Fastest Factory 5.0?

5spd GT · Sep 29, 2004

HaggardGT said:
If you ask me, the '93 Cobra was no faster than a '93 notch... in fact, if you lined the two up on a fair day for racing and had at it, the notch would probably take the Cobra by a small margin due to its greater rigidity and lighter curb weight. 10 Crank horsepower more out of the '93 Cobra engine only equates to about 2 or 3 RWHP. Personally I'd have to say the '87-'88 notch would take 'em all.

The 93 Cobra would own a 93 notch...the horsepower ratings are underated on the Cobra...it actually has closer to around 270hp...it had gt40 heads, 1.7 RR's, bigger MAF, and Cobra intake...93 Cobra would beat a notch with no problems...Actually 10 crank horsepower is about 7 horsepower at the wheels...

The 93 horsepower rating (205hp) was strickly a marketing ploy to make the Sn95 (94-95 Gt's) look that much better with their 225hp the next year...that is the real reason why they did it...they claimed they changed the way they rated the cars and 205hp was a more accurate number for the 87-93 5.0...

It's like buying an 03 Viper with 500hp and then Dodge comes out with the 04 Viper with 450hp...the same principle applies...

eighty8 · Sep 29, 2004

Old post but I thought I would add my 2 cents... Go buy the Fox recignition guide its around 20 - 25 bucks and can be purchased on E-bay or any book store. It has all the stats, and is very informative. When testing to be a judge for the Mustang Club of America 3rd Gen (Fox body) they suggest using this book as a study guide.

Thomas302 · Sep 29, 2004

I also heard that the 85 was the fastest, but if we are talking 87-93, I think it would be the 87-88 SD mustangs. Just my .02.

GTPlus · Sep 29, 2004

5spd GT said:
The 93 Cobra would own a 93 notch...the horsepower ratings are underated on the Cobra...it actually has closer to around 270hp...it had gt40 heads, 1.7 RR's, bigger MAF, and Cobra intake...93 Cobra would beat a notch with no problems...Actually 10 crank horsepower is about 7 horsepower at the wheels...
QUOTE]

I would agree here I have no trouble what so ever with a stock as well as mildly modified notch or H.B. in my stock 93 Cobra. Though the 93 R will take me every time, making it IMO the fastest. My brothers carbed 85 was nowhere near as fast as my Cobra, he has since sold it and has a 93 vert that is again no trouble for the Cobra

FWIW the SAAC car has nothing to do with SVT creating the Cobra.

Xterminator03 · Sep 29, 2004

89 After that they started putting more limitation on the motor due new emision crap but on most stats sheet it does not reflect the loss. any way the lost was nery little about 5-10 hp from 90-93.

SPEED FREAK · Sep 29, 2004

first year for fuel injection on the mustang was the automatic 84/ Came equiped with CFI (crappy fuel injection) and was carried over to 85 again auto only. and in 86 was the first year for sefi on the mustang. several updates were made in 87 to the system but it was the same system for the most part. I had an 84 GT350 anniversary gt with CFI and an AOD. BLECH crappiest efi ever. but if you need some 140 lb/hr injectors there you go lol. They came with 2 each.

CManT1914 · Sep 29, 2004

I don't know if anybody has already mentioned this, I'm to lazy to read the whole post. But what about the 95 GTS? Isn't it a production car? They were supposed to weigh about the same as the Fox body's right? Plus they benefit from a stronger chassis. Or are we talking only Fox Body cars?

mackey · Sep 29, 2004

CManT1914 said:
I don't know if anybody has already mentioned this, I'm to lazy to read the whole post. But what about the 95 GTS? Isn't it a production car? They were supposed to weigh about the same as the Fox body's right? Plus they benefit from a stronger chassis. Or are we talking only Fox Body cars?

Yes they weigh as much as a GT. The LX notchbacks were still lighter. The SN95 is a better all around/comfort car imo.

5spd GT · Sep 29, 2004

mackey said:
Yes they weigh as much as a GT. The LX notchbacks were still lighter. The SN95 is a better all around/comfort car imo.

Yep the SN95 GTS weighs about the equivalent of a base 87-93 Gt coupe...but most of the lx's are still lighter...but as mackey stated the Sn-95 is a far superior chassis and more comfortable...but still the lightest fox will beat the lightest Sn-95...

