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

Fox Horsepower

  • Thread starter Thread starter mpeach1976
  • Start date Start date Oct 20, 2016
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last

mpeach1976

Active Member
Feb 14, 2014
141
21
39
Oct 20, 2016
#1
  • Oct 20, 2016
  • #1
I have always wondered why did the Fox lose power on 1993? As far as I can tell from '90 - '92 fox body's had 225 HP and then in '93 it dropped to 205 HP. Did they switch from a Windsor style 5.0 to a modular style 5.0 that year compromising HP?
 

mikestang63

SN Certified Technician
Aug 27, 2012
11,606
8,859
214
In the garage
Oct 20, 2016
#2
  • Oct 20, 2016
  • #2
couple or reasons. They changed cams in 93 and went to hyper piston. Also Ford changed the way they rated/measured the hp in 93.
 

Noobz347

Stangnet Facilities Maint Tech... Er... Janitor
Admin Dude
Jan 4, 1985
43,306
21,480
234
Box behind Walmart
Oct 20, 2016
#3
  • Oct 20, 2016
  • #3
mikestang63 said:
Also Ford changed the way they rated/measured the hp in 93.
Click to expand...

This
 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,289
17,992
224
Massachusetts
Oct 20, 2016
#4
  • Oct 20, 2016
  • #4
Plus culmination of minor changes over the years. Addition of MAF in 89, different can profile to quiet drivetrain in 90. Different cats in the later years, new ecu in 1993 plus the way they rated them changed too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

mpeach1976

Active Member
Feb 14, 2014
141
21
39
Oct 21, 2016
#5
  • Oct 21, 2016
  • #5
@mikestang63 you said that they changed the way they rated horsepower, but what does that mean? 93 Ford Mustang went through a couple changes, that was the first year they did SVT and they were getting ready to change over to the fourth generation. That said: did they change the Windsor style 302 to a modular style 302 losing horsepower?
 

General karthief

wonder how much it would cost to ship you a pair
Mod Dude
Aug 25, 2016
27,996
10,624
213
polk county florida
Oct 21, 2016
#6
  • Oct 21, 2016
  • #6
No mod motors till 96, there was a stink with a foreign car maker about the way they made their hp ratings. I can't remember for sure what it was but the manufacturers made some kind of agreement on standards for hp ratings. Never read anything different about cams but the was a piston change but I thought that was earlier, but then I was wrong once before but it had somethong to do with beer.
 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,289
17,992
224
Massachusetts
Oct 21, 2016
#7
  • Oct 21, 2016
  • #7
karthief said:
Never read anything different about cams but the was a piston change but I thought that was earlier
Click to expand...

That's because nobody cares about stock camshafts anymore with so many better aftermarket choices so just not owrth discussing.

The OE cam changed a few times over the years. Don't have specs, but only very minor changes. Also the pistons changed in late 1992 to hypereutectic.

The main reason is just the way the power was rated. Keep in mind 1993 Cobra was rated at 235HP from the factory. Many guys who have dynoed their cobras, and guys building similar GT40 head setups, report thar number being closer to 275HP at the crank.
 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,289
17,992
224
Massachusetts
Oct 21, 2016
#8
  • Oct 21, 2016
  • #8
mpeach1976 said:
That said: did they change the Windsor style 302 to a modular style 302 losing horsepower?
Click to expand...


Mod style 302 didn't come about until 2011.

86-95 was the EFI 5.0L 302
96-04 was 4.6L 2V and 4V
05-10 was the 4.6L 3V
'11+ is the 5.0 4V
 
S

stpete

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2015
320
151
63
Oct 21, 2016
#9
  • Oct 21, 2016
  • #9
You're trying to over complicate it. Ford re-rated the same motor to a different HP standard. There was no change in actual power.
 
