Discuss Horsepower rating for stock H.O 5.0 on AllFordMustangs.com, the place for Mustang enthusiasts.
Welcome to our Mustang forums where Mustangers come together to hang out, discuss and enjoy their favorite Mustang hobby with fellow Mustang enthusiasts. We invite everyone to read, post, and enjoy our Mustang forum as well as the many other sections of our site.
You are currently viewing our forums as a guest. By joining our community you gain access to post topics, communicate with members, upload your photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free so why wait, join our Mustang community today! If you have any problems with registration or your account login, please contact support.
I can buy a factory spec re-built H.O. 5.0 from a local high volume engine shop really cheap. It is a longblock with stock heads. What was the factory HP rating for the 87-95 H.O.'s? With a few mods (slightly larger cam, roller rockers, good carb/intake, port-matching) what kind of HP/torque could I expect? The car is going to be a daily driver and I am looking for about 300 HP, give or take a little.
you need to be more specific on cam. porting your heads will only give you small numbers. to get even close to 300 horse, you will need to invest more then just porting the stock heads and adding a slightly larger cam. stock was 225 until 93 and then it went to 215 but it really was pretty much the same rating. 87's were the fastest from what i understood.
13.4@106mph (on old 302, no ET's on stroker yet)
'94 GT 347 Stroker, TFS stage 2 cam (.542 lift), AFR 185 heads, Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, 30 lb injectors, 77mm Pro-M, Fox Accufab 75mm Throttle Body, 255lph fuel pump, Mac fox style Long Tube headers, Tremec TKO, aluminum driveshaft, 3.73 gears , Flowmaster 2 chamber, chrome Cobra R 17x9's, Steeda radiator, Eibach Sportline springs, Tweecer RT
Originally posted by jruppert 87's were the fastest from what i understood.
i have heard the same things from a couple places. Supposidly a big FORD guy was at a local place talking Mustangs in general and the guy was saying how the 87 was the most powerful 5.0... i doubted it but it explains why i was beating 91-93 mustangs w/ loads more mods by quite a bit.. i know no one will support that theory but i just wanted to say i have heard the same rumors??
Actually the 87-92 are rated at 225, and 93 at 205, not 215. There was no loss of power, Ford changed there formula in 93 to start representing more accurate (real) numbers. The speed density Stangs have been proven to be slightly faster, but not much. The fact that they dont take modding well, makes them completely inferior if they are to be modded. Im not sure if youre gonna get 300 hp at the crank with just a cam, rollers and port matching. You may have to add an aftermarket intake and whatnot...
A mass aired 5.0 HO (88 California to 92) comes with 225hp and 300ft lbs of torque stock. In 93 the numbers went down for some reason. They did change the pistons from forged to hyperutectic (however you spell them) and did some other stuff. Ford was very odd about their horsepower numbers back then, but only to lower insurnace costs on the car.
I mean, they rated the '93 Cobra at 235hp and it came with a better mass air meter, throttle body, intake manifold, injecors, and heads. It's really hard to guess whether the 5.0 HO made more or less power than the advertised numbers, especially in times like 1993 and the SN95s when they advertised it being 10-15hp lower.
1991 Thunderbird SC: I <3 Blower Whine.
1993 LX 2.3 Convertible: Less than half of a 5.0
1989 LX 5.0 Hatch: Sold!
Originally posted by Stangboy5666 Actually the 87-92 are rated at 225, and 93 at 205, not 215. There was no loss of power, Ford changed there formula in 93 to start representing more accurate (real) numbers. The speed density Stangs have been proven to be slightly faster, but not much. The fact that they dont take modding well, makes them completely inferior if they are to be modded. Im not sure if youre gonna get 300 hp at the crank with just a cam, rollers and port matching. You may have to add an aftermarket intake and whatnot...
you might want to double check that....they dont react well to most cams, but there sre speed density cams out there
Im not tryin to knock speed density. Im just sayin that if your car is mass air you dont have many compatability issues like you do with speed density. Im sure speed density is great, just less to choose from.
Well since almost everbody who's posting is barely old enough or can't remember when the 87's came out I thought I'd through in my 2 cents. The 87 to 92 5.0 H.O. engines are rated at 225 HP I think this is the stock engine rating you are asking about (the most commom anyways)As for the 87's being faster or the fastest in stock form they were . Check out any posted e.t's from old magazines. Speed density cars were a bit faster a friend had a almost new 87 and a then new 88 which I remember riding in compared to my 89 mass air car.which I bought a few years after that.Keep in mind back in 1987 the Mustang could be ordered as a "stripper" meaning radio delete etc. So the car would be as light as possible right off the bat. There was a fellow in Winnipeg ,Mb Canada named Ed Hohenberg who ran such a car in the then super stock class who ran terrific times. I have alot of info on these fox body cars from 87 to 93. Magazines books articles you name it. (I have offered a possible sampling of what I have to this website but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears) It's funny how stories get exagerrated/twisted over time when compared to actual fact. Plus the fact that I was 18 when the 87 LX came out(21 when I bought mine) and I was drooling over them. I remember them vividly as more and more appeared on the street and in our dealer showrooms. . Also 225 hp doesnt seem like much (some factory cars were actually dynoed less than that.) but I pulled off a 14.6 rather easliy im my lx coupe 100% untouched engine after only 4 runs I ever made. Potential for this car and the 87 & 88 speed density(stock form) is definitely there As for you to get a realistic 300 dynoed HP from a carbed engine it will require a few bucks for sure and some well though out parts that will complement each other not detract from the engine. Do more homework on the carb/intake/cam/head selection. You dont want to be dissapointed after spending X number of dollars on the engine thinking it should have 300 hp only to find out it doesnt and your car runs like a dog at the track and on the street. Good Luck
89 ' LX 5.0L coupe ex-crash victim.5 sp., 100% stock except for Dynomax Super Turbo mufflers. 2-1/2" tailpipes, airbag in right rear, K&N filter, 4.10's,subframe conn. A plain LX . 14.06 in the quarter .@95.75 mph / 1.79 60' No front sway bar. M/T slicks 3500 rpm launch, 11 psi on 89 octane, timing in the 14-16 degree range Done on a 70 degree day. Best 60' to date 1.77, best e.t. to date 14.01 by my brother.
if yall just knew what yall are talking about the hp rating from 85-93 is 225 stock with 235 ft pounds of torque thats what ford says. but if you put it on the dyno it only has 205. with 215 ft pounds of torque. the 94-98 mustangs have stock rating of 215 hp with 225 ft pounds of torque. but it you put it on a dyno. it has 225 hp with 240 ft pounds of torque. i sould know i have a 1987 ford mustang and a 1995 mustang but if you are looking to get about 300 hp out of your mustang i can give you some tips. on my 1995 i got it brand new. and i took it my cuz dyno shop. it had 225 hp. then i whent and got the pistons bored 30 over. that put it up to 255 hp. then i whent and got a new 4 barrel and put it on it. see my mustang had deport heads on it so a could easyly out it on there if you got inport heads you are going to have to get some deport heads. but that put my 95 up to 350 hp with 385 ft pound of torque. but if you need any more power. just put you hpf stage 3 turbo that what i did now my mustang is barly street legle it has 875 hp with 950 ft pounds of torque. and if you want to see my mustang go to youtube and type in SN-95 Turbo Mustang and tell me what you thank.
Last edited by dylan12345; 08-01-2010 at 03:05 AM.
Reason: miss spell