DCjuggalo · Sep 29, 2004

ive never heard of the gt's and hatchbacks flexing more than the coupes, did the coupes get subframe connectors or somthing?

FastDriver · Sep 29, 2004

Out of the factory, I believe that the 87-88 optionless coupes were faster than any other production 5.0 except the 93 Cobra. I'd like to see any 85 Carbed cars that ran in the 13s off of the showroom floor.

Mustang5L5 · Sep 29, 2004

85GTlover said:
Umm.........what is it then? EFI and SEFI were later so maybe you should not be laughing too hard.

'86 is SEFI.

EFI and SEFI are the same thing. SEFI is a type of EFI. It stands for Sequential Electronic fuel injection. The '86 motor is sequential as the injectors fire independantly of each other.

Ford kinda gets confusing sometimes with it. On some vehicle, they list it as SEFI and others just plain EFI. In the car of the 86+ Mustang and all EFI 302's it the same thing. I don't know of any 5.0 motors that got batch-fire.

FastDriver · Sep 29, 2004

5spd GT said:
The 93 Cobra would own a 93 notch...the horsepower ratings are underated on the Cobra...it actually has closer to around 270hp...it had gt40 heads, 1.7 RR's, bigger MAF, and Cobra intake...93 Cobra would beat a notch with no problems...Actually 10 crank horsepower is about 7 horsepower at the wheels...

First let me make a disclaimer since you and I have gone round for round with each other, already. Holy crap! You and I are in complete agreement about stock 5.0s for once! I'm quoting this for the most part because this is exactly what I wanted to say in response to the guy who thinks the coupes would outrun a 93 Cobra.

I actually got to see a bone stock 93 cobra on the dyno. It put down 224rwhp. If you work that out, you come up with roughly 260 and change at the crank. I've also seen this debate on the internet a few times. I believe several cobra owners claimed their bone-stock cobras went mid 13s. One that I remember in particular said he went 13.6. I doubt the threads are still online, but I'll look around for them.

The 93 horsepower rating (205hp) was strickly a marketing ploy to make the Sn95 (94-95 Gt's) look that much better with their 225hp the next year...that is the real reason why they did it...they claimed they changed the way they rated the cars and 205hp was a more accurate number for the 87-93 5.0...

True to an extent. I don't deny that this was partly a marketing ploy by Ford. However, the ploy was in rerating the cars during this year, not in the output that they made. As already mentioned by a few others, there were cam, MAF, and computer revisions that accounted for the losses in power between 87 and 93. Between the years 91 and 93, though, there were no significant changes. That said, I've never really looked into comparisons of dyno numbers on 5.0s varying by years of production. I know, though that I've seen stock SD cars (with possibly different catbacks - memory is a little fuzzy) dyno over 200 rwhp. I've seen many bone-stockers dyno over 190 rwhp. That, I believe you'll find comes pretty close to ford's claim for power on the earlier models.

Later,

Chris

5spd GT · Sep 29, 2004

FastDriver said:
True to an extent. I don't deny that this was partly a marketing ploy by Ford. However, the ploy was in rerating the cars during this year, not in the output that they made. As already mentioned by a few others, there were cam, MAF, and computer revisions that accounted for the losses in power between 87 and 93. Between the years 91 and 93, though, there were no significant changes. That said, I've never really looked into comparisons of dyno numbers on 5.0s varying by years of production. I know, though that I've seen stock SD cars (with possibly different catbacks - memory is a little fuzzy) dyno over 200 rwhp. I've seen many bone-stockers dyno over 190 rwhp. That, I believe you'll find comes pretty close to ford's claim for power on the earlier models.

Later,

Chris

I got to looking around and got this direct from a book I have (Mustang 5.0 & 4.6 1979-1998) I got at a local bookstore one year...

"It had been rated at 225 horsepower since its 1987 remodel. Yet without changing any hardware, Ford lowered the horsepower number to 205 for 1993 only; 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. (a couple sentences later)..."As you'll see, the new-for-1994 mustang would retain the OHV, 5.0 V-8, and it would be rated at 215 horsepower. The rumble is that the marketing types could not fathom a new car hitting the market with 10 less horsepower than the old favorite, so the number was artificially lowered for 1993, so it could be raised again for the new car."

