how much hp did the 94 5.0's have in them? i wana see if i should race one, prob. not.

------------------
86 sc z-28
305 ci around 150 hp prob lil more
my first car and the best one i will ever own.

 

i think around 225-230

 

I thought it was closer to 205 or so...I dunno, I know the 91-93 regular 5.0s had 205 or so. Down 20 horsies from previous models...minor cam revisions, and switch from speed density to mass air. Some exhaust revisions too I think...I might be way wrong though, so don't quote me on that.

 

Yes, you are wrong. The 87-93 Mustangs all had 225 hp. The '93 was rated at 205 so that the 215 hp rating would look better in '94. They're still the exact same motor though. The 94-95's have a little less aggressive tune from the factory, but no enough to really worry about.

------------------
1989 Mustang LX 5.0 Coupe
13.29@106.66 - needs more gear and converter

1992 Mustang LX 5.0 Convertible
14.23 @ 95.something - 100% bone stock motor - it's been a while since I've ran this one

1993 LX 2.3L Hatchback - "The Ride to VCU"

Moderator Stangtec.com, SN95.com

Co-Founder, Tri Cities Mustang Club
Amelia and Nic's Twin Terrors

 

Yup, the '93 5.0L was grossly underrated.
The normal 5.0 was rated at 205HP, it was really 225HP. The Cobrawas rated at 235HP, but owners have dynoed them and found it's more like 255HP

------------------
Mike
--Black '88 Mustang LX 5.0L AOD--
BBK Headers, Off-Road H-pipe, MAC 2.5" Cat-back exhaust, UD Pulleys
3.73's, FMS "C" Springs, Tokico Shocks,
'93 Pony rims, Saleen Spoiler
5-spd swap VERY soon

-14.42 @ 98MPH (w/ 2.4 60-footer)-

 

Not trying to sound like a Mustang lover here but one of my friends is a total nut and I owned one once (big mistake)
The 1987-1989 Mustangs had 225hp and 300ftlbs
and used the speed density intake
The 1990-1992 Mustangs had 225hp and 300ftlbs
also it but used mass air intake
The 1993 Mustang had 205hp and 280ftlbs also used mass air, was detuned to make the Cobra look better.
The 1993 Cobra had 235hp and 285ftlbs and used the same 5.0 With GT-40 Components
There was also a 1993 Cobra R which was a option deleted Cobra plus a few R only items
The 1994-1996 Mustangs had 215hp and 300ftlbs
The engine was still 5.0 with a shorter intake(hood clearance)
The 1995-1996 Cobra had 305hp and 300ftlbs
The 1997-1998 Mustang had 215hp and 280ftlbs
using the new modular 4.6
The 1997-1998 Cobra had 305hp and 300ftlbs using the same 4.6 with different components

I know the is long but all of the #'s matter.

 

Wrong.

 

Well why then you tell me?

 

My 2 cents
I read in Car Craft that in '93 they used a slightly thinner walled engine block (or something like that) and detuned it for slightly less horsies. They were talking about that since it was an issue where they were looking for a 302 block in a junkyard, and they were specifically trying to avoid the 93 and later blocks.

Jon

------------------
89 GTA
Beautiful Gunmetal gray, LB9 305 and T5 tranny. Only 60,000 miles!
Dual cats, 3"flomaster
Accel 300+ Ignition, wires, cap, coil, etc
Airfoil
KN Airfilter
Removed Screens on MAF
SLP 1 3/4 headers
No Smog/AIR system
14.7@93 (I know i should be running faster...)

