lack of power
#1
lack of power
Recently purchased 93 5.0 gt, five speed, to replace the one that was totaled when a woman hit me.
The car (when I compare it to my other 88gt) just feels like it lacks power, it revs decently, but it doesn't run through the rpm range like the 88, the 88 has the stock 2.73 gears in it, it runs about 1600 rpms in 5th at 55, the 93 runs 2100 rpms (around that) at cruising speed, I thought that lower gears would make the car faster? Also the 93, even with a new radiator, silicone hoses, 180 degree thermostat, fluid flushed several times, the temp will creep above the halfway mark, in my experience with the 180 thermo 5.0's stay at the mark below halfway. All this makes me think the cats might be clogged (at least one of them) Is there anyway I can figure this out?
The car (when I compare it to my other 88gt) just feels like it lacks power, it revs decently, but it doesn't run through the rpm range like the 88, the 88 has the stock 2.73 gears in it, it runs about 1600 rpms in 5th at 55, the 93 runs 2100 rpms (around that) at cruising speed, I thought that lower gears would make the car faster? Also the 93, even with a new radiator, silicone hoses, 180 degree thermostat, fluid flushed several times, the temp will creep above the halfway mark, in my experience with the 180 thermo 5.0's stay at the mark below halfway. All this makes me think the cats might be clogged (at least one of them) Is there anyway I can figure this out?
#2
no theres not. but of the 5 5.0's i have owned, my '89 was much faster than my '93 so it's not your imagination.
anyways... have you confirmed the gear ratio by doing the "turn test" with the wheel and counting DS rev's ?
both cars have the same trans ? you cant even compare aod to 5 speed... it'll be like 100 hp difference
is everything working in the '93 correctly? check for vac leaks and other hp robbing things
any track times with either car ? the "feel" doesnt indicate hp at all
anyways... have you confirmed the gear ratio by doing the "turn test" with the wheel and counting DS rev's ?
both cars have the same trans ? you cant even compare aod to 5 speed... it'll be like 100 hp difference
is everything working in the '93 correctly? check for vac leaks and other hp robbing things
any track times with either car ? the "feel" doesnt indicate hp at all
#3
they're both regular t-5 cars, Its just surprising how much faster the 88 feels than the 93, I don't have track times on either (haven't had the 93 long enough and the 88 is a baby) And I don't know what the rear gear is in the 93 yet. I just aware that the 88 has its stock 2.73 and turns close to 600 rpm less in fifth gear for any given speed. And honestly the 93 (its a five speed) is replacing my wrecked 88 GT auto, and the auto felt just as fast as the 93, I wish I could give you a better comparison, maybe some time today i'll get a quick 0-60 time for both.
#4
Before you go ripping into this problem. You should put a number on this theory of yours.
If the car is missing 10hp or so. Then yes it is. The early speed/density cars were a bit stronger.
Or take it to the track. If it's below 95 mph. Yes it's missing power and should be looked into.
A plugged catalytic is easily diagnoised by temporarily disconnecting the exhaust system.
If the car is missing 10hp or so. Then yes it is. The early speed/density cars were a bit stronger.
Or take it to the track. If it's below 95 mph. Yes it's missing power and should be looked into.
A plugged catalytic is easily diagnoised by temporarily disconnecting the exhaust system.
#5
I switched the fender well intake with a stock one and it seemed to improve the cars performance, also the car is out of time (at least exact time) so I'm going to check that next, I have only done a visual inspection for vacuum leaks. I'm sure its something along those lines. It was pretty astounding the difference the stock air box made
#6
Be aware that the 93 model weighs a decent amount more than the 88, and that the 93 models were advertised with 15(I think? maybe 20) less HP than previous model years, in anticipation of getting more sales on the seemingly "beefier" 94 model. Whether or not they actually did have less HP in stock form, I havn't seen any conclusive evidence.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
KingRando
2005-2014 Mustangs
5
10-02-2015 08:06 AM
MustangForums Editor
General Tech
0
09-25-2015 06:58 PM