What year 5.0 has the best performing engine? - Ford Mustang Forum
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-10-2004 Thread Starter
Rookie
 
gavin123's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: san mateo
Posts: 33
 
What year 5.0 has the best performing engine?

HI, i'm looking to buy a 302 out of a mustang for my 1965, i was wondering which on would be the best?

My friend has a crashed 94 mustang 302 and was wondering what this year is like? does it have a roller cam ?
gavin123 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-10-2004
Made Member
 
Sniper's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: El Paso
Posts: 594
 
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.
Sniper is offline  
post #3 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-10-2004
Rookie
 
ShadowStand's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 34
 
Quote:
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?
ShadowStand is offline  
post #4 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-10-2004
MACH I Member
5.0L Member
 
FoxChassis's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: NOYB
Posts: 2,992
 
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).

1979-1993 Fox Capri and Mustang VIN Decoder: foxchassis.com

Wanted (Dead or Alive): VINs, Vehicle Certification Labels, Buck Tags, Build Sheets, Window Stickers, Owner Cards, Warranty Tags, History 999 Reports, Invoices, Axle Tags
FoxChassis is offline  
post #5 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-10-2004
MACH I Member
5.0L Member
 
FoxChassis's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: NOYB
Posts: 2,992
 
Quote:
Originally posted by ShadowStand
This may be a newb question but even the 76-78 were roller?
First roller 5.0L engine was in the '85 model year (4V engine only).

The '76 and '77 302 engine was not called a "5.0L". That moniker didn't appear until the '78 model year (on the King Cobra).

1979-1993 Fox Capri and Mustang VIN Decoder: foxchassis.com

Wanted (Dead or Alive): VINs, Vehicle Certification Labels, Buck Tags, Build Sheets, Window Stickers, Owner Cards, Warranty Tags, History 999 Reports, Invoices, Axle Tags
FoxChassis is offline  
post #6 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-10-2004
Apprentice
 
cobra28147's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 118
 
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.
cobra28147 is offline  
post #7 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-10-2004
MACH I Member
5.0L Member
 
FoxChassis's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: NOYB
Posts: 2,992
 
Quote:
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.

1979-1993 Fox Capri and Mustang VIN Decoder: foxchassis.com

Wanted (Dead or Alive): VINs, Vehicle Certification Labels, Buck Tags, Build Sheets, Window Stickers, Owner Cards, Warranty Tags, History 999 Reports, Invoices, Axle Tags
FoxChassis is offline  
post #8 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-11-2004
GT Member
5.0L Member
 
Stangboy5666's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,268
 
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.
Stangboy5666 is offline  
post #9 of 29 (permalink) Old 02-11-2004
Apprentice
 
cobra28147's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 118
 
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!
cobra28147 is offline  
GT Member
5.0L Member
 
Stangboy5666's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,268
 
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...
Stangboy5666 is offline  
MACH I Member
5.0L Member
 
FoxChassis's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: NOYB
Posts: 2,992
 
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
Overlap 36º
Lift .278"/.444"
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.
Overlap 39º
Lift .278"/.444"
Part Number E8ZE-6250-CA

The cam change reduced output by 3 HP but it was not reflected in the rating.

1979-1993 Fox Capri and Mustang VIN Decoder: foxchassis.com

Wanted (Dead or Alive): VINs, Vehicle Certification Labels, Buck Tags, Build Sheets, Window Stickers, Owner Cards, Warranty Tags, History 999 Reports, Invoices, Axle Tags
FoxChassis is offline  
Apprentice
 
cobra28147's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 118
 
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
2-94&95-fan elimination
3-89-93
Also, he may use the complete system so speed density and electric fan are important!
cobra28147 is offline  
MACH I Member
5.0L Member
 
FoxChassis's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: NOYB
Posts: 2,992
 
No, you were talking about engine power PLUS the EEC system's lack of an intake tract restriction PLUS less parasitic loss on the crank due to no crank-driven cooling fan.

gavin123 asked about the 'best' "302". He did not ask about a 302 PLUS the intake tract PLUS a cooling fan.

Does a crate engine's rated HP include a full intake tract and a fan?

1979-1993 Fox Capri and Mustang VIN Decoder: foxchassis.com

Wanted (Dead or Alive): VINs, Vehicle Certification Labels, Buck Tags, Build Sheets, Window Stickers, Owner Cards, Warranty Tags, History 999 Reports, Invoices, Axle Tags
FoxChassis is offline  
Rookie
 
StangGtDriver91's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 21
 
Send a message via AIM to StangGtDriver91
1989-1992, no question about it.

BBK fender induction; Edlebrock 5.0 Performer upper & lower intake; 70mm Edlebrock TB; mac headers; O/R H-pipe; Flowmaster Single Chambers; Pro 5.0 shifter; 3.73's; centerforce clutch; Comp Cam; Holley 190lph fuel pump; electric fan; and that BLUE OVAL!!!
StangGtDriver91 is offline  
MACH I Member
5.0L Member
 
FoxChassis's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: NOYB
Posts: 2,992
 
LOL!

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"?

1979-1993 Fox Capri and Mustang VIN Decoder: foxchassis.com

Wanted (Dead or Alive): VINs, Vehicle Certification Labels, Buck Tags, Build Sheets, Window Stickers, Owner Cards, Warranty Tags, History 999 Reports, Invoices, Axle Tags
FoxChassis 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