• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech

"94-95 intake is restrictive, exhaust is good"

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimTMich
  • Start date Start date Dec 12, 2003
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
J

JimTMich

Member
Mar 20, 2003
161
0
16
Michigan
Dec 12, 2003
#1
  • Dec 12, 2003
  • #1
Was looking through some Kenne Bell literature and their notes say that the 94-95 GT's intakes are very restrictive. I guess that is why I find it best to shift at about 4200-4500 when my buddy's older 5.0 runs nice to 5500. Is this what you have found? are the heads the same between older 5.0's and the 94-95?

Kenne Bell literature also says the the 94-95 exhuast is good for quite a while and not worth changing. What does everyone think?

Jim
 
9

94DreamGT

Founding Member
Jul 19, 2000
593
0
16
Indiana
Dec 12, 2003
#2
  • Dec 12, 2003
  • #2
Please copy and paste that exact literature here or give us a link...sounds like there is some misinformation in here.

The stock intake, exhaust, heads, etc...are all restrictive to a point, some more than others. It is by replacing these with higher-flowing aftermarket components that you create more horsepower. This is magnified as well by forced induction.

The biggest bottleneck is probably the intake, but it's all part of a combination and by freeing up the intake, you are just moving the bottleneck to a different area. This is why it is so crucial to get a properly matched H/C/I TB, MAF, Exhaust etc...comboniation. The most horsepower in stock form that is being trapped is located in the stock heads.

As for the shift points, stock componenets shoudl make power at least up to 4800 and your shifts should come at 5200 give or take.

1987 to 1995 5.0's all use the same Cylinder Heads (E7TE)
 

Trick95

Founding Member
Jan 20, 2000
2,298
0
47
Detroit, MI
Dec 12, 2003
#3
  • Dec 12, 2003
  • #3
I've always heard that the stock exhaust isn't that restrictive on a mostly stock motor.
 

1105

I AM the random post master...bow down
May 3, 2003
3,841
0
0
Daytona Bch, FL
Dec 12, 2003
#4
  • Dec 12, 2003
  • #4
94DreamGT said:
The biggest bottleneck is probably the intake
Click to expand...
I always thought the heads were the most restrictive part on our cars anyways all of that stuff is probably going to get replaced with aftermarket parts anyways
 
9

94DreamGT

Founding Member
Jul 19, 2000
593
0
16
Indiana
Dec 12, 2003
#5
  • Dec 12, 2003
  • #5
The stock heads restrict the greatest horsepower, therefore they are the largest source of untapped horsepower from the motor so-to-speak. But when talking about actual bottleneck's, the intake is larger because that isn't even allowing the full potential of the stock heads.

I've heard about many cases where guys replace the stock heads with nice aftermarket aluminum heads and don't pick up nearly the horsepower they should...reason being is the stock intake is the biggest bottleneck.

On the flipside, there are many guys running aftermarket intakes on stock heads and going well into the mid 13's at over 100mph (myself included). You don't usually see these numbers with stock intakes no matter what heads they have (or at least I haven't seen too many).
 

WhiteDevil

New Member
Feb 4, 2003
2,717
0
0
San Diego
Dec 12, 2003
#6
  • Dec 12, 2003
  • #6
Yup you got it man

E7TE Heads = SUCK
Stock GT Intake = SUCKS MORE
 

Eric94GTvert

Founding Member
May 13, 2002
596
1
16
PA, Nazareth
Dec 12, 2003
#7
  • Dec 12, 2003
  • #7
94DreamGT said:
Please copy and paste that exact literature here or give us a link...sounds like there is some misinformation in here.

The stock intake, exhaust, heads, etc...are all restrictive to a point, some more than others. It is by replacing these with higher-flowing aftermarket components that you create more horsepower. This is magnified as well by forced induction.

The biggest bottleneck is probably the intake, but it's all part of a combination and by freeing up the intake, you are just moving the bottleneck to a different area. This is why it is so crucial to get a properly matched H/C/I TB, MAF, Exhaust etc...comboniation. The most horsepower in stock form that is being trapped is located in the stock heads.

As for the shift points, stock componenets shoudl make power at least up to 4800 and your shifts should come at 5200 give or take.
Click to expand...