91 Ford Thunderbird. My wonderful winter beater.

 

the 93 5.0L was the EXACT same engine as the 87-92 engines except for one thing..the 87-92's had forged pistons while the 93-laters had Hypernuerotic (sp?) pistons. The hyper-something pistons don't take to well to NOS or Boost. Other than that, ford underrated the 93's becayse they are the same 225HP engine as the rest. Why? Well, ford's new Mustang in 94 would have to meet new standards for emmisions so that motor was detuned A LOT! it was listed at 215HP, but the computer programming was weaker. To soften the blow, Ford rated the '93's at 205HP. All of the 93-95 Cobras were slightly overrated. Ford claimed 235HP..but owners have dynoed them and found numbers closer to 260HP stock. Those engines had GT-40 heads, Cobra intake, roller rockers, bigger TB and only made 10HP more than a regular 5.0L?? yeah right.

86-95 5.0L blocks are all the same. The parts all interchange easily. a 95 5.0L block will work with '86 heads and an '89 intake manifold and such. There are just minor tweaks over the years but nothing major. the main tweak was the pistons, but other than that, it's the same 5.0L engine

------------------
Mike
--Black '88 Mustang LX 5.0L AOD--
BBK Headers, Off-Road H-pipe, MAC 2.5" Cat-back exhaust, UD Pulleys
3.73's, FMS "C" Springs, Tokico Shocks,
'93 Pony rims, Saleen Spoiler
5-spd swap VERY soon

-14.42 @ 98MPH (w/ 2.4 60-footer)-

[This message has been edited by Mustang5L5 (edited December 03, 2001).]

 

well, I'll be a...whatever....nice info to know. Thanks for correcting me Nic!

 

The 87-92 5.0 H.O used dished-top (9.0:1 c.r.) forged aluminum pistons. Horsepower ratings were based on the beginning of the 87 model year.

In 93, Ford switched from the forged pistons to hypereutectic pistons. There were no mechanical differences in the 92-93 model year other than the pistons.

The 93 Factory rating was merely in accordance to Fords new evaluation process with all accessories possible. The 93 5.0 was re-evaluated. Here, I'll dwell on it...

-Restrictive intake tract resonator loses the 5.0 5-7 horsepower.
-The camshaft profile change in 1989 lost the 5.0 3 horsepower.
-The mass-airflow meter restricts the 5.0s airflow, and loses it 3 horsepower in 89.
-Exhaust changes yield less horsepower throughout the years.

But specifically, it was just re-evaluated that year. The 93 factory rating was 205 horsepower, 275 ft-lbs of torque.

That's what I know about it.

-Todd-

------------------
1989 Formula WS6
Recently re-converted back to bone-stock for economy.
-L03, Auto, 2.73, etc.
Best Run(formerly modified): 14.1 @ 97 mph.
Recent Run(Stock): 16.1 @ 83 mph.
=========================
1988 Mustang GT
-T-tops, E-303 Cam/1.6 rollers, 3.73 gears, Auto, 4" cowl,
fiberglass hatch, Hooker headers into Flowmaster 40s, and much more.
Best run: 13.87 @ 98 mph.
=========================
1991 Mercury Topaz
-2.3 HSC I4, Auto, winter beater.
=========================
1986 Buick Regal
-Drag car project for my built Olds 403 V8.

 

Oh yeah, the 94-95 5.0 H.O was rated at 215 horsepower and 285 ft-lbs of torque.

Hehe, on topic we go.

-Todd-

 

And it's right.

Did you convert your '88 to Mass Air when you tossed the Ecam in?



------------------
Mike
--Black '88 Mustang LX 5.0L AOD--
BBK Headers, Off-Road H-pipe, MAC 2.5" Cat-back exhaust, UD Pulleys
3.73's, FMS "C" Springs, Tokico Shocks,
'93 Pony rims, Saleen Spoiler
5-spd swap VERY soon

-14.42 @ 98MPH (w/ 2.4 60-footer)-

 

Yeah, I had it available from a friend who wrecked his old 92, so I took his E303 cam, and mass air kit for 200 bucks.

But I traded that Mass Air system for that 86 Regal I have, (good deal) so therefore the cam had to say bye, and the torque converter also said bye. Back to mid-14 second performance. But I'll get another Mass Air kit soon. Hopefully, then I'll put the stuff back in.

