Forget h.p. ratings on 5.0. h.o.'s

brynfiv · January 13th, 2007, 12:04 PM

I don't care about ratings. 87'-88's were pissed off with speed density. The throttle bodies were bigger than 89 on, and they had no mass air to choke down induction. Go dig through the salvage yard if you don't believe me. 87's just didn't have valve reliefs. My 88 was stock except for k&n in factory air box, off road h-pipe, and 2-chamber flowmasters. It came with Z-code rearend, 3.08's. With shitty reaction times it would run 8.72 in the 1/8th mile. When it came to brand-x f-bodies (lt1 cars) unless it was a six speed
ram-air or SS I would make them have to spray to catch me. I gave the ws6's and SS's a run for their money. My 88 had 153,000 miles on it at that time, and ran like this to the day I sold it with 191,000 or so on it. You could shift into 2nd easily get up to 40 stomp it and there was no hope for traction. It would walk back and forth till it was time for 3rd at 80 to 85. It would roll the tires 3 ft. in 3rd. with the 85 speedo bouncing. Show me an 89 or newer other than the 93 cobra that runs like that with that little list of mods and I'll kiss your ass. This car had to put a good bit more h.p. to the tires than what ford rated it to make at the motor. Hell this car came with no rev-limiter and would still be pulling at 6250rpm where 89 and newer ones rev-limited. Ford changed the cam in 89' to quieten valvetrain. That caused a 7-h.p. loss they didn't tell you about in h.p. ratings. Research it on the net. You'll find it. They didn't stop there either, they did some more stuff to refine it that caused h.p. losses they didn't mention in the h.p. ratings all the way till 92'. My friend jason had same cat-back, H-pipe, and a bbk fender mount cold air on his 90' GT which had a lot lower mileage than mine.His 90' would only run 9.26 in the 1/8th. He did have 2.73 gears, but I took him 4 1/2 car lengths in th 1/4 mile.

FastBack71 · January 13th, 2007, 01:04 PM

if you were a stock 1988 5.0 with 373 and you raced a 1989 5.0 with 373's and a cold air intake the 1989 would beat you

Justincredible · January 13th, 2007, 01:11 PM

I want the 1.5 minuets of my life back that it took to read that post.

5-0stank · January 13th, 2007, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Justincredible

I want the 1.5 minuets of my life back that it took to read that post.

+1...and oh yeah...r/t's dont effect ur e/t's

87foxbodylx · January 13th, 2007, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by FastBack71

if you were a stock 1988 5.0 with 373 and you raced a 1989 5.0 with 373's and a cold air intake the 1989 would beat you

not always true...

ken5_0 · January 13th, 2007, 02:29 PM

My dad can beat up your dad!

94cobraclone · January 13th, 2007, 02:31 PM

Heck my 94 will smoke em in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.. lol

Stangzilla · January 13th, 2007, 02:33 PM

You aint chirping nothing at 80-85 miles an hour in a almost stock stang...and I do feel a little bit stupider after reading that...

Stangzilla · January 13th, 2007, 02:35 PM

:topicsucks

Darrellx14 · January 13th, 2007, 02:45 PM

Not seeing the point of this topic at all... are you bashing stangs or praising them?

rodenberg · January 13th, 2007, 02:59 PM

wtf what a waist of time. I bet you must be about 14

rodenberg · January 13th, 2007, 02:59 PM

oh ya 86 had speed density also dumb shit

turbong · January 13th, 2007, 04:04 PM

Who pissed in your cheerios!!!!

I had a 4,100lb V6 92 T-bird SC that would stomp the sh^t out of your poor little 5.0, granted I have a 90 LX 5.0 now but just for the point of thrashing you, a stock SC bird would kill your 88 (no go) even withyour modds... LOL
MAF is way better then SD. Get a life looser!

5.slo · January 13th, 2007, 04:08 PM

I think he thinks his car was faster than it was and wants to know why?

Screemin3o2 · January 13th, 2007, 06:32 PM

yeah i saw everyones post on how dumb they felt after reading it so I had to read it to lower my IQ a few points... It's kinda like when someone smells a rag or something and says "Oh my god. That smells like shit. Here smell it." And you take a wiff and say they are right.

1slo5.0 · January 13th, 2007, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by brynfiv

