87-92 5.0 under rated HP?
09-10-2005, 05:33 PM
#2
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location:
Posts: 2,292
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.
09-11-2005, 01:30 AM
#4
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location:
Posts: 197
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.
09-11-2005, 06:58 AM
#6
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location:
Posts: 181
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.
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.
09-11-2005, 09:11 PM
#8
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location:
Posts: 699
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.
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.
09-11-2005, 09:34 PM
#9
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location:
Posts: 8,439
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?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Matt's 95 Stang
5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang
2
10-05-2015 07:16 AM
mungodrums
S550 2015-2023 Mustang
10
09-28-2015 10:54 PM
treesloth
New Member Area
4
09-28-2015 07:03 AM