-Todd-

[This message has been edited by ws6formula89 (edited December 03, 2001).]

 

I saw on one post that the 89 stangs were Speed Density. No, they were MAF, just like the 90-93. The 93 is sayed to have less power because Ford was testing and didn't want to overrate them. The 94 5.0 is 215hp and 285tq, but weighs more than a Fox bodied car.

 

No 1989 1/2 and lower were speed density.
Also if Ford just under rated Mustang in 1993 why did it run a 15 second 1/4 stock where as 92- ran 14's stock? They did not under rate it, it only had 205hp

 

I thought all mustangs past a certain year(i think it was 82)had roller cams and forged pistons. Thats why they can take a hit alot better as far as nos is concerned. I didnt catch the name of the previous post, but mustangs never had hyperutetic pistons,(hypernuerotic is a brain disorder not pistons)and if they did they would be able to hold boost and nos alot beter. Also, i do believe that the 93' cobra was the fastest mustang ever made until cobra r came out. It was rated at 300hp i believe, and put out something like 360hp. It was also the lightest must ever made. I know a guy her in rowlett that has one, he bought a stroker kit for it and twin turbos. its now a 347 TT, with a 5 spd! I have pictures of him pulling the wheels of the ground in front of my house on street tires. He put on a pair of slicks AND HE PULLED THE WHEELS A FOOT AT LEAST OF THE GROUND! Before he had the stroker, he had the tt setup. so it was a 5.0L TT. He couldnt pull the wheels from a stand still but at 15-20mph at full boost he could pull'em pretty clean of the ground. And the really funny thing is that when he was just a 5.0 he was bone stock on internals a valvetrain. just my 2 cents

bowtieguy01

 

it was 82 to 93 that had the roller cam.

 

'82-95 5.0L HO's came wit roller cams (non-HO's in passenger cars didn't have rollers). In Late 92, early 93, they made the switch from forged pistons to hyperutetic pistons. all '93's and up Mustangs have they hypers but for any of you late '92 guys, take a look at your oil pan. If you have a grey pan, you have forged...if it's black, you have the hypers.

The '93 Cobra was the fastest 3rd gen Mustang (current Cobras are faster) It was oficially rated at 235HP, but owners have dynoed them and found it to be more like 260HP. They are not the lightest Mustang. They are just as heavy as 3rd Gen GT's which are around the 3300-3400 mark. LX coupes are the lightest. Depending on options, they weigh in at around 2900-3100. My LX weighs 3100 pounds and it is a fully optioned automatic.




------------------
Mike
--Black '88 Mustang LX 5.0L AOD--
BBK Headers, Off-Road H-pipe, MAC 2.5" Cat-back exhaust, UD Pulleys
3.73's, FMS "C" Springs, Tokico Shocks,
'93 Pony rims, Saleen Spoiler
5-spd swap VERY soon

-14.42 @ 98MPH (w/ 2.4 60-footer)-

 

The 1993 Cobra was the slowest Cobra (93-01) it ran a pathetic 14.4 stock. The newer Cobras run 13.9 to 14.0. The 1993 only had 235hp and no it wasn't under rated. In 1993 they used the 1993 Cobra and 1993 Z28 in many magazines for comparision tests the Z stomped it, and it was running 14.0-14.4 and a 5.8 0-60. The 1993 Cobra could only pull a best of 6.4 0-60 and like a 14.4. Will everyone quit talking up the 1993 Cobra it was slow........

 

Up to 87, All Mustangs are Speed Density. In 88, only the 49 states (cali excluded) used Speed Density. California cars made the switch to Mass Air in 1988. The following year, 1989, all Mustangs had Mass Air.

'93's can till run 14's stock. My friend ran his 93 LX with optioned 3.08 gears to a 14.6 @ 95MPH.

 

For anyone actually interested in learning something about the Mustangs, listen to Mike, he knows what he's talking about. Also, disregard anything Cody has to say about them. I've never seen such a pile of misinformation.