I don't care about ratings. 87'-88's were pissed off with speed density. The throttle bodies were bigger than 89 on, and they had no mass air to choke down induction. Go dig through the salvage yard if you don't believe me. 87's just didn't have valve reliefs. My 88 was stock except for k&n in factory air box, off road h-pipe, and 2-chamber flowmasters. It came with Z-code rearend, 3.08's. With shitty reaction times it would run 8.72 in the 1/8th mile. When it came to brand-x f-bodies (lt1 cars) unless it was a six speed
ram-air or SS I would make them have to spray to catch me. I gave the ws6's and SS's a run for their money. My 88 had 153,000 miles on it at that time, and ran like this to the day I sold it with 191,000 or so on it. You could shift into 2nd easily get up to 40 stomp it and there was no hope for traction. It would walk back and forth till it was time for 3rd at 80 to 85. It would roll the tires 3 ft. in 3rd. with the 85 speedo bouncing. Show me an 89 or newer other than the 93 cobra that runs like that with that little list of mods and I'll kiss your ass. This car had to put a good bit more h.p. to the tires than what ford rated it to make at the motor. Hell this car came with no rev-limiter and would still be pulling at 6250rpm where 89 and newer ones rev-limited. Ford changed the cam in 89' to quieten valvetrain. That caused a 7-h.p. loss they didn't tell you about in h.p. ratings. Research it on the net. You'll find it. They didn't stop there either, they did some more stuff to refine it that caused h.p. losses they didn't mention in the h.p. ratings all the way till 92'. My friend jason had same cat-back, H-pipe, and a bbk fender mount cold air on his 90' GT which had a lot lower mileage than mine.His 90' would only run 9.26 in the 1/8th. He did have 2.73 gears, but I took him 4 1/2 car lengths in th 1/4 mile.

WTF???? Can you say that in english?

Speed density cars kill the mass air cars though, which is what I think you are saying.

HMUSN · January 13th, 2007, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by turbong

Who pissed in your cheerios!!!!

I had a 4,100lb V6 92 T-bird SC that would stomp the sh^t out of your poor little 5.0, granted I have a 90 LX 5.0 now but just for the point of thrashing you, a stock SC bird would kill your 88 (no go) even withyour modds... LOL
MAF is way better then SD. Get a life looser!

did you get that kit kooked up yet?

brynfiv · January 14th, 2007, 07:28 PM

I'm not saying that speed density is better, hell it wont work right if you change cams. I'm saying ford's pissy ass little 55mm stock mass air flow meter chokes down airflow. Somthing aftermarket and bigger changes the whole speed density vs. M.A.F. picture.

1slo5.0 · January 14th, 2007, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by brynfiv

I'm not saying that speed density is better, hell it wont work right if you change cams. I'm saying ford's pissy ass little 55mm stock mass air flow meter chokes down airflow. Somthing aftermarket and bigger changes the whole speed density vs. M.A.F. picture.

The 55mm throttle bodies are on the 86 5 liters. 87-93 came with a 60mm. You can get mild cams to work well with speed density. I ran an F303 with speed density back in the mid 90s with no problems at all.

lineumup88 · January 14th, 2007, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Screemin3o2

yeah i saw everyones post on how dumb they felt after reading it so I had to read it to lower my IQ a few points... It's kinda like when someone smells a rag or something and says "Oh my god. That smells like shit. Here smell it." And you take a wiff and say they are right.

thats good only cause i've been the second rag smeller. i had sd w/ a e-cam and the car wouldn't run till i did the maf conversion.

January 13th, 2007, 12:04 PM	#1
brynfiv Newbie Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 9 iTrader: 0 reviews	Forget h.p. ratings on 5.0. h.o.'s I don't care about ratings. 87'-88's were pissed off with speed density. The throttle bodies were bigger than 89 on, and they had no mass air to choke down induction. Go dig through the salvage yard if you don't believe me. 87's just didn't have valve reliefs. My 88 was stock except for k&n in factory air box, off road h-pipe, and 2-chamber flowmasters. It came with Z-code rearend, 3.08's. With shitty reaction times it would run 8.72 in the 1/8th mile. When it came to brand-x f-bodies (lt1 cars) unless it was a six speed ram-air or SS I would make them have to spray to catch me. I gave the ws6's and SS's a run for their money. My 88 had 153,000 miles on it at that time, and ran like this to the day I sold it with 191,000 or so on it. You could shift into 2nd easily get up to 40 stomp it and there was no hope for traction. It would walk back and forth till it was time for 3rd at 80 to 85. It would roll the tires 3 ft. in 3rd. with the 85 speedo bouncing. Show me an 89 or newer other than the 93 cobra that runs like that with that little list of mods and I'll kiss your ass. This car had to put a good bit more h.p. to the tires than what ford rated it to make at the motor. Hell this car came with no rev-limiter and would still be pulling at 6250rpm where 89 and newer ones rev-limited. Ford changed the cam in 89' to quieten valvetrain. That caused a 7-h.p. loss they didn't tell you about in h.p. ratings. Research it on the net. You'll find it. They didn't stop there either, they did some more stuff to refine it that caused h.p. losses they didn't mention in the h.p. ratings all the way till 92'. My friend jason had same cat-back, H-pipe, and a bbk fender mount cold air on his 90' GT which had a lot lower mileage than mine.His 90' would only run 9.26 in the 1/8th. He did have 2.73 gears, but I took him 4 1/2 car lengths in th 1/4 mile.

January 13th, 2007, 01:04 PM	#2
FastBack71 Enthusiast Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 587 iTrader: 0 reviews	if you were a stock 1988 5.0 with 373 and you raced a 1989 5.0 with 373's and a cold air intake the 1989 would beat you __________________ My friends used to wonder Why i joined the air force. Now they wonder why they didn't.

