90-93 5.0 hp factory hp rating.

[skunk21]

was there any truth to the claims made that the factory under rated the 90-93 225hp rating. you sometimes hear this "that motor made more hp than what ford claimed" statements. I have posted on here that I'm just learning about my 91 5.0 gt and it feels pretty gutsy but it's hard to butt dyno hp . anythoughts.

 

[bentley429]

No they arent under rated, what your feeling is the 3.73's and the torque pretty much.

 

[curtisboyte]

it has been a long time but i think they say it actually made 205 to 215 hp,

 

[GTOreturns]

No. 90-92 were rated at 225HP and 93's were rated at 205HP. Same motor with the exception of Hypter.... pistons in 93. So if anything 93's made 1-3HP more!

 

[SVT32VDOHC]

Stock ratings were 225HP. Some argued it was really 235HP. The stock ratings on the Cobra were 240HP. Some argued it was really 275HP. I have a Mustang book that says that they underated the Cobra purposly because they knew Chvrolet had the new LT1 275HP Camaro in 1993. According to the book, the Cobra out ran it at the track.

As far as Dyno numbers, I have seen stock 5.0L's put down 207RWHP stock!!!
I have also seen them put down only 170-180RWHP. It really does depend on the car, the condition, the mileage, and the type of dynometer. Getting your car dynoed would be the best way to find where it is at and where you want it to be. Just by tweaking timing and spark curves, air/fuel ratios, and rev limiters, you can pull a few more out of your pony.

For first mods, a good CAI, underdrive pullies, off-road h-pipe, catback exhaust and maybe even a gear would set you of to a good start!!

 

[the pony boy]

that under rated stuff mostly applied to older muscle cars that made upwards 400 hp to keep insurance and stuf down.i doubt ford would under estimate a 225 hp motor,i wish they did but they didnt. phil

 

[onefstsnake]

yeah most well maintained stock 5.0's run ~200hp

I put down 220/284 with just pullies and exhaust.

 

[GTOreturns]

Actually 200 to the wheels is really good. The norm is a little lower, 185-190.

 

[Turkey Sammich]

It all comes down to the car when it's time to dyno. I would go ahead and dyno it, just to get a base reading. That way you know where you're at, and how far you've gone when you dyno it the next time.

 

[skunk21]

yeah that's the plan. I was just curious. hear alot of talk about factory #'s being off so I was just wondering. I hear alot of talk about the 390hp terminator cobra guys saying that those numbers are bull, they think they are over 400hp from the factory and some guys I talked to thought the same about the 5.0's . I was just looking for the general groups opinion on the subject.

 

[RS200]

From what I understand, the '93 had a dumber camshaft, which explained the power loss. The '93 Cobra had the same cam, but with the Cobra intake, bigger MAF, etc. If anything, the Cobra will make 5 or 10 HP more than a 1987-1992 GT, and the same torque. Cobras seem to run maybe 0.1 to 0.2 seconds faster than a stock 1987-1992 GT. Always remember, all dynos are different. A Mustang dyno reads 5-10% lower than a Dynojet, and I'm sure there are a few that read higher than typical. A dyno should only be used for tuning. It is unfair to use it as a comparison when all other measurements can be different. That being said, I believe the 275HP claim is not true. "Most" 1987-1992 Mustangs dyno around 190whp, stock. As for 1993, I have no clue.

R&T says the Cobra will run 14.5 at the track (I don't know what gears). Period magazine tests put the '93 Z/28 at 14.4 (don't know what gears or transmission).

Stock Terminators usually dyno around 375 at the wheels. According to Ford, they'd make around 330 at the wheels.

 

[25thmustang]

I don't know about the cams being different in 1993s, but the power ratings changed because of how the cars were rated, not because of different engine parts. A 1993 Cobra's weakest downfall is the computer and with just an LX or GT comp they run much stronger. As far as being faster, yes a stocker 93 Cobra should be a bit faster than a GT or LX and dyno a good deal more power. The thing with them is the ease to go faster and faster. Just the regular exhaust, MAF, and gears will throw one deep into the 13s if not better on a tire. The parts are there to run strong, whereas the GTs and LXs had a tougher time. Faster than an LT1, not so sure, but a good race with the driver being the largest advantage.

 

[cenok is family]

I don't know about the cams being different in 1993s, but the power ratings changed because of how the cars were rated, not because of different engine parts. A 1993 Cobra's weakest downfall is the computer and with just an LX or GT comp they run much stronger. As far as being faster, yes a stocker 93 Cobra should be a bit faster than a GT or LX and dyno a good deal more power. The thing with them is the ease to go faster and faster. Just the regular exhaust, MAF, and gears will throw one deep into the 13s if not better on a tire. The parts are there to run strong, whereas the GTs and LXs had a tougher time. Faster than an LT1, not so sure, but a good race with the driver being the largest advantage.

they did change the cam. 87-92's were rated 225hp and 300tq, 93's were rated 205hp and 275tq. 93 cobra's were rated conservatively at 235hp and 280tq. if you want to get technical though, 89-92's had a tad less power, due to the addition of the more restrictive mass air system air inlet tract, but not enough to make a difference. also, a small cam profile change was done to help reduce valvetrain noise. both changes resulted in a 2-3hp loss a piece, neither of which were reflected in the total hp rating. The estimate for 93 was more accurate because the previous power ratings were made before the addition of the mass air flow system, the minor cam revision, and other various changes. all 93 and up stangs have hypereutectic pistons.