Everything in the KB article is on point.
Basically KB said the intake is the biggest restriction and you agree to that.
Also, the article states the exhaust side is not as restrictive as the intake side of the engine and NOONE can argue with that statement. The stock exhaust is good for quite a bit of horsepower above the stock output and most people know that. The exhaust is changed out more for SOUND than power in near stock applications.

So, you say there's mis-information in the KB statement but you also agree with it. I don't understand?
 

HtownGT

New Member
Dec 5, 2002
544
0
0
Houston
Dec 12, 2003
#8
  • Dec 12, 2003
  • #8
WhiteDevil said:
Yup you got it man

E7TE Heads = SUCK
Stock GT Intake = SUCKS MORE
Click to expand...

i like that. it should be made a sticky so everyone knows it that is new to sn95 5.0 stangs.
 

Eric94GTvert

Founding Member
May 13, 2002
596
1
16
PA, Nazareth
Dec 12, 2003
#9
  • Dec 12, 2003
  • #9
HtownGT said:
i like that. it should be made a sticky so everyone knows it that is new to sn95 5.0 stangs.
Click to expand...

Should be in our owners manual.(lol)
 

zenboy99

Founding Member
May 12, 2002
2,212
0
47
Madison, WI
Dec 12, 2003
#10
  • Dec 12, 2003
  • #10
I completely agree with that article. Headers and H-pipe didn't really wake my car up as much as I thought, my ET didn't change at all. Edelbrock intake made a big difference, the car pulled well past 5000rpm.
 
9

94DreamGT

Founding Member
Jul 19, 2000
593
0
16
Indiana
Dec 12, 2003
#11
  • Dec 12, 2003
  • #11
Chopped Liver said:
Everything in the KB article is on point.
Basically KB said the intake is the biggest restriction and you agree to that.
Also, the article states the exhaust side is not as restrictive as the intake side of the engine and NOONE can argue with that statement. The stock exhaust is good for quite a bit of horsepower above the stock output and most people know that. The exhaust is changed out more for SOUND than power in near stock applications.

So, you say there's mis-information in the KB statement but you also agree with it. I don't understand?
Click to expand...

I thought he was saying something about KB saying he could only rev to 4500...I was mistaken. I'm not disagreeing with anything KB was saying...I would still like to see what they said verbatim.

However...there is no way the stock catalytic H-pipe is good exhaust for anythign for awhile..that is a big restriction. Headers and catback...not so much.
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Dec 12, 2003
#12
  • Dec 12, 2003
  • #12
JimTMich said:
Kenne Bell literature also says the the 94-95 exhuast is good for quite a while and not worth changing. What does everyone think?

Jim
Click to expand...

Jim

I want to share some findings on our stock 94-95 catback with you and others.

My dyno #'s were with stock catback, tb, & maf as sig shows.

After I got my baseline dyno pulls I knew it was time to upgrade the last few remaining stock parts.

I was not sure which place would be best to start for more airflow, the front(tb & maf) or the back(catback).

My Tweecer will show airflow thru the maf at any rpm.

I made a 2nd gear pull on a flat road from about 2500 to 6k rpms and datalogged the airflow for a baseline.

Within the same hour I did the same kind of pull with my k&n discoed and airflow went up a good amount.

About an hour later with the k&n back on but the catback discoed I did the same pull again and showed no more airflow than the baseline.

I found this hard to believe but I double checked everything and the test was valid.

Needless to say I still have the stock catback and am in the process of getting my new tb & maf dialed in.

The catback will be the last stock part to be upgraded.

Later
Grady
 

WhiteDevil

New Member
Feb 4, 2003
2,717
0
0
San Diego
Dec 12, 2003
#13
  • Dec 12, 2003
  • #13
Well in real world track numbers i dropped .3 and got 3mph with my Edelbrock intake, and dropped .3 and got 3 mph out of my full exhaust so im thinkin they are both pretty bad. Also i did my intake manifold , then i did a 65mm throttle body, pro-m 75mm MAF, and a CAI and i got around 0 mph and dropped nothing from my E.T.
 

