Discuss What year 5.0 has the best performing engine? 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.
Some would say the early 5.o's like 87-89. i've driven 4 years of 5 liters, 88, 91, 93, and 94. The slowest one was the 94. It really doesn't matter what year you get but how you build it. And the Mustang 5.0's were all roller motors.
Originally posted by Sniper Some would say the early 5.o's like 87-89. i've driven 4 years of 5 liters, 88, 91, 93, and 94. The slowest one was the 94. It really doesn't matter what year you get but how you build it. And the Mustang 5.0's were all roller motors.
This may be a newb question but even the 76-78 were roller?
If you're exclude the H.O. 5.0L Cobra engine, the '87-late '88 H.O. 5.0L engine produced the most HP. There was a cam change in early August of '88 that reduced output by 3 HP (not reflected in the 225 HP rating).
In pure stock form the 87-88 was the most powerfull due to speed density. 87-92 had forged pistons. 94 and 95 may me just as fast as 87-88 due to the switch to a electric fan via the elimination of the clutch fan. I would take the 94 because it probably has less miles and newer components. Just to let sniper know that the 94 was slowest due to the weight difference the 94&95 had. It was alot heavier than the 87-93.
Originally posted by cobra28147 In pure stock form the 87-88 was the most powerfull due to speed density. 87-92 had forged pistons. 94 and 95 may me just as fast as 87-88 due to the switch to a electric fan via the elimination of the clutch fan. I would take the 94 because it probably has less miles and newer components. Just to let sniper know that the 94 was slowest due to the weight difference the 94&95 had. It was alot heavier than the 87-93.
That's all true IF gavin123 was asking about a whole car. He is only asking about an engine though. Why '87-late '88 was the most powerful had nothing to do with the EEC system, or electric fan, or weight of the vehicle. None of that factored into the rated HP on the dyno.
It is not going to matter what block you put in, because they are essentially all the same. The reason some were sslower than others would be due to weight of vehicle, the whole s.d. vs. mass air deal, and stock intake, exaust... I would get an 87-92 for the forged internals, and thats about all I would worry about. All of these engines were virtually the same horsepower. Dont worry about it, if he's got a '94 on hand get it, if not go with an 87-92.
Foxchassis you are wrong sorry. The 87-88 did have more power in stock form due and only due to speed density! Also, a electric fan does free up about 5-10 h.p. The ford h.p.was estimated on these year vehicles. The reason the 94&95 is 215 instead of 225 was due to Ford changing the way they calculate h.p. In reality the 94&95 would be more due to the electric fan.Thank-you!
Yeah Cobra's right. The 87 and 88 had a little more than 205hp (maybe like 20-215), and the later fox's steadily had less and less horsepower. Although Ford's official horsepower was 225, there must be some reason they dropped the 93 GT to 205 hp... Ford just decided to produce some real numbers, plus they wanted to keep the Cobra at a reasonable and conservative hp rating so more people would buy them. (Insurance rates). The 94-95 would have a little more uumph...
cobra28147, scoll up and re-read the question gavin123 asked. Did he ask about an engine or did he ask about a whole car? He asked about an engine.
Is the EEC system part of the engine? No, it is not. Is an electric fan part of the engine? No, it is not. Is the weight of the vehicle part of the engine? No, it is not.
Did he say he was going to take an engine AND the EEC system AND an electric fan and put all of that in his '65 Mustang? No, he did not. He asked which was the 'best' and I gave a factually correct answer.
Am I wrong about the cam change in late '88? No. I am not....
'85-late '88 H.O. 5.0L camshaft:
IVO 17º BTDC
IVC 69º ABDC
EVO 67º BBDC
EVC 19º ATDC
Advertised Duration 266º
Part Number E5ZE-6250-AA
Late '88-'89 H.O. 5.0L camshaft:
IVO 20º BTDC
IVC 76º ABDC
EVO 67º BBDC
EVC 19º ATDC
Advertised Duration 276º Int./266º Exh.
Part Number E8ZE-6250-CA
The cam change reduced output by 3 HP but it was not reflected in the rating.
Read my last post and I WAS talking about engine power! I would hope that when he does get a motor from a car he uses the cooling system, and whatever else he could use to save money. By the way, who cares about 3 h.p.? This is the order for most powerfull motors from 87-95.
1.87&88-due to speed density
Also, he may use the complete system so speed density and electric fan are important!
Do tell what makes an '89-'92 ENGINE (this does NOT mean a whole fuggin car!) better than an '87-'88 engine. I explained above that the '87-late '88 camshaft produced more power than the late '88-'93 cam did. So how is there "no question about it"?