How Much Hp Am I Putting To The Wheels?

Discussion in '1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-' started by BradleyMustang3, Oct 23, 2012.


  1. BradleyMustang3

    BradleyMustang3 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    148
    Showcase:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    New York
    302 bored 30 over out of a 92 5.0
    10:1 Compression
    probe forged piston heads
    edelbrock performer aluminum heads
    1.7 roller rockers
    ford racing e303 cam
    Steeda under drive pulleys
    Cold air intake
    msd coil
    ford racing push rods
    dss stud girdle
    jba headers(long tubes no cats)
    x pipe
    flowmaster american thunder exhaust

    what do you guys think im putting to the crank and wheels and i know stock they made 215 but im guessing that was at the crank not the wheels?
     
    #1
  2. 95Vert383AOD

    95Vert383AOD Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,300
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    49
    Location:
    Providence, RI
    You're probably gonna get flamed for this post. We see so many "Guess my HP" threads. It gets a general ****ing in the wind kind of repentance.

    What intake are you using? Mass air meter size? Throttle body size? With a good tune i would guess 285hp and the wheels and a lil over 300 at the crank.

    Thats roughly 100hp more than stock. The 215 advertised was at the crank.
    Chris
     
    #2
  3. BradleyMustang3

    BradleyMustang3 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    148
    Showcase:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    New York
    yeah i dont like to ask but i bought the car this way so i have no idea where its at. the kid sold it to me cause it wouldnt run right he told me the symptoms so i went 200 miles to get it with a tfi and tps in hand and it worked out well...

    he took the trick flow intake off and put on off of a lincon 5.0 on it...havnt changed it yet
    stock maf stock tb i have a 75mm tb and adator elbow but im trying to hunt down a gt40 tubular or off an explorer


    Thanks
    Brad
     
    #3
  4. 95Vert383AOD

    95Vert383AOD Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,300
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    49
    Location:
    Providence, RI
    I'm not sure about the flow numbers but i would stick with a trickflow intake or even the Holley efi intakes if you can find one.
     
    #4
  5. VibrantRedGT

    VibrantRedGT "STANGNET'S PENGUIN SMACKER" Super Mod

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 1999
    Messages:
    15,569
    Likes Received:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    114
    Location:
    Boca Raton, Florida
    That E cam isn't the right choice for you mods. I'd say somewhere in the neighborhood of 270-285HP sounds about right. My car with Heads / Cam / Intake / Exhaust made 292HP to the wheels.
     
    #5
  6. Noobz347

    Noobz347 Stangnet Facilities Maint Tech... Er... Janitor Admin Dude

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 1985
    Messages:
    20,361
    Showcase:
    59
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    2,593
    Trophy Points:
    174
    Location:
    Box behind Walmart
    FIVE-TEEN!... I mean... PURPLE!

    :leaving:
     
    #6
  7. JordanB21

    JordanB21 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2012
    Messages:
    804
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    29
    Location:
    Killeen, Texas
    Stock 5.0s from 92 and down were all rated at 225 not 215. Standard changed I think in 93? Anyways it isn't the same 215, it's slightly higher output.
     
    #7
  8. revhead347

    revhead347 I have face herpes.

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,634
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    Acworth, GA
    Stock 5.0 Mustangs with a manual put down 190rwhp. The year doesn't matter much. I would agree with the others at 285 provided everything is working correctly.

    Kurt
     
    #8
  9. 95Vert383AOD

    95Vert383AOD Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,300
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    49
    Location:
    Providence, RI
    I thought the lower HP was because of the intake design to clear the hood?
     
    #9
  10. VibrantRedGT

    VibrantRedGT "STANGNET'S PENGUIN SMACKER" Super Mod

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 1999
    Messages:
    15,569
    Likes Received:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    114
    Location:
    Boca Raton, Florida
    Yup that's exactly it. The 94-95's have the sloping hood so they modified the intake. Whether it took 10HP away is undetermined. Nobody tested this theory. Everything else carried over minus the accessories, they are different on the 94-95's.
     
    #10
  11. JordanB21

    JordanB21 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2012
    Messages:
    804
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    29
    Location:
    Killeen, Texas
    Right. I forgot about that, but is the intake difference really worth a 10 HP?
    Anyways, there was something about the way they tested the vehicles horsepower that changed, part of the reason why the 93 cobra was rated at a low 235 horsepower. Maybe I misread, however long ago.

    Back on topic, it's not important, but its been noted that the foxbody 5.0s (MAF ones) responded better to modification versus the 5.0s out of an sn95. Not a clue if that's true or not, just rumor.
     
    #11
  12. revhead347

    revhead347 I have face herpes.

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,634
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    Acworth, GA
    I'm pretty sure the 93' was rated at 205hp, and the 94' was rated at 215hp. Either way, they put the same power to the wheels. It has nothing to do with the intake.

    Kurt
     
    #12
  13. Bullitt95

    Bullitt95 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,298
    Showcase:
    4
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    49
    Location:
    Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
    That's at the crank. Stock manual GTs put down ~190hp at the wheels.
    With your mods I estimate your engine combo will put down ~290rwhp. Your Lincoln intake, MAF and TB are collectively costing you at least 20rwhp. With those items upgraded you could have 310+rwhp.
     
    #13
  14. VibrantRedGT

    VibrantRedGT "STANGNET'S PENGUIN SMACKER" Super Mod

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 1999
    Messages:
    15,569
    Likes Received:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    114
    Location:
    Boca Raton, Florida
    The FOX cars did respond better to mods because of the A9L non OBD-II computer (ECC).
     
    #14
  15. BradleyMustang3

    BradleyMustang3 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    148
    Showcase:
    1
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    New York
    That E cam isn't the right choice for you mods. I'd say somewhere in the neighborhood of 270-285HP sounds about right. My car with Heads / Cam / Intake / Exhaust made 292HP to the wheels.

    VibrantRed what would be a better cam choice?

    and i figured that intake manifold was choking the motor out...i almost had a gt40 off of an early 97 explorer yesterday but i didnt have my star keys with me and the junkyard was closing so they told me i couldnt go out and come back in all i needed was to get the two bolts under that 5.0 plate and i was home free...worst part is that junk yard is an hour and a half away lol
     
    #15
  16. revhead347

    revhead347 I have face herpes.

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,634
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    Acworth, GA
    None of the 5.0 Mustangs (except for the 2010' and up) were OBD 2. But yeah, the A9L was more tolerant of mods.

    Kurt
     
    #16
  17. JJ95GTID

    JJ95GTID Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,154
    Showcase:
    16
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    49
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Gents, 94-95 5.0L Mustangs are ODB1. 96 to 04 are ODB2. Not sure on the 05+.
    If our Mustangs were ODB2 I would've bought a handheld programmer years ago.
     
    #17
  18. JJ95GTID

    JJ95GTID Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,154
    Showcase:
    16
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    49
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    I agree though that the 93 and older Foxes took upgrades more nicely than the 94-95s.
    Ford had to do some tweaking to the EEC-IV to make it pass emissions standards of the time.
     
    #18
  19. revhead347

    revhead347 I have face herpes.

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,634
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    Acworth, GA
    I forgot the details, but they switched it to load based logic or something like that in 94' to keep the crappy T-5s they were still using from breaking. That's why the computers are more fickle. Makes no difference which computer you use once you put a chip on it though.

    Kurt
     
    #19

Share This Page