January 13th, 2007, 01:11 PM	#3
Justincredible RIP Justincredible! God Speed Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Ky Posts: 523 iTrader: 0 reviews	I want the 1.5 minuets of my life back that it took to read that post. __________________ 9.91@ 134mph 1/4 - 6.17@ 109mph 1/8th - 1.33 60' - Stock ECU & Stock Suspension......and getting faster . BIVENS RACE CARS FTMFW!!!

January 13th, 2007, 02:31 PM	#7
94cobraclone Regular Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: columbus, ga Posts: 142 iTrader: 0 reviews	Heck my 94 will smoke em in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.. lol __________________ Powerdyne supercharger Ebrock perf upper/lower intake Steeda 18 cam GT-40 heads MSD Ignition All forged bottom end BBK headers 3:73 rear end T-5 Manual Trans

January 13th, 2007, 02:33 PM	#8
Stangzilla MM Fanatic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: On my way to Baines's house!! Posts: 3,298 iTrader: 0 reviews	You aint chirping nothing at 80-85 miles an hour in a almost stock stang...and I do feel a little bit stupider after reading that... __________________ Rotating The Earth 1320 Feet At A Time!! Today, I found out that when I masturbate at night while watching internet porn I cast a huge shadow on the curtain and the entire street is able to see it.

January 13th, 2007, 02:29 PM	#6
ken5_0 Regular 1990 GT Convert Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Prescott WI Posts: 203 iTrader: 0 reviews	My dad can beat up your dad!

January 13th, 2007, 02:35 PM	#9
Stangzilla MM Fanatic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: On my way to Baines's house!! Posts: 3,298 iTrader: 0 reviews	:topicsucks __________________ Rotating The Earth 1320 Feet At A Time!! Today, I found out that when I masturbate at night while watching internet porn I cast a huge shadow on the curtain and the entire street is able to see it.

January 13th, 2007, 02:45 PM	#10
Darrellx14 Regular Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 82 iTrader: 0 reviews	Not seeing the point of this topic at all... are you bashing stangs or praising them?

January 13th, 2007, 02:59 PM	#11
rodenberg Newbie Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: missouri Posts: 42 iTrader: 0 reviews	wtf what a waist of time. I bet you must be about 14 __________________ bracket racing sucks

January 13th, 2007, 04:04 PM	#13
turbong Regular Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 82 iTrader: 0 reviews	Who pissed in your cheerios!!!! I had a 4,100lb V6 92 T-bird SC that would stomp the sh^t out of your poor little 5.0, granted I have a 90 LX 5.0 now but just for the point of thrashing you, a stock SC bird would kill your 88 (no go) even withyour modds... LOL MAF is way better then SD. Get a life looser! __________________ "90 LX 12.5 @ 114 / $8,500 invested? How much did you spend on that 13.0 Vet?" "Treat your car like you treat women: wash, rub down, pamper, then pound the shifter in every gear, drive it till it gets loose and trade it in for a new model!"

January 13th, 2007, 04:08 PM	#14
5.slo Regular Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 53 iTrader: 0 reviews	I think he thinks his car was faster than it was and wants to know why? __________________

January 13th, 2007, 06:32 PM	#15
Screemin3o2 Enthusiast Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Knoxville, TN Posts: 616 iTrader: 0 reviews	yeah i saw everyones post on how dumb they felt after reading it so I had to read it to lower my IQ a few points... It's kinda like when someone smells a rag or something and says "Oh my god. That smells like shit. Here smell it." And you take a wiff and say they are right. __________________ 95 Mustang GT Slow Bolt On Car www.steelcitystangs.com

January 14th, 2007, 07:28 PM	#18
brynfiv Newbie Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 9 iTrader: 0 reviews	I'm not saying that speed density is better, hell it wont work right if you change cams. I'm saying ford's pissy ass little 55mm stock mass air flow meter chokes down airflow. Somthing aftermarket and bigger changes the whole speed density vs. M.A.F. picture.

Remove Advertisements Sponsored Links
Ford Mustang Forum Advertisement

Threads Similar to: Forget h.p. ratings on 5.0. h.o.'s
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
never forget	mpboy	The Clubhouse	5	September 11th, 2007 04:59 AM
forget a gt500, i want one of these	texas_mustang	The Clubhouse	25	July 15th, 2007 03:51 PM
fuel injector horsepower ratings	SALIV8	5.0 Mustangs	2	April 2nd, 2007 07:06 PM
horsepower and torque ratings	My67_fastback	Classic Mustangs	8	January 10th, 2007 08:39 PM
HP ratings / where should I be after I get tuned next week	GTsetGO	99-04	2	August 9th, 2006 01:40 PM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:46 PM.
Contact Us - Modded Mustangs : Ford Mustang Forums - Privacy Statement - Top
Modded Mustangs is ©2005-2008, All Rights Reserved, And is Not Affiliated with Ford Motor Company. Forum is powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Ent. Ltd. & SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.

Forget h.p. ratings on 5.0. h.o.'s

Forget h.p. ratings on 5.0. h.o.'s

Re: Forget h.p. ratings on 5.0. h.o.'s