I think that goes along pretty well with what I said...

"The 93 horsepower rating (205hp) was strickly a marketing ploy to make the Sn95 (94-95 Gt's) look that much better with their 225hp the next year...that is the real reason why they did it...they claimed they changed the way they rated the cars and 205hp was a more accurate number for the 87-93 5.0...

It's like buying an 03 Viper with 500hp and then Dodge comes out with the 04 Viper with 450hp...the same principle applies..."

If that 205hp rating was true...my 93 dynoed 175rwhp stock?...yikes

FastDriver · Sep 29, 2004

It's wrong...

5spd GT · Sep 29, 2004

FastDriver said:
It's wrong...

I'm confused

Are you talking about the quote out of the book source...I thought you liked articles

I take it as a very credible source...because both sides make sense out of that source...

FastDriver · Sep 29, 2004

5spd GT said:
I'm confused

Are you talking about the quote out of the book source...I thought you liked articles

I take it as a very credible source...because both sides make sense out of that source...

Credible or not, it's still wrong. Ford definitely made cam revisions, computer tune revisions, and added the MAF, which cost hp. You'll note, though, that there are no differences in the rated hp from 88 to 89 when they added the MAF metering system to the entire 5.0 line up. I believe there were two cam revisions from 87-93. A cam is hardware, so that makes your book wrong. The hypereutectic pistons were added in late 92 and for all 93 models.... another hardware revision.

POWER302 · Sep 29, 2004

The 93 205 rating, was a combination of both the change in the hp rating by ford AND the cam, m.a.f, computer changes, and exhaust revisons throughout 89-92. Suposivly 87-92 were rated with out any of the accesories, (p/s, smog, a/c, alt, w-pump). And they made about 225 hp give or take about 5hp depending on year, then in 93 they rated them in full dress with all accesories and got about 205 hp.

The in 94 they rated the 5.0 at 215 hp. still using the same rating system as the 93. Not just a marketing ploy. 94-95s have a E-fan stock. less drag than the manual fan on 87-93's, 94-95's have better flowing stock headers than 87-93.

5spd GT · Sep 29, 2004

FastDriver said:
Credible or not, it's still wrong. Ford definitely made cam revisions, computer tune revisions, and added the MAF, which cost hp. You'll note, though, that there are no differences in the rated hp from 88 to 89 when they added the MAF metering system to the entire 5.0 line up. I believe there were two cam revisions from 87-93. A cam is hardware, so that makes your book wrong. The hypereutectic pistons were added in late 92 and for all 93 models.... another hardware revision.

Oh...you got me all wrong...it talks about that in the book also...I knew they had made changes...I was just referring to the 93 horsepower rating...but I do know one thing for sure...there was not enough revisions to make up a 20hp difference...

5spd GT · Sep 29, 2004

POWER302 said:
The 93 205 rating, was a combination of both the change in the hp rating by ford AND the cam, m.a.f, computer changes, and exhaust revisons throughout 89-92. Suposivly 87-92 were rated with out any of the accesories, (p/s, smog, a/c, alt, w-pump). And they made about 225 hp give or take about 5hp depending on year, then in 93 they rated them in full dress with all accesories and got about 205 hp.

The in 94 they rated the 5.0 at 215 hp. still using the same rating system as the 93. Not just a marketing ploy. 94-95s have a E-fan stock. less drag than the manual fan on 87-93's, 94-95's have better flowing stock headers than 87-93.

But more restrictive intake...

Fastest Factory 5.0?

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"

eighty8

Member

Thomas302

Member

GTPlus

New Member

Xterminator03

Member

SPEED FREAK

CManT1914

New Member

mackey

Active Member

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"

DCjuggalo

Member

FastDriver

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

FastDriver

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"

FastDriver

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"

FastDriver

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet

POWER302

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"

Similar threads

Fastest Factory 5.0?

"the 5.0 owns all"

Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Active Member

"the 5.0 owns all"

Member

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet

"the 5.0 owns all"

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet

"the 5.0 owns all"

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet

"the 5.0 owns all"

"the 5.0 owns all"

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency