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. 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?
     
  2. 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
     
  3. 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
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. FIVE-TEEN!... I mean... PURPLE!

    :leaving:
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. 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
     
  9. I thought the lower HP was because of the intake design to clear the hood?
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. 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.
     
  12. 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
     
  13. 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.
     
  14. The FOX cars did respond better to mods because of the A9L non OBD-II computer (ECC).
     
  15. 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
     
  16. 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
     
  17. 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.
     
  18. 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.
     
  19. 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