• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

Fastest Factory 5.0?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1qckFOX
  • Start date Start date May 23, 2004
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 6
Next
1 of 6 Next Last

1qckFOX

New Member
Jan 1, 2004
139
0
0
May 23, 2004
#1
  • May 23, 2004
  • #1
What year was the fastest factory 5.0 (most hp/torque)
 

88stangmangt

Active Member
Nov 25, 2003
2,332
1
48
Stafford,VA
May 23, 2004
#2
  • May 23, 2004
  • #2
prob the 86-88 H.O 5.0's speed density was a bit faster than mass air stangs(88 for cali and 89 and on for everyone else)
 

66Camaro454

New Member
May 22, 2004
25
0
0
May 23, 2004
#3
  • May 23, 2004
  • #3
that would b the saac mk1 last shelby mustang ever made 300hp dont remember torq
 

88stangmangt

Active Member
Nov 25, 2003
2,332
1
48
Stafford,VA
May 23, 2004
#4
  • May 23, 2004
  • #4
66Camaro454 said:
that would b the saac mk1 last shelby mustang ever made 300hp dont remember torq
Click to expand...
i dont think that is what he meant.
 

1qckFOX

New Member
Jan 1, 2004
139
0
0
May 23, 2004
#5
  • May 23, 2004
  • #5
Yeah, 87-93's thanks anyway
 
J

Js5ohLX

Member
Apr 5, 2004
287
0
16
Ohio
May 23, 2004
#6
  • May 23, 2004
  • #6
It would be 87-88 they are SD, the fastest stock. 86 was choked by the intake, 87-93 were choked by the mass air.
 
8

85GTlover

New Member
Mar 20, 2004
704
0
0
May 23, 2004
#7
  • May 23, 2004
  • #7
85=210hp,270 tq (carbed) 165hp and then 180hp auto
86=200hp 285 tq CFI
87-93= 225hp roughly 280-290tq. EFI
 
D

D347643

Banned
Jan 28, 2003
1,095
0
0
portland, OR
May 23, 2004
#8
  • May 23, 2004
  • #8
haha 86 wasnt cfi dude.
 
8

87'GTstang

New Member
Feb 16, 2004
1,025
0
0
May 23, 2004
#9
  • May 23, 2004
  • #9
87'-88' were the most powerful not just because of SD.
89' - Received MAF and a restritive meter thats cost 3hp
Also received a camshaft revision to make it run smoother, another 3hp
91' - Another camshaft revision that cost another 3-4hp

So 87' and 88' and no MAF meter restriction and a more aggresive cam profile and the rougher idle resulting from it was good for approx. 10 hp over the last few year runs of the 5.0 in the fox.
 
8

87'GTstang

New Member
Feb 16, 2004
1,025
0
0
May 23, 2004
#10
  • May 23, 2004
  • #10
D347643 said:
haha 86 wasnt cfi dude.
Click to expand...
And no it wasn't, it was the first year of SEFI and they had a "turbo swirl" head design that was good for torque but crapped out on the hp department.
 

_jb_

New Member
Mar 4, 2004
808
0
0
Michigan, Berrien County
May 23, 2004
#11
  • May 23, 2004
  • #11
I heard the 85 was the fastest stock Stang. I remember hearing a debate over how fast a Grand National was, but then someone called in and said an 85 Mustang 5.0 was the fastest. I don't have any proof though.
 
8

87'GTstang

New Member
Feb 16, 2004
1,025
0
0
May 23, 2004
#12
  • May 23, 2004
  • #12
_JB_ said:
I heard the 85 was the fastest stock Stang. I remember hearing a debate over how fast a Grand National was, but then someone called in and said an 85 Mustang 5.0 was the fastest. I don't have any proof though.
Click to expand...

1985 was a tricky year when it comes to the numbers. It was offered with a 4 bbl carb setup or CFI.

The carb setup offered 210 hp and 270 lbs/torque
The CFI setup had 165 hp and 245 lb./torque early in the model run, then was upped to 180 hp and 260 lbs. torque from a lot of revisions.

*also although I can't find it, numerous sources state the AOD-backed 5.0's experienced somewhere around 5%-10% less power output than the T5-backed setup.
 