 

i meant that the 93 cobra was the lightest cobra ever made. excluding the mustang line up in general. Just the 93 cobra compared to all other cobras. And the horse power wasnt 235, when my friend bought the car it had upper and lower intake from edelbrock and cold air induction. Nothing else. He went to dallas mustang and it dynoed at 342hp. You cant get 100+ hp from intake and cold air.

the guy at dallas mustang is where im getting all my info. Dont get me wrong i love f-body's and i love my y-body but when respect is deserved i give it. And his mustang when he bought it gave my vette a run for its money. His 3.73 gears didnt help either.

 

What Ws6formula89 said was absolutely correct.

Most of what Mustang5L5 has said was correct with the exception of saying that the hypereutectic pistons won't hold up to boost. Actually, they are stronger than forged pistons, but they are also more brittle. They can, theoretically, handle more boost, but they cannot handle pinging or preignition as well as the forged pistons. I'd still take the forged pistons because either set will handle more than the stock 5.0 block can.

With regard to the '93 Cobra, I've seen people dyno them at around 250 rwhp. They were most definately underrated. They were also pretty quick at the track and were easily 13second cars right off the showroom floor.

Cody, no offense, but it sounds to me like your info comes from a lot of magazines or something. Follow my logic with this, and if I'm wrong point it out and let the others judge, ok? The only mechanical difference between 5.0L engines in 92 and 93 mustangs were hypereutectic pistons. Hypereutectic pistons are actually lighter than the forged pistons they replaced. Therefore, this addition should have, if anything, increased hp nominally. You yourself, asked why 93 mustangs run 15 second 1/4 mile ETs, again I'm guessing you got this from a magazine. Now, I ask you if the only difference was hypereutectic pistons, why would the car be any slower?

Now, let's carry this logic to the 93 Cobra's. I personally had an 89 5.0 that ran a 14.2 at 98 mph. Granted, that was with bumped timing, a K&N airfilter, removed air intake silencer, Glasspack mufflers, and removed spare + jack. However, the the 93 Cobra had GT40 heads, Cobra intake, 24 lbs/hr fuel injectors, a 65mm throttle body and probably other stuff I'm leaving out and your telling me that it was 2 tenths slower than my mustang? Not possible. Magazine drivers are journalists not hot rodders, remember that. Actually, there are a couple magazine's here on this very site that compare mustangs and F-bodies. One of them had a 92 mustang that ran a 14.4x. If you really want to know what a car will run at the track the only way to really know is to see them there.

Finally, the 95 Cobra did not have 305 hp. It still had the 5.0L and I'm not 100% positive but I think it had 240 rated hp. In 96, they had the 4.6s and I'm not to sure about them but I do know that the 98 Cobras had 305 hp, so I imagine that the 96s did, too.

Chris

 

Well then techincally it wasn't a stock cobra. Cobra come with a Ford Cobra Intake(variant of the GT-40 Intake). The Edelbrock stuff and cold air was put on after the car was bought and I'd be willing to bet there were a few other peices that were not stoc Cobra parts. 342HP is really good, but more than likely there was something else.

 

Nic F$%K You!!!!!!! Everything I listed is true except maybe the exact time mass air was installed. So shut it, who are you to be the judge? All of what I didn't know from owning a Mustang came from the Ford Mustang Performance Handbook which is licensed by Ford. So don't be saying I missinformed anyone.

#1 No matter what anyone says the 1993 Cobra was only 235hp, It would run better than a 14.4 if it had more than that.

#2 Why is this such an issue, The only reason I know anything about Mustangs is because I owned one. But I guess people like Nic the ***** know everything.

#3 By the way nic what exactly is it that I said that was mis information? Unless you have a dyno in your garage no one will know what a car puts out unless they read about it.

[This message has been edited by CODY BEHNKE (edited December 07, 2001).]

