| ![]() | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
|
|
#1 |
|
Enthusiast
|
Out of curiosity..
I've been looking into hoping to buy a Fox this summer. Doing my research as to HP and such, I'm curious as to why my finding is what it is...
1982: 157hp 1983: 175hp 1984: 175hp 1985: 205hp 1986: 200hp 1987: 225hp 1988: 225hp 1989: 225hp 1990: 225hp 1991: 225hp 1992: 225hp 1993: 205hp My question is, why do they seem to be all over the place? I find it hard to believe that until 1985 they weren't able to get the same power out of a 5.0 that my 3.8 has. And why the drops in '86 and '93? A friend of mine's father LOVES his '86 and says it's the year "the boss was back" but there was a drop HP? I'm confused.
|
|
| Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement | |||
|
|
#2 |
|
Banned
1992 Lx
11.39@119.24
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 11,644
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() iTrader: 0 reviews
|
93 didnt really drop, they just rated things differently
__________________
[QUOTE=93mustank;2577445]We speed tested my right arm for quickness in shifts... So he could design the cam for proper shift recovery.[/QUOTE] |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Enthusiast
|
Are you stalking me..?
So if I'm looking for the most starting HP, what year(s) do I look? |
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Regular
87 GT
14.2@98.something
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: N.E Ohio
Posts: 118
![]() iTrader: 0 reviews
|
well the increase in 87 is due to the fact of the E7 cylinder head design over the E6 of the previous year. The early 80's there alot of emissions stuff on those motors, and Im pretty sure those carbs were complete garbage.
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Hardcore Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,304
![]() iTrader: 0 reviews
|
those are probably just estimations, not realistic figures.
__________________
![]() I believe in art when it is not seen. I believe in music when it is not audible. I believe in God when He is silent. |
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Enthusiast
|
Well, my question still stands as to which year(s) will give me the most base horsepower.
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,387
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() iTrader: 0 reviews
|
I agree with the above reason... anything 81 and up of any american brand lost tons of hp out of the box do to detuning to met newly strick emission laws and the head change over and shift to injection in 86 lead to the slight drop there.
I would however take a completely stock 85 ho car in a race vs your heavy 3.8 for the win ![]() If you researched further you would have found out that the none mass air aero nose foxes actually were slightly faster then the 89-93 models stock vs stock. Why because of they didn't have a small 55mm maf in the intake track and the cam was slightly more aggressive. So to answer your question, pickup a non California edition 87/88 car and start muff hunting |
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Enthusiast
|
Ha, alright, I was looking 87+ anyways. Just see if I can find something decent around $3k this summer, or get my car paid off to see about getting a $1500 loan..
I love my car to death, shes pretty, and I wanted a mustang since I was 3. But sometime's I just am driving, and am like "FUCKING MOVE!!" |
|
| Sponsored Links | |
Advertisement | |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
Threads Similar to: Out of curiosity..
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| just out of curiosity, MAX A/C | dgt_mustang | V6 Mustangs | 7 | September 15th, 2008 11:04 AM |
| just out of curiosity | 02MiNeRaLgRaYGT | 99-04 | 7 | August 30th, 2007 02:21 PM |
| curiosity | 2001bullitt | 99-04 | 12 | December 29th, 2006 11:36 AM |
| Curiosity | JRubin2000 | 99-04 | 10 | October 2nd, 2006 06:36 PM |