Alright, the fox bodied 5.0 have 225 hp why does the 94-95 have 215 hp when its newer and should produce better results? I've heard that it might be related to air restrictions on the 94-95 motor. When Ford through the 5.0 into the then new sn95 the motor would literally not fit under the hood and a new intake from the t-bird was added. What is the best way of regaining these loss gains and will the 94-95 5.0 outperform the 96-98 gt 4.6 when these enhancements?
Why Is The 94-95 5.0 Have Such Low Hp?
- Thread starter creilly84
- Start date
GTPhreak
Founding Member
I put 195/273 to the wheels bone stock. which with assumed 15% driveline loss equals 230/320 at the flywheel. just because thats where it was rated doesnt mean thats what it was. im pretty sure the 5.0's were underrated, and they also showed lower numbers because of a different way of testing hp
VIPERn94Five-0
Founding Member
well the 94-95 GT's will out perform the 96-98's stock for stock so you dont need any help there....ive also heard rumors that the 94-95 was slightly detuned so the 96-98 GT's wouldnt look like dogs when the 4.6 was released cuz they knew it would be down on power(not trying to start a flame war but its a rumor ive heard)
Anthony
Anthony
randomjoker
New Member
they changed the way they rated the cars in 93.... makes the same power generally if not a tad more IMO than the fox massair cars.
93s are rated at 215 as well.
yes 95s have the bottleneck in the intake worse tune on the computer, but they have electric fans and bigger MAFs and i am not sure on the bigger tb. what size is the stock fox TB? the 95 is 60
from what I have seen from stock cobra dynoes, they are plenty underrated. each of my friends has put down 230 with just a catback.
but a few cars is nothing to make a full assumption on.
93s are rated at 215 as well.
yes 95s have the bottleneck in the intake worse tune on the computer, but they have electric fans and bigger MAFs and i am not sure on the bigger tb. what size is the stock fox TB? the 95 is 60
from what I have seen from stock cobra dynoes, they are plenty underrated. each of my friends has put down 230 with just a catback.
but a few cars is nothing to make a full assumption on.
The 93 was down rated to 205 hp due to a different measurement method (according to Ford), i.e., took an average engine off the line rather than a specially prepped version. The 94 was rated at 215.
The upper intake on the 94-95s was taken from the TBird and was more restrictive that the one used on the 93-prior. In 94 Ford also implemented a tip-in retard in the computer to retard timing when the clutch was depressed. This was to lessen the number of broken T-5s but also slowed the car down.
The upper intake on the 94-95s was taken from the TBird and was more restrictive that the one used on the 93-prior. In 94 Ford also implemented a tip-in retard in the computer to retard timing when the clutch was depressed. This was to lessen the number of broken T-5s but also slowed the car down.
OrangeMustangGt
Founding Member
yeah i heard that they used teh t-bird intake....only thing is how much worse does that flow that the fox's? our cars make up for it with the electric fans tho...
really tho the 96-98 r just as fast stock as the 94-95's ive been in both and driven both and i cant tell any differance. i was neck and neck this summer with a 95 5.0 5-spd from a 40-90 mph roll and i was stock all he has were flows. just kinda makes me feel bad that everyone teases the 96-98 guys. but hey we r on the same side.
94Blue302GT
Member
I'm gonna guess that the reason mods mean more on the 5.0's is due to the replacement? or is it because they restricted a lot from the factory and not so much on the 4.6?
Rootus
Officially Addicted
Both. No replacement for displacement94Blue302GT said:
. And the E7 heads really do suck pretty bad, and it doesn't take much to improve them. I don't think the 4.6 motors will ever see the same kind of improvement from heads, because Ford did a better job of engineering the heads on the 4.6 from the factory (especially in 99+).Dave
Hey, so what if the 94-95 stock intakes were more restrictive than the 93's and earlier? That just means we see a bigger gain from an intake swap than the Fox guys do.
Rootus
Officially Addicted
I'm surprised tmoss hasn't jumped in on this conversation. I'm betting that in the stock intake setup, the 94/95 isn't any more restrictive than the Fox. Why? Because the bottleneck on the stock intake is not the upper, it's the lower. And I believe the lowers are the same... 
Dave
Dave
I've been away on vacation for 10 days. I've not seen any big differences in Fox and 94-95 dynos after porting lowers despite the upper change to the lower profile. The lowers are the same and the largest restriction in the intake.
Screamin' Demon said:
Thats just b/c it was the first yr in along time that the Mustang dident have a 5.0 in it. The 5.0 motor is a legand in its own time. If you ask someone what there choice is of beating any kind of Mustang the most common response will be a 5.0, even over Cobras. Ricers just dont want to beat Mustangs in general, they want to beat 5.0's.
94Five0
Loose Colon
nope.ended w/ 92 i beleive..88was the first yr for forged.
its a lot of little things. curb weight being a contributing factor theres no comparing a 93 notchback to an sn95 5.0. the 80's ere light nasty lil beasts w/ bolton power.(p0wer adders make them formitable street weapons)
in order to get the intake under the hoodline of the sn95, they had to squash the deck height an shorten the runners, add some ****ty e7's, couple that w/ a computer that (in the AODE's) retards timing between shifts.. your runnin high 15's.
performace wise, its startin out in a bit of a hole. not as big as say a 4 or 6 banger. but kinda deep compared to a new 4.6 w/ the PI guts.. i know several people w/ bolton's an they've run high 13's w/ good taction an a catback only..
but they (sn95) ride a lot nicer than the 87-93's stockwise. plus the 2 yr only run of the 5.0 makes them sorta rare..
i love the sound of the 4.6 tho..
its a lot of little things. curb weight being a contributing factor theres no comparing a 93 notchback to an sn95 5.0. the 80's ere light nasty lil beasts w/ bolton power.(p0wer adders make them formitable street weapons)
in order to get the intake under the hoodline of the sn95, they had to squash the deck height an shorten the runners, add some ****ty e7's, couple that w/ a computer that (in the AODE's) retards timing between shifts.. your runnin high 15's.
performace wise, its startin out in a bit of a hole. not as big as say a 4 or 6 banger. but kinda deep compared to a new 4.6 w/ the PI guts.. i know several people w/ bolton's an they've run high 13's w/ good taction an a catback only..
but they (sn95) ride a lot nicer than the 87-93's stockwise. plus the 2 yr only run of the 5.0 makes them sorta rare..
i love the sound of the 4.6 tho..
Similar threads