WhiteDevil

New Member
Feb 4, 2003
2,717
0
0
San Diego
Dec 12, 2003
#14
  • Dec 12, 2003
  • #14
Woah my first doublt post
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Dec 12, 2003
#15
  • Dec 12, 2003
  • #15
WhiteDevil said:
Well in real world track numbers i dropped .3 and got 3mph with my Edelbrock intake, and dropped .3 and got 3 mph out of my full exhaust so im thinkin they are both pretty bad. Also i did my intake manifold , then i did a 65mm throttle body, pro-m 75mm MAF, and a CAI and i got around 0 mph and dropped nothing from my E.T.
Click to expand...

Great info, thanks for sharing!

I did not mean to imply that the stock exhaust manifolds or stock cat-pipe would not be restrictive.

It's just the catback that I question.

Later
Grady
 

Rootus

Officially Addicted
Feb 8, 2003
6,659
1
0
Portland, Oregon
Dec 12, 2003
#16
  • Dec 12, 2003
  • #16
final5-0 said:
Great info, thanks for sharing!

I did not mean to imply that the stock exhaust manifolds or stock cat-pipe would not be restrictive.

It's just the catback that I question.

Later
Grady
Click to expand...
I am tempted to get a stock catback for my car to quiet the damn thing down. With the X-pipe and MAC cat-back, it's quite audible. Just got a "Exhibition of Speed" ticket a few days ago that had everything to do with how loud the car is, nothing to do with acceleration (no tire spin, below 45 mph, etc).

Dave
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Dec 12, 2003
#17
  • Dec 12, 2003
  • #17
HairyCanary said:
I am tempted to get a stock catback for my car to quiet the damn thing down. With the X-pipe and MAC cat-back, it's quite audible. Just got a "Exhibition of Speed" ticket a few days ago that had everything to do with how loud the car is, nothing to do with acceleration (no tire spin, below 45 mph, etc).

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave

After the last batch of parts I put on which were heads, cam, lt's, & h-pipe, my exhaust got a lot louder!!!

It is nowhere as loud as say flows and such but still not like before.

I guess it's cause I'm makin more power.

I am thinking about a Dynomax superturbo catback. You have any thoughts???

Later
Grady
 
B

beemrmem3

Founding Member
Jan 8, 2002
831
0
0
Washington
Dec 13, 2003
#18
  • Dec 13, 2003
  • #18
I picked up quite a bit of speed at the track when i changed from stock exhaust to a O/R X-pipe and Flowmaster cat-back. I went from 92.8mph to 96.5mph. The only other mod i did was advance the timing from 10 to 14 degrees.
 

Rootus

Officially Addicted
Feb 8, 2003
6,659
1
0
Portland, Oregon
Dec 13, 2003
#19
  • Dec 13, 2003
  • #19
final5-0 said:
I am thinking about a Dynomax superturbo catback. You have any thoughts???
Click to expand...
I'll either do stock mufflers welded in with 2.5" pipes, or Dynomax Superturbos. I'm almost 100% positive that Dynomax is the manufacturer of the OEM mufflers, so I wouldn't be surprised if the stock ones are some flavor of Superturbo.

You and I have very similar engine combos. I can tell you that with an O/R X-pipe and MAC cat-back, it's audible for quite a ways. Great for the track (I get people coming up to me all the time asking what kind of exhaust I have, they really like the sound), but not so great for the street.

Dave
 

WhiteDevil

New Member
Feb 4, 2003
2,717
0
0
San Diego
Dec 13, 2003
#20
  • Dec 13, 2003
  • #20
OH yeah gotta love the O/R X and MAC. So great sounding but your right its loud as hell.
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Help with 95 GT
  • waynewl34
  • Apr 5, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
1
Views
303
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 5, 2025
Noobz347
For Sale 94 Cobra 408w AOD Project For Sale
  • Labora
  • Oct 11, 2024
  • SN95 Mustangs For Sale (1994-04)
Replies
1
Views
1K
SN95 Mustangs For Sale (1994-04) Apr 7, 2025
Labora
3
94 Gt to 84 Fox
  • 351C-84'Fox
  • May 16, 2024
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
8
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 17, 2024
351C-84'Fox
3
Which one of these 3 intakes make the most sense for my 331 combo
  • from6to8
  • Jul 25, 2024
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Replies
7
Views
2K
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech Jul 26, 2024
AeroCoupe
Drivetrain 83’ Glx convertible C5 Trans help!
  • JacksonJared2113
  • Dec 25, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
2
Views
393
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Dec 26, 2025
JacksonJared2113
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?