Last edited: Oct 21, 2016

cleanLX

Founding Member
Jan 17, 2001
976
537
144
Oct 21, 2016
#10
  • Oct 21, 2016
  • #10
^^this.
The cam stayed the same from 92 to 93. (only the cobra got a different cam profile, LX's and GT's were same as '92).
Computers stayed the same from 92 to 93. (only the cobra got a different programming due to GT40 heads/intake, different cam, injectors/mass air and throttle body)
Hyper pistons were introduced late '92 as mentioned, but compression was unchanged, and while everyone likes to poo on the hyper pistons, they are more stable and able to run tighter tolerances, so, in theory, n/a they should be better... albeit not as tolerant to bad tuning while running artificial air.
 

mpeach1976

Active Member
Feb 14, 2014
141
21
39
Oct 21, 2016
#11
  • Oct 21, 2016
  • #11
Mustang5L5 said:


Mod style 302 didn't come about until 2011.

86-95 was the EFI 5.0L 302
96-04 was 4.6L 2V and 4V
05-10 was the 4.6L 3V
'11+ is the 5.0 4V
Click to expand...
All that said; was the 5.0 in the '94 and '95 still based on the Windsor design, 2 valve push rod style?
 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,289
17,992
224
Massachusetts
Oct 21, 2016
#12
  • Oct 21, 2016
  • #12
mpeach1976 said:
All that said; was the 5.0 in the '94 and '95 still based on the Windsor design, 2 valve push rod style?
Click to expand...


Yup. Minor changes to some parts, but pretty much same motor as 87-93


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

5.0specialist

Active Member
Jul 10, 2016
141
53
48
venice fl
Oct 21, 2016
#13
  • Oct 21, 2016
  • #13
The 86'-88' stock 5.0 cam was the E5ZE cam (85' 5.0 4v carb motors had them also). It has .266 intake/ .266 exhaust lobe duration compared to the .276 int./.266 ex. lobe duration of the 89'-95' 5.0 cams. Ford actually decreased the ramp rate of the maf 5.0 HO cams. I guess that is why they increased the duration on the intake side to try to make up for the slower-opening valve. Overall, the early EFI speed density (late carb) cam was the most aggressive stock HO cam. The cobra 5.0 cam has more duration and lift, but it is actually considered a "milder" cam due to other specs based on information I've read online. Not sure if that is true though. Ford believed that they lost some low-range torque by switching to the gt40 top end. So they slapped in a thunderbird 5.0 HO cam (more torquey) with 1.7 roller rockers. The 93' 5.0 HO computers were also not as aggressive tune-wise. The 89'-92' A9L computers were the most aggressive 5-speed computers, while the 89'-92' A9P were the most aggressive automatic computers. Out of all the them, the A9P is the most aggressive (better fuel/timing curve). I actually switched out the stock C3W auto computer for an A9P in my old 93' mustang, and noticed the idle was smoother and had better low-end acceleration. The main reason for the 93' hp 205 hp rating was the way they measured the power. For that year they added up all of the minor changes they did over the years, such as small cam profile changes as I've mentioned, the puny 55mm mass air sensor, and they had included all of the belt-driven accessories, unlike the previous years. The hypereutectic pistons really don't affect anything performance wise. If anything, it adds a bit more power since they weigh less than the older forged pistons (less rotational mass). They just suck for people that want to use nitrous or forced induction. Other than the ECU (computer) and the material that the pistons were made from, the 93' 5.0 HO motor is the same animal as the 89'-92' motors.
 
Last edited: Oct 22, 2016

5.0specialist

Active Member
Jul 10, 2016
141
53
48
venice fl
Oct 21, 2016
#14
  • Oct 21, 2016
  • #14
http://www.fiveohinfo.com/fox/engine.html
 

