Horsepower rating for stock H.O 5.0 - Ford Mustang Forum
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-27-2004 Thread Starter
Rookie
 
gregorytx's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Frisco Texas
Posts: 4
 
Horsepower rating for stock H.O 5.0

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.
gregorytx is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-27-2004
Made Member
5.0L Member
 
jruppert's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Location: Big Rapids, Michigan
Posts: 574
 
Send a message via AIM to jruppert Send a message via MSN to jruppert
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
jruppert is offline  
post #3 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-27-2004
Made Member
5.0L Member
 
madmaxin22's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 256
 
Send a message via AIM to madmaxin22
Quote:
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??

2011 5.0/6spd- gt500 axleback
2011 ram crew Mango Tango
madmaxin22 is offline  
post #4 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-27-2004
GT Member
5.0L Member
 
Stangboy5666's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,268
 
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...
Stangboy5666 is offline  
post #5 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-27-2004
Made Member
2.3L Member
 
Terrible Juan's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Lakewood
Posts: 605
 
Send a message via AIM to Terrible Juan
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!
Terrible Juan is offline  
post #6 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-27-2004
Banned
 
Twister's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 4,610
 
Quote:
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
Twister is offline  
post #7 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-27-2004
Top Dog
5.0L Member
 
GhostDog 5.0's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Edinburg
Posts: 4,837
 
Send a message via AIM to GhostDog 5.0 Send a message via Yahoo to GhostDog 5.0
I've beaten SEVERAL mass air cars in my day. Don't knock speed density. I've done all my mods and it idles fine and accellerates insanely.

89 GT Hatch: Custom M90 Supercharged w/ Ported Trickflow Trackheat Heads, Stage 1 cam, Streetheat lower / Sheet metal upper, Tweecer RT & PLX Wideband, 75mm TB, 1.6 Roller rockers, 3.73s, MSD 6a, Canton 7qt Pan+ Windage tray, 36LB Injectors, 200 amp Alternator, 75mm Pro-Mas MAF, 190lph fuel pump,Spec Stage 1 Clutch,SouthSide LCA's, Pro 5.0 Shifter, Steeda CC Plates / Springs, FMS Aluminum Driveshaft, New T5 w/ 2.95 first gear, Underdrive pullies, Zirgo 3300Cfm Elec. Fan, AFCO alum. radiator
GhostDog 5.0 is offline  
post #8 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-27-2004
Mana4Real
Guest
 
Mana4Real's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a
Mass air is just a more accurate way of metering the incoming air. That doesn't mean that you can't have a fast MAP 5.0... Everything is in proper tuning folks.
post #9 of 21 (permalink) Old 01-28-2004
GT Member
5.0L Member
 
Stangboy5666's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,268
 
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.
Stangboy5666 is offline  
Made Member
5.0L Member
 
fine89lx's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 186
 
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.

Last edited by fine89lx; 01-29-2004 at 12:33 AM.
fine89lx is offline  
Apprentice
5.0L Member
 
vibred93vert's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 137
 
Send a message via AIM to vibred93vert
cam change in late 88 3 horsepower loss, lots of other small changes that resulted in horsepower ford did't count.
vibred93vert is offline  
Apprentice
 
sneado's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Willamette Valley
Posts: 84
 
the 86 5.0 H.O. is also rated at 225 hp. just to let you all know.
sneado

1999 GT (Stock for now)
1999 EB Explorer (Wife's)
sneado is offline  
Rookie
 
dylan12345's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Ellenboro
Posts: 1
 
Thumbs up

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 04:05 AM. Reason: miss spell
dylan12345 is offline  
MACH I Member
5.0L Member
 
FoxChassis's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: NOYB
Posts: 2,993
 
H.O. = '82-'95

'82 = 157 HP/240 TQ
'83 = 175 HP/245 TQ
'84 = 165 HP/245 TQ (EFI) and 175 HP/245 TQ (4V)
'85 = 165 HP/245 TQ (EFI) (before 11/19/84) or 180 HP/260 TQ (EFI) (after 11/18/84) and 210 HP/270 TQ (4V)
'86 = 200 HP/285 TQ
'87-'92 = 225 HP/300 TQ
'93 = 205 HP/275 TQ
'94-'95 = 215 HP/285 TQ
FoxChassis is offline  
PONY Member
4.6L Member
5.0L Member
 
White Elephant's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Greer
Posts: 512
 
Why bring a six year old thread back from the dead??

1990 Oxford White GT(The White Elephant) Maximum Motorsports subframes & c/c plates , Mac O/R H pipe, Flowmaster "Delta Flow" mufflers, 3.73's & Mac girdle, A/C, EGR, & Smog deleted, "B" Springs, chrome Pony R's 17x8, 17x10 daily driver!
2003 SVT Cobra, Redfire Metallic
JLT RamAir Intake, Billetflow 2.93 pulley+ idlers, Mac Pro-Chamber O/R mid-pipe, Nitto 315 dr's,Billetflow brace,weight reduction, Tuned by Amazon T.S. w/ SCT software- 451rwhp/457tq
White Elephant is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Random Question

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183