compresison ratio

88_GT_5_oh

Sportin' a turbo 5.0 in Canadistan

Jul 4, 2004

1

0

1

WPG/MB/CA

Aug 12, 2005

#1

• Aug 12, 2005

• #1

anyone know what the stock compression ratio is on a 5.0 mustang?


i can't beleive i have to make a thread for this but the search function sucks and i can't find anything on google and it keeps looping me back here, just need it for reference

thanks

 

F

FordGuy88

New Member

Nov 15, 2004

241

0

0

Park Ridge, IL

Aug 12, 2005

#2

• Aug 12, 2005

• #2

I believe it is 9 to 1 or 9.5 to 1

 

88_GT_5_oh

Sportin' a turbo 5.0 in Canadistan

Jul 4, 2004

1

0

1

WPG/MB/CA

Aug 12, 2005

#3

• Aug 12, 2005

• #3

i thought 9:1 was stock, and my buddy thinks its 9.5:1


just trying to settle a dispute. theres a beer on the line here lol

 

88_GT_5_oh

Sportin' a turbo 5.0 in Canadistan

Jul 4, 2004

1

0

1

WPG/MB/CA

Aug 12, 2005

#4

• Aug 12, 2005

• #4

c'mon boys....

 

L

luckythirteen13

New Member

Jul 19, 2005

648

0

0

Anaheim, CA

Aug 12, 2005

#5

• Aug 12, 2005

• #5

ive always heard its 9:1

 

vikingpower

New Member

Dec 6, 2004

656

0

0

CWU Ellensburg, WA

Aug 12, 2005

#6

• Aug 12, 2005

• #6

In my 5.0 mustang technical reference manual it calculates out to 8.8:1. I can post the exact details if you want them from the book.

 

88_GT_5_oh

Sportin' a turbo 5.0 in Canadistan

Jul 4, 2004

1

0

1

WPG/MB/CA

Aug 12, 2005

#7

• Aug 12, 2005

• #7

sure

and if it is 8.8:1 you get the beer casue both me and my buddy were wrong

 

F

FourG63 97GST

New Member

Aug 13, 2005

8

0

0

West Palm Beach, FL

Aug 31, 2005

#8

• Aug 31, 2005

• #8

does anyone has a staight answer, i'm new to the stangs an has been looking for a few days now

 

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash

20+ Year Stangneter

Aug 10, 2002

9,457

1,377

234

Ontario, Canada

Aug 31, 2005

#9

• Aug 31, 2005

• #9

Depending on the year of the engine, if memory serves, the configurations are as follows for the HO "roller" engines.....

'85 5.0L HO was in the 8.8:1 range (Flat tops with valve relief’s, slightly larger combustion chamber E5AE heads)
'86 5.0L HO was in the 9.2:1 range (Flat tops, no valve relief’s, closed chamber E6SE heads)
'87-'93 5.0L HO was in the 9.0:1 range. (Flat tops with valve relief’s and E7TE truck head)

 

txstang84

15 Year Member

May 21, 2005

1,639

42

69

Tuscola, tx

Aug 31, 2005

#10

• Aug 31, 2005

• #10

Gearbanger 101 said:

Depending on the year of the engine, if memory serves, the configurations are as follows for the HO "roller" engines.....

'85 5.0L HO was in the 8.8:1 range (Flat tops with valve relief’s, slightly larger combustion chamber E5AE heads)
'86 5.0L HO was in the 9.2:1 range (Flat tops, no valve relief’s, closed chamber E6SE heads)
'87-'93 5.0L HO was in the 9.0:1 range. (Flat tops with valve relief’s and E7TE truck head)

Click to expand...

 

88_GT_5_oh

Sportin' a turbo 5.0 in Canadistan

Jul 4, 2004

1

0

1

WPG/MB/CA

Sep 1, 2005

#11

• Sep 1, 2005

• #11

holy thread revival........ and i forgot i never got an answer to this lol.


thanks gearbanger

 

Dean85GT

New Member

Nov 27, 2004

502

1

0

Thorold, Ontario, Canada

Sep 1, 2005

#12

• Sep 1, 2005

• #12

My 85 seems to be very blower friendly. Its a shame if I do it I gotta do a blow through carb or get a holley 174...Which will stick like 2 feet over my hood.

 

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash

20+ Year Stangneter

Aug 10, 2002

9,457

1,377

234

Ontario, Canada

Sep 1, 2005

#13

• Sep 1, 2005

• #13

Paxton makes a nice bonnet for a blow through set up....but it isn't cheap.

 

vikingpower

New Member

Dec 6, 2004

656

0

0

CWU Ellensburg, WA

Sep 1, 2005

#14

• Sep 1, 2005

• #14

8.8:1! end of arguement!

 

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash

20+ Year Stangneter

Aug 10, 2002

9,457

1,377

234

Ontario, Canada

Sep 1, 2005

#15

• Sep 1, 2005

• #15

vikingpower said:

8.8:1! end of arguement!

Click to expand...

No it isn't Mr Know-it-all, because it's a well known fact that the '86 HO with flat top pistons and closed chamber heads had a slightly higher CR than any other year. Saying that all years boasted the same CR is just plain wrong!!! It wouldn't be the first time I've seen a technical reference manual post incorrect figures......and this is another one of those times.