The reduced ratings were influenced by a stack-up of minor mechanical changes and by changes to Ford’s engine evaluation processes. Dictated mainly by emissions, fuel economy and customer satisfaction requirements, a series of mechanical revisions had been made since Ford initially assigned the engine’s 225-horsepower rating for 1987. These include a restrictive resonator added to the inlet tract (1987-1993) that produced a 5-7 horsepower loss. The small camshaft profile change in 1989 reduced HO output by 3 horsepower. The restrictive mass airflow meter in the inlet tract introduced in 1989 yields 2-3 horsepower less than the speed density system. Some minor exhaust system revisions made between 1987-1993 also add up to another small reduction in engine output. The second contributing factor in the re-rating of the ‘93 V8 involved changes in the processes that Ford used to select engines for testing and the engine’s state of dress (with all engine-driven accessories) during testing. Combined with the ‘87-93 mechanical revisions, the revised-for-1993 testing procedures add up to the ‘93 model year’s reduced output ratings.

last paragraph was taken from mustanggt.org

 

[skunk21]

that was some good reading right there, I don't care who you are.

 

[QUICK91LX]

The reduced ratings were influenced by a stack-up of minor mechanical changes and by changes to Ford’s engine evaluation processes. Dictated mainly by emissions, fuel economy and customer satisfaction requirements, a series of mechanical revisions had been made since Ford initially assigned the engine’s 225-horsepower rating for 1987. These include a restrictive resonator added to the inlet tract (1987-1993) that produced a 5-7 horsepower loss. The small camshaft profile change in 1989 reduced HO output by 3 horsepower. The restrictive mass airflow meter in the inlet tract introduced in 1989 yields 2-3 horsepower less than the speed density system. Some minor exhaust system revisions made between 1987-1993 also add up to another small reduction in engine output. The second contributing factor in the re-rating of the ‘93 V8 involved changes in the processes that Ford used to select engines for testing and the engine’s state of dress (with all engine-driven accessories) during testing. Combined with the ‘87-93 mechanical revisions, the revised-for-1993 testing procedures add up to the ‘93 model year’s reduced output ratings.

There's your answer friends and neighbors...

Now just don't avoid 93's because you think they are somehow slower. They run every bit as hard as a car from any other year.

 

[Turkey Sammich]

There's your answer friends and neighbors...

Now just don't avoid 93's because you think they are somehow slower. They run every bit as hard as a car from any other year.

My 93 isn't slow.

Well it's not fast neither... but that's nothing heads/cam/intake and 125 shot of nos wont resolve.

 

[QUICK91LX]

yeah that's the plan. I was just curious. hear alot of talk about factory #'s being off so I was just wondering. I hear alot of talk about the 390hp terminator cobra guys saying that those numbers are bull, they think they are over 400hp from the factory and some guys I talked to thought the same about the 5.0's . I was just looking for the general groups opinion on the subject.

There is definitely truth to the terminators being underrated. Depending on the car, they have dyno'd anywhere from ~350-375 at the wheels. Using a constant, ballpark figure of 15% drivetrain loss, the expected figure would be more around 330 at the wheels. Using that same 15%, a car that dyno's around 365 is actually making closer to 420 at the flywheel.

As for the 5.0's, eeh not so much. Its very common to see them around 185-190 at the wheels bone stock, which is roughly where it should be, if you once again use the 15% drivetrain loss.

 

[Foxfan88]

87-88 car that were SD had a different cam profile. it was actually more agressive than the 89-up cams. everyone tells me the 87-88 5.0s run harder stock than a MAF car.

the cam was downgraded a bit in 89 with the MAF system and the engine virtually remained unchanged until 94 (except for hypereutectic pistons on late 92), maybe some small BS but didnt really affect power. the whole 93 making less power is a load of BS, that was done by for to make the 94 cars appear more powerful.

and the 93 cobras IMO are underrated, they have great heads and intake factory, and have 24lb injectors and the computer is TUNED from the factory with all these mods. i would guess a nice running cobra makes 230-250 to the wheels while a regular gt makes 180-200 to the wheels.

 

[795.0pacecar]

My stock 88 engine, speed density, and drivetrain, with the only mod being a full exhaust made 220rwhp and 285rwtq before I changed the heads and intake.

 

[ryan218]

My stock 88 engine, speed density, and drivetrain, with the only mod being a full exhaust made 220rwhp and 285rwtq before I changed the heads and intake.

on what dyno?