Help a Corvette guy out... What's faster?

[jking]

I'm in a stupid debate with someone and I figure you guys would know before I would...

All things being equal, what was faster stock? A 1985 5.0, or a 1993 5.0?

Based on what I witnessed back when they were new (I had a 1985 5.0 Capri), I would say a 1993 by a pretty wide margin, but I have someone who thinks otherwise based on the higher factory HP rating of the 1985...

 

[Mustang5L5]

About the same really.

The '93's rating is a little misleading. It doesn't have 5HP less as it's number suggests.

The '85 is a lighter car than the '93 which helps even things out. but i'd give the edge to the '93 due to having a better torque curve

 

[Snikt89GT]

Would depend on the trans too. If it's auto then the 85 is CFI, so it has a huge disadvantage since CFI doesn't work.

 

[bubba-dough]

The 93 without a doubt. That "official" 205 rating is a little misleading. There is a lot more that goes into a faster car than peak hp. Like how much torque? Where are the tq and hp curves? What is the gearing in the rear? Whats the tranny gearing?

 

[85_SS_302_Coupe]

Having owned both, i can add some insight on this one.

If you compare a '93 5.0 coupe to an '85 5.0 *4 barrel carb equiped *coupe (that way it's basically the same body style and not a huge weight difference) and both have the same gearing and T5 trans, then the advantage goes to the '93, for a couple reasons.

1) as stated, the power numbers are about exactly the same, except that the EFI systems in stock form were more torquey than the carbed cars in stock form.

2) although the '93 is a little heavier, it's also more aerodynamic, which doesn't really change EVERYTHING but it does help.


Now, that said...i will tell you that it really comes down to the driver more than it comes down to the car. I've smoked many stock 5.0s with my car (back when it was also stock) because of experience. I even walked a '93 Cobra at the track with nothing but exhaust and gears.

 

[bryce93lx]

the 93 has the same motor as a the 92' so it has the same 225 horse, the numbers were lowered beacuase they wanted it to look like the new 94 had a hp increase becuase they only had 215, and then those where under rated to hide how pathetic the non pi 4.6's were. Just like back in the day when a 426 hemi had "375" hp or whatever it was and it was closer to 475 or whatever(not a mopar guy)

 

[jking]

Would depend on the trans too. If it's auto then the 85 is CFI, so it has a huge disadvantage since CFI doesn't work.

We're talking manual trannys.



I was comparing the engines and it looked like that 93' had a compression advantage at 8.4 vs 9.0 and better heads. That and based on the fact that I witnessed and actually drove 93' Mustangs with an M5 into the low 14's back when they were new was what I was basing my argument on. The best I ever saw was me running a 14.16 in a stock 93' LX that belonged to a good friend of mine. We did this at Houston Raceway which was a fast track though..

I wouldn't think that an 85' could get into the low 14's. Even in Houston.

 

[jking]

the 93 has the same motor as a the 92' so it has the same 225 horse, the numbers were lowered beacuase they wanted it to look like the new 94 had a hp increase becuase they only had 215, and then those where under rated to hide how pathetic the non pi 4.6's were. Just like back in the day when a 426 hemi had "375" hp or whatever it was and it was closer to 475 or whatever(not a mopar guy)

Or like LS1 Fbodies being rated at 310 and the C5's being rated at 350 when both have the same engine..

 

[jking]

Oh yeah...

Would you guys say that automatic 87'-93' GT's were "lucky to get out of the 16's"?

I know they didn't run anything like the manuals, but I remember them being low 15 to high 14 second cars new.

 

[Mustang5L5]

the 93 has the same motor as a the 92' so it has the same 225 horse,

The only 5.0's to truely have 225HP were the 87-88 speed density 5.0 motors.

In '89, Mass air was introduced which knocked off a couple HP. ALso in 1990, the camshaft was changed to quiet the drivetrain which also cost the motor a couple more HP. None of these reductions in power were ever reflected in the ratings because it costs a ton of money for Ford to test their engines to reflect HP numbers. Not worth it to claim 223HP or 221HP when 225HP sounds much better.

They did the same thing in 2001 when a slight compression bump increased HP on the 2V 4.6L by 1-2 HP. Ford never reflected this.

They did the rerating in '93 which accounted for all the slight reductions over the years and Ford's new rating method "lowered" the number to 205 and 235HP on the Cobra.

In 1994, the addition of the electric fan gained 10HP.

In my opinion, Fords new rating system severly underrates some of it's motors. The 93-95 Cobra motor was not 240HP, but more around 265HP. The 03/04 Cobra motors are also underrated by 20 or so HP

 

[QUICK91LX]

the 93 will outrun the 85 provided the drivers dont screw it up

ford changed the way they rated HP in 1993, resulting in the lower rating. the engine runs just as hard as any other 89-93 5.0 (mass air cars)

an AOD car will run low-mid 15's, I have known quite a few stock AOD cars and they are deadly consistant, just a bit slow

 

[bryce93lx]

yup the stock slush boxes are a joke, i have had a shift kit in my hatch forever and then got the h/c/i. When i bought my vert i keep looking out the back to find the anchor or F-350 i was dragging behind. It wasn't there, the stockers are just really really really slow and shift really slow, even after headers and the off road h it is slow, slower and slowest

 

[85_SS_302_Coupe]

Actually the reason for the lower advertised numbers is because Ford started doing their HP testing with all the accessories on the engines to give a more realistic number. Even still, it's not uncommon to see a 215hp rated '93 dyno at 200-205 at the wheels....that should tell you what the engine is putting out.

 

[jking]

The slow autos suck for you guys..

I had an M5 Mach 1 a couple of years ago, and it was quite a bit faster than the A4 Mach's I ran against...



How are the new A5's in the new GT's?

 

[Mustang5L5]

The slow autos suck for you guys..

I had an M5 Mach 1 a couple of years ago, and it was quite a bit faster than the A4 Mach's I ran against...



How are the new A5's in the new GT's?

That's because the redline on the Automatic Mach 1's is lower than the 5-spd's due to the cast crank. You can't take full advantage of the 4V's top end charge if you are shifting early.


The GT's redline is the same in the automatic and 5-spd, so the auto versions are only .1-.2 behind the GT's.

I witnessed a bone stock '02 Automatic GT run a 14.2 before.

 

[2000xp8]

I couldn't give a damn about stats on paper, the 93 would outrun every time.

 

[mob]

E7's>E5's

 

[GSP393]

Aside from the fact that the 93 is faster, it looks so much better than the 85. I like the 4 eye'd 85 front, just not the 1/4 windows and the chrome trim.

 

[ill advised]

lol Saw the thread over at LS2. I'm with the consensus on this. I had an '85GT for a few years and the '87+ LXs were definitely stronger. Especially at higher speeds.

 

[90]

so now we have corvette guys join'en mustang forums ?..... the end of the world has to be near... next you'll tell me this forum is changing its name to Stang/vette-net..