Pistons 92 forged vs. 93 hyper
- Thread starter pony50boy302
- Start date
FORGED VS HYPERPEUTIC PISTONS
FORGED PISTONS ARE THE WAY TO GO ,IF YOU PLAN BLOWER OR TURBO ,NO DOUBT THE FORGED PISTON WILL TAKE THE HEAT AND THE CHEAP HYPERPEUTIC WILL FAIL UNDER ANY KIND OF HIGH BOOST OR HIGH TEMP.FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE FORGED IS THE WAY TO GO ,BETTER PLATFORM FOR BUILDING HIGH HORSEPOWER ENGINE AND LASTLY THE SKIRTS OF THE PISTON ARE MUCH STRONGER FORGED AND WITH STOKER MOTORS THAT COMES INTO PLAY .
Hypereutectic pistons have a silicon base added to them to help with cold start-up, emissions, less heat soaking properties, piston becomes harder, and they are lighter than the forged pistons.
The majority of the material made up in a piston is aluminum, which expands more than steel the hotter it becomes. By adding silicon to the hypereutectic pistons, it helps keep a more solid expansion instead of being dictated by temperature more so, like it's forged counterpart.
With the piston becoming harder, it becomes more brittle and with some severe detonation it is more prone to cracking.
More than likely the block or rods will go first with a good tune, not the hypereutectic pistons.
Forged pistons are melted under a high temperature and pressured with very high pressure to get all the metal alloys compressed together for added strength. The forged pistons are just a bit more cost to the OEM engines and therefore for that reason and the above reasons, the hypereutectic pistons are being used.
There is no truth to the '93 5.0 making 20 hp less than the '87-'92. That was just a marketing ploy.
The majority of the material made up in a piston is aluminum, which expands more than steel the hotter it becomes. By adding silicon to the hypereutectic pistons, it helps keep a more solid expansion instead of being dictated by temperature more so, like it's forged counterpart.
With the piston becoming harder, it becomes more brittle and with some severe detonation it is more prone to cracking.
More than likely the block or rods will go first with a good tune, not the hypereutectic pistons.
Forged pistons are melted under a high temperature and pressured with very high pressure to get all the metal alloys compressed together for added strength. The forged pistons are just a bit more cost to the OEM engines and therefore for that reason and the above reasons, the hypereutectic pistons are being used.
There is no truth to the '93 5.0 making 20 hp less than the '87-'92. That was just a marketing ploy.
Shakerhood
20+ Year Stangneter 
If I were Building an Engine for my car I would use Forged Pistons over the HyperPathetics Pistons!
cenok is family
15 Year Member
actually it wasn't just a marketing ploy, it's true, but the power loss had nothing to do with the piston change. and it wasn't just "BAM! 93's are slower". power gradually went down starting in 89 as changes in cam profile and exhaust, addition of the maf system and a few other things were changed. Ford just didn't advertise any change until 93 for a few different reasons.
^only reason I'm aware of is that they didn't want to only have a 10HP difference between the regular 5.0 Mustangs and the 93 Cobra. Ford claimed to use a different method of measure HP in 93.
Exactly, it is a marketing ploy
The Cobra hp ratings were involved along with the 94/95 GT's and Cobras.The cam in 85-88 had a bit more aggressive intake lobe, which equipped it to nearly a 3hp difference. That is the main difference beside speed density. It did not equate to a 20hp difference.
The '87 dyno within 5rwhp of a '93 stock.
It was a marketing ploy. Ford 'changed' the way they rated horsepower, so when the intake restricted 94-95 cars came out, the 215hp would look better.
Who would want to buy a brand new model with less horsepower
I have read a few articles on the marketing ploy. Many Ford Mustang history books...
Somewhat true. Somewhat false.
Question:
How do 96-01 Cobras handle 8-16lbs of boost and make 400-550RWHP????
Answer:
Good tuning, good gas, and for anything over 12lbs...methanal injection.
Yep, the hypereutectic pistons are used in '93 and up stangs (besides the 03/04 Cobra) IIRC. The 94-95, 96-98 Gt's and Cobra's, 99+ Gt's and Cobra's all get boosted all the time. The thing that breaks on them, is the rods and blocks. Not the pistons, unless it isn't tuned.
Shakerhood
20+ Year Stangneter
In Hot Rod Magazine they built a Budget Mustang Road Racer, got the Stang cheap as it was going to get crushed and then stuck an Explorer Engine in I believe. One of the Pistons let go and it shattered into a thousand pieces and took out the entire Engine, if a Forged Piston fails its not going to ruin the Entire Engine.
If a forged piston goes or cracks, it can ruin the whole engine as well...
A good tune is key in a power adder application.
A 'hyper' piston seals better under cold-start, cheaper to build, less heat soaking, lighter than forged, and harder.
N/A will have no problem, unless it is a manufacturing/assembly line error.
With a tune from a reputable shop (not cutting corners by going cheap), the piston will outlast the rods and block more-so than not.