 

Here we go again. If some1 has posted misinformation, just correct it nicely or discuss it nicely. There is no reason to get into things like this everytime u guys disagree. If it continues in this post or any post at all from now on, this and any others will be locked, so be cool every1.



[This message has been edited by IROCZTWENTYGR8 (edited December 07, 2001).]

 

Thanks for not locking this post.

Cody, the 93 mustang cobra was underrated and I intend to show you as much evidence as I can to change your mind.

Chris

 

Well do what you can but all of the big name magazines got that year Cobra to run no better than a 14.3, Does it take to much intelligence to figure that a car that weighs right around 3000lbs would be faster if it had more? I don't know what you think you can do to prove something to me but you can try. 1/4 Mile times don't lie. Give it up the 1993 Cobra was a slow excuse for a Mustang in 1993 heck my beat up 1991 GT ran a 14.6

 

why does stuff on this board always turn into a fight , ill be the first to admit i dont know anything about stangs , but if i posted something that was false and someone corrected me , i wouldnt bitch about it , take it as a learning experience

------------------
87z28 lg4 , edelbrock performer rpm intake man , comp 252 cam , ported and polished heads , all emissions equipment removed , no cat , flowmaster 80s series , performer 600 cfm carb , 160 stat ,

my ride

 

cody,

how can you say it was the slow mustang?

if you go to any stang related site the 93 cobra is one of the most revered fox bodys.

If it was slow than why does it recieve so much praise.

the people that test those cars in mags arent drivers, there journalists that are doing the article on the car.
i raced a kid at ennis that had a 93 cobra, kid just turned 16, and he pulled 13.68 out of the car. Thats no 14.3

Like they said in the previous post before, the real way to gather info is to goto the track and see it for your self

ill go find the link on stangnet and post it
bowtieguy01

 

Cody, feel free to read up on this site. Notice the last post: a 13.78 with a K&N and a short belt. knowing that a K&N frees up 5hp that short belt must've freed up about 60 right?

His first time at the track with a Cobra and another guy got a 14.2. His first time, and it was only a ****ty 2.15 60' time. He didn't even do free mods.

Chris

EDIT: Oops forgot to post the site: http://www.corral.net/forums/showthr...threadid=15428


[This message has been edited by 12sMustang (edited December 08, 2001).]

 

Try closer to 3300 - 3400. My lx coupe with aluminum heads, aluminum radiator, no front swaybar, 4" skinnies, no sound deadener, no A/C, no smog, manual locks, and an empty trunk weighs in just under 3000 with me and 1/4 tank of gas.

------------------
1989 Mustang LX 5.0 Coupe
13.29@106.66 - needs more gear and converter

1992 Mustang LX 5.0 Convertible
14.23 @ 95.something - 100% bone stock motor - it's been a while since I've ran this one

1993 LX 2.3L Hatchback - "The Ride to VCU"

Moderator Stangtec.com, SN95.com

Co-Founder, Tri Cities Mustang Club
Amelia and Nic's Twin Terrors

 

I have been to the track one thats dead stock with an average driver runs 14's. And I got the weights from NADA Book. Will everyone let this subject die. I don't care what your friends or uncles or who evers it is runs they are slow for a Cobra. And by the way dead stock you or no one else is puuling a 13 second 1/4 Thats what some lt1 and ls1 cars do on a bad day and they have 275 and 305hp

 

I also think we should let this die. Why should we talk about the enemy. No matter how much horsepower they have those years of mustangs will always be just glorifed escorts. Hey i can't help if I'm a chevy guy but hey isnt this what this site is for. lets not talk about something we all hate.

 

Hey Cody, I think I found a MAGAZINE ARTICLE that might interest you. Motor Trend in February 1993 ran a mustang cobra to a 14.0@98 mph.

If a journalist in motor trend ran a 14.0 in a bone stock 1993 mustang Cobra, you don't think that the owner of one, who drives to the track every weekend, will ever be able to outdrive or get better conditions than did that journalist?

