pairofnines said:For real? I don't mean to falsify your statement, but what proof do you have? I don't think they would over rate it, there isn't a purpose.
1979, 8.4:1
1980, 8.8:1
1981, 8.2:1
1982-1985, around 8.3:1
1986, 9.2:1
1987-1993, 9.0:1
giddyup306 said:No it's 8.8:1. I don't know where you guys are getting your specs but I'm getting mine directly from FORD. 64.00+5.50+9.68+617.78 / 64.00 + 5.50 + 9.68 = 8.80:1. BTW the E7TE head is 64cc's. Ford also stated "For the 1987-93 model years, Ford advertised a nominal compression ratio of an even 9:1.".
No it's 8.8:1. I don't know where you guys are getting your specs but I'm getting mine directly from FORD. 64.00+5.50+9.68+617.78 / 64.00 + 5.50 + 9.68 = 8.80:1.
Ford also stated "For the 1987-93 model years, Ford advertised a nominal compression ratio of an even 9:1."
FoxChasis said:What correction?
And why does the alleged 8.80:1 CR, which purportedlly comes from Ford, contradict their stated 9.1:CR?.....
FoxChasis said:First "Ford" says 8.80:1 and then says 9:1? What's what?
This is the formula to figure out compression ratio. 5.5 cc is the valve relief 64cc is the head cc the gasket is .047" which comes out to 9.68cc and 617.78 is swept cylinder volume. If anyone wants to argue with the formula be my guest. It's still 8.80:1.FoxChasis said:Where is this 8.80:1 coming from and for which model year's engine? Where is the 9.1: coming from? And what are the figures 5.50, 9.68, and 617.78 of?
FoxChasis said:The stated compression ratio rating for the '87-'93 Mustang's H.O. 5.0L engine was 9.0:1. This comes directly from FoMoCo's advertisements and dealer brochures.
How come Ford says they changed the way to figure out HP and went down to 215 HP in 1993(political) When the only change to the motor was lighter pistons.Chilton books say 93's have 235 hp which I tend to believe because the lighter pistons would let the motor produce more hp.Whats the deal?pairofnines said:Heck ya, I've got Chiltons, I'm about to get the Haynes, I have the Ford Fuel Injection & Electronic Engine Control, it's awesome, cause I had no clue how to work on electronically controlled engines, I was taught carbed engines. When I can scrape enough money, I'm gonna get the Official Ford Mustang Manual, I can't believe it cost $100.
willys1 said:How come Ford says they changed the way to figure out HP and went down to 215 HP in 1993(political) When the only change to the motor was lighter pistons.Chilton books say 93's have 235 hp which I tend to believe because the lighter pistons would let the motor produce more hp.Whats the deal?
Ive read they changed because the body style came out in 94,and the new engine was coming out in 96, so they wanted it to look a little better then the out dated 5.0.pairofnines said:I believe the reason they changed the numbers was because they rated it with all of the accessories on, when the previous years the had them off. And I'm sure the underrated horsepower ratings from Ford may have lowered insurance a little
how many cc's are E7's combustion camber? 54 or 58cc?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?