87-92 5.0 under rated HP? - MustangForums.com

Go Back  MustangForums.com > Ford Mustang Tech > 5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang
Reload this Page >

87-92 5.0 under rated HP?

5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang Technical discussions on 5.0 Liter Mustangs within. This does not include the 5.0 from the 2011 Mustang GT. That information is in the 2005-1011 section.

87-92 5.0 under rated HP?

Reply

 
 
 
Old 09-10-2005, 05:27 PM
  #1  
MrFedEx503
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location:
Posts: 181
Default 87-92 5.0 under rated HP?

I was just reading how the 5.0's are very underrated... is this true, and if so how much HP are they really pushin? it seems like it has more then 225Hp
MrFedEx503 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2005, 05:33 PM
  #2  
seight311
5th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location:
Posts: 2,292
Default RE: 87-92 5.0 under rated HP?

I think anywhere from 220-240 is a fair statement, the biggest thing about the fox bodies though is the weight, compared to a 94-95 still with the 5.0 your about 300 lbs. under a 94-95 (90-93 Coupe-2775, 94-95 Coupe 3077) And I believe the 94-95 GT's are only rated at 215-220 HP.
seight311 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2005, 05:35 PM
  #3  
wildstang87
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location:
Posts: 466
Default RE: 87-92 5.0 under rated HP?

actually fords rating is very accurate. if you figure most 87-93s make around 180rwhp stock, add the 17% drivetrain loss and that gives you 210hp at the flywheel.
wildstang87 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2005, 01:30 AM
  #4  
Predator
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location:
Posts: 197
Default RE: 87-92 5.0 under rated HP?

As far as I can tell, a fully rebuilt 302 with stock everything makes 191 rwhp which is about 225 hp at the fly. Yeah, sorry but these numbers are pretty accurate, the numbers aren't lower like they were back when 350hp really meant 400+. Mostly why they feel like they are more powerful than 225hp is because of the 280ish lbs of torque that the engines put out. However, the great thing about the 5.0 is that it is usually restricted in many ways, from making what it could (intake/exhaust/injectors/heads and the like), so the simple bolt ons usually make a relatively noticable boost in performance.
Predator is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2005, 01:33 AM
  #5  
dc_mann8
5th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: PEI, Canada
Posts: 2,985
Default RE: 87-92 5.0 under rated HP?

heads on a 5.0 = major power
dc_mann8 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2005, 06:58 AM
  #6  
MrFedEx503
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location:
Posts: 181
Default RE: 87-92 5.0 under rated HP?

ORIGINAL: Predator

As far as I can tell, a fully rebuilt 302 with stock everything makes 191 rwhp which is about 225 hp at the fly. Yeah, sorry but these numbers are pretty accurate, the numbers aren't lower like they were back when 350hp really meant 400+. Mostly why they feel like they are more powerful than 225hp is because of the 280ish lbs of torque that the engines put out. However, the great thing about the 5.0 is that it is usually restricted in many ways, from making what it could (intake/exhaust/injectors/heads and the like), so the simple bolt ons usually make a relatively noticable boost in performance.
why are you applogizing lol? i dont care i just want my facts st8 on my car thats all
MrFedEx503 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2005, 04:48 PM
  #7  
91stang
4th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location:
Posts: 1,860
Default RE: 87-92 5.0 under rated HP?

one thing that i did hear was that ford underrated the torque for insurance reasons????
91stang is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2005, 09:11 PM
  #8  
Pure5.0
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location:
Posts: 699
Default RE: 87-92 5.0 under rated HP?

215-225 is what the 5.0s put out stock at the flywheel. RWHP is around 185-190hp. I dynoed my completely stock 5.0 and push 189.45hp to the wheels. Not bad for 120K miles on it. Runs great.

But the reason they feel more powerful is because fords make torquey engines. The 5.0s are rated to put out 275lbs of TQ which I dynoed 265lbs at the rear.
Pure5.0 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2005, 09:34 PM
  #9  
92hatchLX
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location:
Posts: 8,439
Default RE: 87-92 5.0 under rated HP?

No that really isn't bad at all stock especially with 120k miles. I've got 140k and the engine hasn't been beaten on too much so I'm probably at about the same as you pure. How much did the dyno cost you?
92hatchLX is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
 
 
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
mustang0291
5.0L General Discussion
6
10-12-2015 07:55 AM
Urambo Tauro
5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang
6
10-05-2015 09:37 PM
Matt's 95 Stang
5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang
2
10-05-2015 07:16 AM
mungodrums
The New S550 2015-2020 Mustang
10
09-28-2015 10:54 PM
treesloth
New Member Area
4
09-28-2015 07:03 AM

Forum Jump

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Advertising
Featured Sponsors
Vendor Directory