I don't think there's any reason that this thread has to go on now, either. Since you only tend to believe what's written in magazines then this should be good enough evidence for you.

Chris

 

BTW, here is a link to the info: http://members.tripod.com/stmachine/50fastest.htm

Chris

 

Its comparing with the competition for street racing. If it stays good, it won't be locked.

 

14.0 Is still pretty slow for a under rated super Mustang suchs as the 1993 COBRA. And no I don't belive the whole Motor Trend driver versus the owner driving. The people at Motor Trend could care less if they blow a car up so they push it to it's limits. Someone who owns one may be able to go faster with free mods or slicks but they will not pull a 14-14.4 running car down to 13.8 or lower. LET IT DIE, THIS IS A F-BODY SITE.

 

I know this is probably worthless to post because all the non-believers are going to cry that it was a Ford magazine so therefore the times can't be real, but the MM&FF October 96 issue did a Cobra shootout. Page 177 shows a 93 Cobra at 13.75/98.27mph stock on street tires and 13.47/100mph with slicks, short belt and advanced timing.

 

That's not possible, Cobras can't do 13s on the 1/4.

 

Look, I know this is an F-body site, but when you make statements that are wrong about the mustang, don't think that you won't be corrected. BTW if by newer mustangs you were refering to the 99-01s they are capable of mid-low 13s stock. I've heard of 13.3s, but some magazines have gotten 13.5s. And don't run to your 99 motor trend or whatever, because there was a pretty big problem with them that ford put out a fix for. After the fix they ran a lot faster.

Chris

 

I agree with cody...Theres a guy at my work who just bought a 93 cobra,First off look at the blue book value,for such a great sought after mustang why so cheap...?.2nd the fastest/best built cobra was the 85...I hate mustangs but its true...

------------------
85-iroc
1 of 85,ooo or so
superunleaded gas
mods include:K@n stickers
octan boost<<autozone>>
removal of floor mats for less weight
Future mods
More stickers
mothballs
best time est.
6.8@210 m.p.h
392 kills
losses
nhra funny car
747 jet..it was nose to nose
Smoking Vipers
1 by 1

 

ok, how come this thread wasnt locked along with all the others. Because this is all about stangs.

 

Funny...I've seen 93 Cobra's in excellent coindition sell for over $20,000. Doing a quick search on the classifieds section at the Corral, I found about 15 93 Cobra's for sale. Cheapest asking price was $11,500 and most were $16,500 or higher all the way up to $23,000 for an all original 19k mile Cobra. Also, there's no such thing as an 85 Cobra.

[This message has been edited by Nic (edited December 09, 2001).]

 

NO NOT ALL 99 AND NEWER STANGS RUN 13'S THE GT RUNS LIKE 14.2 AND THE COBRAS RUN HIGH 13'S BUT WHO CARES THE NEW Z28 CAN SMOKE A COBRA AND THE SS, WELL DOES IT REALLY MATTER MUSTANGS ARE SLOW.

 

Yeah, this isn't about a 94 5.0's HP anymore. The poster of this topic (and any1 else who wanted to know) must have their answer by now and its getting off topic. I've seen many Third Gens in those price ranges in good to great condition too.



[This message has been edited by IROCZTWENTYGR8 (edited December 09, 2001).]

 

Cody,

I'd be interested in knowing what your car runs since all Mustangs are so slow and can't beat your car.

By the way, here's a timeslip for a stock '01 GT for you:



------------------
1989 Mustang LX 5.0 Coupe
13.29@106.66 - needs more gear and converter

1992 Mustang LX 5.0 Convertible
14.23 @ 95.82 - 100% bone stock motor

1993 LX 2.3L Hatchback - "The Ride to VCU"

Moderator Stangtec.com, SN95.com

Co-Founder, Tri Cities Mustang Club
Amelia and Nic's Twin Terrors