 1964-2004. It has tons of useless information.