mikestang63

SN Certified Technician
Aug 27, 2012
11,606
8,859
214
In the garage
Oct 22, 2016
#15
  • Oct 22, 2016
  • #15
5.0specialist said:
The 86'-88' stock 5.0 cam was the E5ZE cam (85' 5.0 4v carb motors had them also). It has .266 intake/ .266 exhaust lobe lift compared to the .276 int./.266 ex. lobe lift of the 89'-95' 5.0 cams. Ford actually decreased the ramp rate of the maf 5.0 HO cams. I guess that is why they increased the lift on the intake side to try to make up for the slower-opening valve. Overall, the early EFI speed density (late carb) cam was the most aggressive stock HO cam. The cobra 5.0 cam has more lift, but it is actually considered a "milder" cam due to other specs. Ford believed that they lost some low-range torque by switching to the gt40 top end. So they slapped in a thunderbird 5.0 HO cam (more torquey) with 1.7 roller rockers. The 93' 5.0 HO computers were also not as aggressive tune-wise. The 89'-92' A9L computers were the most aggressive 5-speed computers, while the 89'-92' A9P were the most aggressive automatic computers. Out of all the them, the A9P is the most aggressive (better fuel/timing curve). I actually switched out the stock C3W auto computer for an A9P in my old 93' mustang, and noticed the idle was smoother and had better low-end acceleration. The main reason for the 93' hp 205 hp rating was the way they measured the power. For that year they added up all of the minor changes they did over the years, such as small cam profile changes as I've mentioned, the puny 55mm mass air sensor, and they had included all of the belt-driven accessories, unlike the previous years. The hypereutectic pistons really don't affect anything performance wise. If anything, it adds a bit more power since they weigh less than the older forged pistons (less rotational mass). They just suck for people that want to use nitrous or forced induction. Other than the ECU (computer) and the material that the pistons were made from, the 93' 5.0 HO motor is the same animal as the 89'-92' motors.
Click to expand...
 
Reactions: 5.0specialist and Mustang5L5

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,289
17,992
224
Massachusetts
Oct 22, 2016
#16
  • Oct 22, 2016
  • #16
Good info. Never saw that table before


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

5.0specialist

Active Member
Jul 10, 2016
141
53
48
venice fl
Oct 22, 2016
#17
  • Oct 22, 2016
  • #17
mikestang63 said:
Click to expand...

Oh. I got duration confused with the lift. Thanks for the correction. I guess they increased the duration of the intake side on the newer HO cams to make up for the slower valve opening (less aggressive ramp rate).
 

General karthief

wonder how much it would cost to ship you a pair
Mod Dude
Aug 25, 2016
27,996
10,624
213
polk county florida
Oct 22, 2016
#18
  • Oct 22, 2016
  • #18
Soooo, what would be the best stock cam on say my 89 gt 5 speed 355 gear long tubes 70 mm tb c&l mass air and pipe 19 pounders and gt40p gt40 tubular intake. I believe my engine is from a 86 though.
Orrrrr, will it not make a noticeable difference.
 

a91what

SendMeUrDataLog
10 Year Member
Apr 6, 2011
10,739
6,721
214
Hillsborough county
Oct 22, 2016
#19
  • Oct 22, 2016
  • #19
Anderson N41

We can try and find an old box to put it in for you
 

5.0specialist

Active Member
Jul 10, 2016
141
53
48
venice fl
Oct 23, 2016
#20
  • Oct 23, 2016
  • #20
karthief said:
Soooo, what would be the best stock cam on say my 89 gt 5 speed 355 gear long tubes 70 mm tb c&l mass air and pipe 19 pounders and gt40p gt40 tubular intake. I believe my engine is from a 86 though.
Orrrrr, will it not make a noticeable difference.
Click to expand...

An 86' 5.0 engine? In that case, be careful with the flat-top pistons. Your only option is to keep the stock 5.0 HO cam if you are still running the stock 86' pistons. At least you have the more aggressive 5.0 HO cam. (85' 4v carb, 86'- 88' EFI HO cam).
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fox Fuel Pump Issues After Replacement/Upgrade
  • Ryu
  • Jun 23, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
23
Views
758
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 5, 2026
Ryu
Resolved 93 Mustang 5.0 - Cranks but does not start
  • dan50
  • Jul 18, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
6
Views
290
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jul 18, 2026
dan50
Exhaust 1 3/4” Long Tubes on a Fox Body AOD – Easiest route?
  • 5.0 Mike
  • Mar 19, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
6
Views
2K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Mar 21, 2025
5.0 Mike
S
Another no start thread.. pls help
  • Sarah84eyedfox
  • Apr 3, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
6
Views
418
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 4, 2025
AeroCoupe
6
Hey all,I’m putting together a 302 for my 1968 Mustang and wanted to post the combo + some questions to make sure I’m not missing crucial
  • 68_Disgustang
  • Feb 22, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
1K
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
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?