Fords new way of measuring HP

willys1 · Dec 29, 2003

In 1993,Ford dropped the hp rating on the 5.0 from 225 to 205.They said they were using a new way to measure hp.Critics say it was because the new body style was coming out in 94 and a new type of motor was coming in 96,so they couldnt say the new motor has less hp then the old 5.0.Well the only difference in the engine from 92to 93 was the use of lighter pistons.But Chilton books dont reflect the "new measurement",they say the 93 has 235 hp,which I would tend to believe,because the lighter pistons would allow the engine to produce more power!Does this sound correct ? Im new to the 5.0's so Im just trying to justify a few things.Ive been a GM guy my hole life,forgive me guys I didnt know any better.LOL--Any feed back would be greatly appreciated!

bgjohnson · Dec 30, 2003

well anything that cuts down on rotational mass would make the engine rev faster, so yes I believe it would.

Black 93 Fox · Dec 30, 2003

I just got my car on the dyno today and it is a 93 5.0 lx it got 212HP and 278TQ and its not totaly stock but almost. Mods in sig.

90mustangGT · Dec 30, 2003

Actually, it was 215hp as I can remember. I didn't know about using lighter piston's in the 1993 5.0 but I know they wern't forged.

willys1 said:
...and a new type of motor was coming in 96,so they couldnt say the new motor has less hp then the old 5.0...!

That's my theroy. Almost all foxbodies dyno the same stock. The 4.6 SOHC, especailly the 96-98 motors were sad, but for some reason Ford thought the change was nessasary for emmisions reasons and "looking toward the future" althought GM is still pumping out pushrod engines that are kicking the 4.6's butt with half the parts and technology.

There is rear wheel horse power, and advertised horse power. Very much different. It seems to me throught the years the HP numbers have been skyrocketing but the performance of the engine's has not been keeping up. The newer cars powerbands have been moving up in RPM, but so has thier tq which has been falling. Why, because HP sells cars. Drive a '99 Nissan Maxima, (190hp) then drive a '03 Maxima. (270hp) I have, and I will say this, the '99 has more power down low, has better responce, and is overall a better engine. The '03 model has alot of power, but not until at least 4000rpm, otherwise it isn't much better than a 4 banger. Top end it makes good power, but 80hp better, I don't think so.

willys1 · Dec 30, 2003

Nope, they werent forged,they were Hytper--something,Im not sure of the spelling,they were lighter then the forged,but not as strong.These pistons are kind of fragile when it comes to adding nitro, or a big boost of super charging.Still I would love to see a totally stock 93 dynoed,and a totally stock 92 dynoed,to see the difference.

grrrrrrr · Dec 30, 2003

the pistons were hypereutectic, and you're right, not good for supercharging or nitrous. I think the motors horsepower was scaled back from 225 to 215 because of different emissions standards, not a different scale. Horsepower is a function of torque, and thereby a mathematical equation. Hard to change math.

xplo89gt · Dec 30, 2003

87-92 were 225hp, 93 was 205.

This topic comes up all the time and there are so many ideas to why this change that I can't remember which was the correct one. I remember another answer that sounded right, was ford changed the way they measured the hp from with the accessories off to with the accesories on. Either way, do a quick search and you will find out.

willys1 · Dec 30, 2003

Got it rite here in black and white,It says,yet without changing any hardwareFord lowered the hp number to "205"for !993 only.The engine didnt just lose hp,Fords official line was,the method by which it rated hp had been changed and that this was really a more accurate number.people inside Ford said it was a marketing ploy! As youll see the 94 retained the exact 5.0 motor, but it was now rated at 215.The rumble is that the marketing types could not fathom a new car hitting the market with 10 less hp then the old favorite,so the old number was artificially lowered for 1993, so it can be raised for the new car.

Rains · Dec 30, 2003

yeah 87-92 hp was at 225
93-95+ the power was down to 215 because of the new less expensive pistons

the 93 cobra was the one with 235 hp

what doesn't make sense to me is that even with an electric fan on the 94-95's, you think the rating might jump up a horse or two, but it didn't, does that mean in 94 the motor was cut even more power??

Rains · Dec 30, 2003

and weren't the tq number the same at 285 lbs for all years tho?

willys1 · Dec 30, 2003

What was different on the cobra 5.0,compared to the GT,LX 5.0?

xplo89gt · Dec 30, 2003

There were quite a few things. GT40 Heads, Cobra Intake, 24# injectors, 73mm maf, a bit milder cam, 1.7rr, and cobra computer controlling them.

willys1 · Dec 30, 2003

xplo89gt said:
There were quite a few things. GT40 Heads, Cobra Intake, 24# injectors, 73mm maf, a bit milder cam, 1.7rr, and cobra computer controlling them.

Thanks, I didnt know that.Wow with all those upgrades yuod think it would have a little more hp then 235 !!

xplo89gt · Dec 30, 2003

willys1 said:
Thanks, I didnt know that.Wow with all those upgrades yuod think it would have a little more hp then 235 !!

Well that 235hp was highly underrated. It was more like 265hp or so.

sleeper89 · Dec 30, 2003

Rains said:
93-95+ the power was down to 215 because of the new less expensive pistons

yes the power was down (or rated as such) but it was not because of the new pistons FWIW.

-steve

Black331Stang · Dec 30, 2003

Rains said:
and weren't the tq number the same at 285 lbs for all years tho?

No, the 87-92 had 300 ft/lbs

willys1 · Dec 30, 2003

So what do ya think?I guess Im asking the engine buffs,wouldnt the 5.0 produce more power with the lighter pistons?

sleeper89 · Dec 30, 2003

when all is said and done the pistons probably do nothing for the hp. if there were any gains i would estimate only a couple hp across the board (again if any). they would however help the engine to rev more freely (albeit only slightly) which could improve track times though.

if anyone knows differently feel free to correct me, i'm learning too...

-steve

63_Fairlane · Dec 30, 2003

The 88 to 93 5.0's are pretty much identical with the exception of the hypereutectic(read cast) pistons. I have seen dynos of the 92, 93 and 94 cars and they are pretty similar. They all put out about ~195hp at the wheels (~225 HP at the flywheel).

The drop in horsepower was a marketing ploy to make the 4.6 look better. The 4.6 was designed for the Lincoln Continental(2v) and Mark XIII(4v). Note, both have been cancelled for quite a while. Basically it was designed to be smooth, efficient, and generally maintenance free, but not particularly powerful, at least in 2valve form. It has improved greatly over the years!!! Thank the truck engineers for redesigning the heads, then again the heads on the 87-93 5.0s were "truck" heads too!

Maybe the truck engineers should be allowed to design a complete engine sometime?

MustangPunk302 · Dec 30, 2003

Yes, '93 Cobras where underrated. Stock '93 Cobras have dynoed 270 horsepower in a well pubilcized non-factory evaluation. Get rid of the crappy cam and not so good computer and you got a even meaner machince.

Ford said the horsepower changes came from the way they rate HP figures, though many believe it was for the new mod motor coming, some even say for insurance and saftey ratings... I bet it was for all of them...

Fords new way of measuring HP

willys1

Active Member

bgjohnson

Black 93 Fox

Active Member

90mustangGT

I felt sorry for girls because

willys1

Active Member

grrrrrrr

New Member

xplo89gt

willys1

Active Member

Rains

Rains

willys1

Active Member

xplo89gt

willys1

Active Member

xplo89gt

sleeper89

New Member

Black331Stang

Active Member

willys1

Active Member

sleeper89

New Member

63_Fairlane

MustangPunk302

Similar threads

Fords new way of measuring HP

Active Member

Active Member

I felt sorry for girls because

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency