stock hp rating

RYC CUKR

Founding Member

May 19, 2002

1,437

1

38

Orlando

Feb 21, 2004

#1

• Feb 21, 2004

• #1

I searched and I'll be damned if I can find the answer to this question

What is the stock HP rating for a 93 GT?

 

banditmwp

New Member

Jan 9, 2004

218

1

0

Opelika/Auburn, AL

Feb 21, 2004

#2

• Feb 21, 2004

• #2

215 bhp

 

RYC CUKR

Founding Member

May 19, 2002

1,437

1

38

Orlando

Feb 21, 2004

#3

• Feb 21, 2004

• #3

Thanks

 

maverick0716

Founding Member

Jan 12, 2002

3,924

0

56

Chilliwack, BC, Canada

Feb 21, 2004

#4

• Feb 21, 2004

• #4

It's actually rated at 205 hp not 215. They used a different way of measuring hp starting in 1993. The 87-92 5.0L were rated at 225 hp......although it would seem that the 93 has 20 less hp, its deceiving.

 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

Mod Dude

Feb 18, 2001

43,226

17,911

224

Massachusetts

Feb 21, 2004

#5

• Feb 21, 2004

• #5

There were camshaft and exhaust changes as well as the introduction of Mass air in '89. All these were never reflected in the HP ratings.

The 205HP rating is a reflection of the new way of measuring HP and also the HP loss over the years from various changes.

 

Mavrick

Founding Member

Aug 29, 2002

2,264

0

46

Collingwood, ON

Feb 21, 2004

#6

• Feb 21, 2004

• #6

87-92 = 225hp - 290ft lbs

----93 = 205hp - 280ft lbs

94-95 = 215hp - 285ft lbs

The HP specs are correct, not too sure on the torque specs, but they are in that range.

 

FiveOCapri79

New Member

Jun 7, 2003

164

0

0

Lawton, Oklahoma

Feb 21, 2004

#7

• Feb 21, 2004

• #7

I was under the impression that the 93's are the "odd balls" since they didn't come with the forged pistons like the 85-92. I thought it also used a slightly different cam which comes out to 205hp.

 

MadMatt5oh

Member

Jan 10, 2003

441

0

16

St Paul, MN

Feb 21, 2004

#8

• Feb 21, 2004

• #8

I remember reading back in 1990 or so that the 87-88 5 speeds had 225hp and 300 tq and ran 13's in the 1/4 with 6 sec or so 0-60mphs. I never saw the fox bodies ever get better ratings than that- ever. Just progressively worse!

 

RYC CUKR

Founding Member

May 19, 2002

1,437

1

38

Orlando

Feb 21, 2004

#9

• Feb 21, 2004

• #9

I am just trying to figure how much hp and torque I have gained with my mods listed in my sig. Trying to kind of get a baseline before I put my tmoss intake on next week.

Driveline loss for an aod is usually between 18 and 20%, correct?

 

S

StreetStang37

Founding Member

Apr 23, 2001

451

0

0

San Jose, CA

Feb 21, 2004

#10

• Feb 21, 2004

• #10

some people think its %, others think its a set # on the HP loss.

as for the ratings, i doubt there was any major difference in HP from 89-93. 87-88 SD cars may make SLIGHTLY more. how would they add 10 more HP from 93 to 94 without upgrading anything? if anything they downgraded the intake manifold some to clear the hood.

 

IndyBlk5.0

New Member

Nov 24, 2003

1,122

1

0

New Whiteland, IN

Feb 21, 2004

#11

• Feb 21, 2004

• #11

simple, why would you want a brand new mustang coming out with lower horsepower ratings than the year before? I think ford did this to try to promote the new body style, not demote it honestly, i think the way of measuring hp was altered that year to make it look like it was low... Then the almighty sn95 stang came out, with a beefy extra 10 hp...

 

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"

Founding Member

Aug 7, 2002

9,516

6

99

Arkansas

Feb 21, 2004

#12

• Feb 21, 2004

• #12

IndyBlk5.0 said:

simple, why would you want a brand new mustang coming out with lower horsepower ratings than the year before? I think ford did this to try to promote the new body style, not demote it honestly, i think the way of measuring hp was altered that year to make it look like it was low... Then the almighty sn95 stang came out, with a beefy extra 10 hp...

Click to expand...

Exactly...Ford said they changed the way they measured horsepower and 205 was closer to the actual horsepower not 225...but it was really for marketing the Sn-95 to appear that it has more horsepower....

All 87-93 Mustangs would be a drivers race with all the variables being the same (weight, transmission, equal driver...)

Speed Density might have a couple horsepower more...

The 93 pistons were actually lighter than the previous forged pistons...

David

 

S

StreetStang37

Founding Member

Apr 23, 2001

451

0

0

San Jose, CA

Feb 21, 2004

#13

• Feb 21, 2004

• #13

that, and tighter clearances and ring seal.

 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

Mod Dude

Feb 18, 2001

43,226

17,911

224

Massachusetts

Feb 22, 2004

#14

• Feb 22, 2004

• #14

StreetStang37 said:

some people think its %, others think its a set # on the HP loss.

as for the ratings, i doubt there was any major difference in HP from 89-93. 87-88 SD cars may make SLIGHTLY more. how would they add 10 more HP from 93 to 94 without upgrading anything? if anything they downgraded the intake manifold some to clear the hood.

Click to expand...

They attribute the extra 10HP to the electric fan.

But i agree...i think they downgraded the motor with the restrictive intake and such