M

mackey

Active Member
Jan 25, 2003
1,284
1
38
Beverly, Massachusetts
May 23, 2004
#13
  • May 23, 2004
  • #13
What about a boss 302
 

95kobrah

Founding Member
Dec 5, 2001
387
0
0
Ohio
May 23, 2004
#14
  • May 23, 2004
  • #14
what about a 93 Cobra, or Cobra R
 
8

87'GTstang

New Member
Feb 16, 2004
1,025
0
0
May 23, 2004
#15
  • May 23, 2004
  • #15
mackey said:
What about a boss 302
Click to expand...
Now a Boss 302 is one badass i'de love to get behind the wheel of and drive
1969' and 1970' - 290 hp and 290 lbs./torque.
But here's the great part, this was during the era of when automakers "underrated" outputs to appease insurance companies. The only reason this car was built was because of the racing rules where x number of these cars must be sold to the public with this engine in order to be a contender back in the trans am circuit. So what was the actual output of these monsters? Many sources said close to 400 actual horsepower

Sorry for the rant, I'd kill for a 67' Shelby GT 500 or a 69' Boss 302 or 429
 
8

87'GTstang

New Member
Feb 16, 2004
1,025
0
0
May 23, 2004
#16
  • May 23, 2004
  • #16
95kobrah said:
what about a 93 Cobra, or Cobra R
Click to expand...
the 93' both Cobra and Cobra R were basically identical with a 235 hp and 280 lbs./torque rating. The difference? Simple, for the Cobra R this was the philosphy: If it didn't make the car handle better, stop quicker, or go faster in a straight line or a track, it wasn't put on the car.
 

95kobrah

Founding Member
Dec 5, 2001
387
0
0
Ohio
May 23, 2004
#17
  • May 23, 2004
  • #17
87'GTstang said:
the 93' both Cobra and Cobra R were basically identical with a 235 hp and 280 lbs./torque rating. The difference? Simple, for the Cobra R this was the philosphy: If it didn't make the car handle better, stop quicker, or go faster in a straight line or a track, it wasn't put on the car.
Click to expand...

nevertheless... i would say they put out better numbers than any other 87-93 5.0... i would venture to say that from the factory those would be the fastest/quickest stock 5.0
 
8

87'GTstang

New Member
Feb 16, 2004
1,025
0
0
May 23, 2004
#18
  • May 23, 2004
  • #18
95kobrah said:
nevertheless... i would say they put out better numbers than any other 87-93 5.0... i would venture to say that from the factory those would be the fastest/quickest stock 5.0
Click to expand...
True, but it wasn't the fastest 5.0/302 produced from the factory. I still don't like throwing that into the comparison for one reason, from 87-93' sales of the 5.0-backed stangs was over 500,000 while the cobra and cobra R combined topped out at 5,100
 
S

scorp69

Founding Member
Feb 5, 2002
605
0
0
California
May 23, 2004
#19
  • May 23, 2004
  • #19
well, the ? was factory stock 5.0, so the 93 cobra/R is it. now, track/street is a different story. but, stock for stock, its the 93 cobra 5.0. 5.0 is the opertive word here. so, no boss 302, etc stangs will be considered. only factory 5.0. 82 and later
 

66Camaro454

New Member
May 22, 2004
25
0
0
May 23, 2004
#20
  • May 23, 2004
  • #20
1qckFOX said:
Yeah, 87-93's thanks anyway
Click to expand...

umm the saac mk 1 is a 92 hatch
 
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 6
Next
1 of 6 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

9
91 LX 5.0 getting hot when a/c is running
  • 91lx14gt5.0s
  • Monday at 8:57 AM
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
14
Views
130
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Yesterday at 12:54 PM
manicmechanic007
M
Paint and Body factory paint colors
  • Magnet86
  • Jan 15, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
7
Views
361
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Feb 3, 2026
85GTStangGuy
Wheels-Tires Factory white ponys, anyone know a color match paint for them?
  • rednotch
  • Apr 26, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
5
Views
252
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Apr 27, 2026
rednotch
G
Engine PATS off pcm for 1999 Explorer 5.0 swap
  • GOvert
  • Dec 23, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
16
Views
751
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jun 14, 2026
GOvert
G
7
What megasquirt kit to order
  • 74delta
  • Yesterday at 8:11 AM
  • Digital Self-tuning Forum
Replies
0
Views
31
Digital Self-tuning Forum Yesterday at 8:11 AM
74delta
7
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang 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?