A good tune is key in a power adder application.
A 'hyper' piston seals better under cold-start, cheaper to build, less heat soaking, lighter than forged, and harder.
N/A will have no problem, unless it is a manufacturing/assembly line error.
With a tune from a reputable shop (not cutting corners by going cheap), the piston will outlast the rods and block more-so than not.
cenok is family
15 Year Member
Exactly, it is a marketing ploy
The cam in 85-88 had a bit more aggressive intake lobe, which equipped it to nearly a 3hp difference. That is the main difference beside speed density. It did not equate to a 20hp difference.
The '87 dyno within 5rwhp of a '93 stock.
It was a marketing ploy. Ford 'changed' the way they rated horsepower, so when the intake restricted 94-95 cars came out, the 215hp would look better.
Who would want to buy a brand new model with less horsepower
I have read a few articles on the marketing ploy. Many Ford Mustang history books...
there was a few reasons why they re-rated the stang in 93. yes, one reason was to help make the sn95 look better, but like you said, they changed the way they rated hp numbers. they starting testing the motors with all belt driven accessories. and the cam change wasn't the only thing that affecting the lower rating. the restrictive mass air meter lowered the rating by 2-3 more hp as well. a change in the exhaust manifolds (more bends) lowered it a little more. the airbox resonator robs 5-7hp
. all the mechanical revisions and the new testing procedures are why 93's were rated lower.there was a few reasons why they re-rated the stang in 93. yes, one reason was to help make the sn95 look better, but like you said, they changed the way they rated hp numbers. they starting testing the motors with all belt driven accessories. and the cam change wasn't the only thing that affecting the lower rating. the restrictive mass air meter lowered the rating by 2-3 more hp as well. a change in the exhaust manifolds (more bends) lowered it a little more. the airbox resonator robs 5-7hp
Explain to me why the '87 and '93's both dyno in the 185-195rwhp, some '93's at the top and some at the bottom. Same for '87 and '93's.
205hp for the 93's right? Okay, so add a 15% (the lowest) to 18% (maximum for t-5 loss), and you get numbers ranging from 168-174. I have seen stock '93's on this board dyno in 185-195 range.
It dropped from '92-'93 for a marketing ploy. Ford's official position was that they started dynoing them with accessories. The automobile industry analyst say it was a marketing ploy. I have read a few articles on it
Ford had to explain why the drop was made, and they did...and some believe the story.
The silencer doesn't let it lose 5-7hp anyways
I do not believe the speed density cars made any more measureable horsepower.
I have paid deep attention to the differences over the years, especially with me having a '93. They didn't dyno, on average, any less than the '87-'92's.
cenok is family
15 Year Member
Yeah, I read that above, so that would mean that the '91's and '92's for example are overrated. I have never heard that being said about them, because they aren't I have never heard the '87-'88's as underrated, because they aren't
Give me a '93 with a/c and no airbag (same gearing), and you get a '87 with a/c and no airbag, and we will race. Will see if there is a 20hp difference
I have never heard the '87-'88's as underrated, because they aren'tGive me a '93 with a/c and no airbag (same gearing), and you get a '87 with a/c and no airbag, and we will race. Will see if there is a 20hp difference
cenok is family
15 Year Member
i wasn't saying the 93's were slower. i was just helping to explain the reason for the re-rating in 93. and as for the silencer, it was about a 5hp loss, but the silencer is on all cars 87-93 so it affected SD cars as well. all the cars are so close though, that it's not a big difference in performance. the only thing different that affected performance was the cam change. and it was so miniscule that it doesn't really matter. so all in all, the rating in 93 was more accurate for ALL mustangs from 87-93. not the rating in 87.
- Jul 21, 2005
- 2,169
- 145
- 155
Explain to me why the '87 and '93's both dyno in the 185-195rwhp, some '93's at the top and some at the bottom. Same for '87 and '93's.
The silencer doesn't let it lose 5-7hp anyways
I do not believe the speed density cars made any more measureable horsepower.
Not disagreeing in the slightest, but I have driven three speed density 5.0's that were stock and for some crazy reason they were MUCH faster than my other mass air cars...
WTF?
cenok is family
15 Year Member
Not disagreeing in the slightest, but I have driven three speed density 5.0's that were stock and for some crazy reason they were MUCH faster than my other mass air cars...
lol i've found that no one mustang is ever a like (obviously) REGARDLESS of what year it is. i had a friend that used to have a 91 mass air car with 3.73s, shorties, x pipe and flows, injectors, bigger mass air, throttle body and such...NEVER could break into the 13's. my friend in his SD 88 coupe with 3.73's, h pipe and spintechs ran a 13.7 and would smoke my other friend everytime. then i had another friend that had a SD 88 gt with 3.55's, longtubes, x pipe and flows, and a few other bolt on's running 15's and 16's at the track. something was wrong with that car though, it was just plain slow.
