Fords new way of measuring HP

Rains said:

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

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??

Click to expand...

The 5.0L engine used in the 94-95 Mustangs was the old Thunderbird engine used in early 89-93 T-birds. This engine had a lower intake manifold. Take a look at the intake track on 87-93, 94-95 stangs and then look at 89-93 birds. The HP loss that everyone is talking about is because of the T-bird engine that was used as a stop gap measure in early SN95 Stangs.

FORD discontinued the 5.0L engine in cars due to emission standards for 96. The SOHC and DOHC engines offer a much cleaner burn then the 5.0L counterpart. As for lower HPs well lets start with engine size. This is a case where size does matter. Early 4.6L SOHC engines were under powered but they like to rev. In SN-95 Stangs from 96 - 98 gears and exhaust helped to make these boys runners. The Lincoln MK8 engine was a DOHC design and had 260 to 290 HPs during its run. Lets jump to 2003 and look at the huge power gain the Cobra has, and look at the Bullitt and MACH 1 stang, 305 isnt too shabby and the GT Mustang is making its way to the 300 mark. As with any new design you will have a growing period. Remember the old 5.0L family has been around since the early 60s so lets keep watching the new kid on the block grow.

As for GM they too have made changes in their engine as well. The new Gen engine is a redesign of their 50 year old small block. Yes they make out ragious HP numbers but liter for liter the Mustang and Lightning are the best value overall. Besides isnt a 03 lightning kicking ass on a Vette a sweet sight?

GM is going to make more changes on its engine but lets face it. What does GM have to offer with the passing of the F body? NADA!

Allen

i have a 93, thank god i have sealed power pistons in it now....

I don't know if I would actually believe Chiltons too much or not. They just rated them different, if I remember correctly, it was because they had the accessories turned on during the dynos, while in previous years they had them off. And the new pistons would probably not help horsepower too much. I'm sure Ford just wanted to underrated them, like they usually do, probably to keep insurance companies happy. I'm sure the new motors also had something to do with it aswell, but I don't understand why people care so much about a claimed 20 horsepower drop, when actual dynos prove that pretty much all 87-95 5.0's are very close. Just enjoy the cars and don't listen to factory rated hp numbers, they usually don't mean jack crap.