jasonh_86 said:
I get what you're sayin now
I was just saying that it seemed like they didnt even move how much hp they had (actually, didnt it decrease a little from the 87-93's?) with the new body style.
I just expected there to be more power with new looks. I realized how much hp the 87-93 had, but that was pretty normal for their time, wasnt it? But i dunno..
Good points David, I just had to gripe about something
I'll throw out some other points...I'm still bored at work...
Your thinking of the 87-92 5.0's being rated at 225hp and the 93 models being rated at 205hp (underated)...the 93 Cobra's are rated at 235hp (underrated)...and the 94/95 sn-95 were rated at 215hp (slightly more restrictive intake/but with electric fan so it was basically canceled out)...
The 92-93 comparison in horsepower was strickly a marketing ploy...the 1993 5.0 had hypereutic (sp?) pistons which were actually lighter than the forged so the power was the same techincally with the edge going towards the 93 compared to the 92...the marketing ploy was there because the Sn95 was to be introduced the next year in 94 but Ford didn't want the previous model (93) to have more horsepower than their new model (94)...they want the Sn95 to be succesful (which it was) so they were willing to "hurt" the Hp numbers of the 93 to "heal" the 94-95 and beyond...
Actually the 87-93 5.0 dyno virtually the same if you compare year vs. year not MAF vs. SD...the numbers tend to vary in the later years due to all kinds of variables: State of tune, break-in procedure, 5spd or AOD, mileage, etc...
This is straight out of a book I have which is titled "Mustang 5.0 & 4.6"...which further backs up the above info...
"...Ford lowered the horsepower number to 205 for 1993 only. The engine didn't just lose horsepower; Ford's official line was that the method by which it rated horsepower had been changed and that this was really a more accurate number."
Down the page it talks about the hints that it was a marketing ploy because Ford could not fathom putting the new model car (94+) with 10hp less than the previous model...Ford denies this...but it makes complete sense...
Think about it this way...Instead of the 04 Viper having 500hp...how would you like to buy a 05 Viper with 475hp....same principle applies...
Now just because the engine wasn't upgraded (powerwise) that doesn't mean they didn't get upgraded. An sn95 is a better platform for an "overall car" IMO than a fox.
Examples are that the 94/95 body style has a redesigned floor-plan, revised front crossmember, X-brace stiffening structure placed underneath the oil pan...even though the front suspension is still the MacPherson strut style unit the geometry and mounting bolts were revised also...along with the different spindles. The front crossmember was moved up slightly and the control arms are a bit longer and larger boxed sections were made into roof rails and rocker panels to help any kind of flexing problem...and with all this and some other slight changes the body is 56% stronger in the bending aspect and 44% stiffer in the torsion area than the foxbodied platform...
The wheelbase is almost an inch longer and is about 2 inches wider and you could get the optional ABS in the mustangs those years...and the Gt has 10.8in disc brakes in front and 10.5 in the back...a far cry from those "baby" disc in the fox and those musical instruments in the back (drums)...
I've drove both and definitely prefer the Sn95...much better ride overall...
I think the power numbers for the time were fine. But just remember the difference between 93' and 94's is one production day
geeeeez david.. my knowledge of cars just got PWNT! 
I know on paper (and from personal experience) that the 98's (of the 94-98's) has the ever so slightly edge on the other sn95's. Stock for stock...not modified
