Stock HP-marekting ploy?

[1994Vib.RedGT]

I've heard about how 93's were rated at 205HP as a marketing ploy so that they didnt have more than 94's, but were 94-95s rated at 215 so that they wouldnt be rated higher than the 4.6 coming out in 96? so do our motors really have 225 HP, and 215 is the marketing ploy, or did we really just get 215, and if we did why did foxes get the 225?

 

[SuperDust22]

I think we only had 215hp. Maybe some factory freaks had more. And I think the Cobra was underrated at 240.

Dustin

 

[willys1]

You hit the nail rite on the head,it was a ploy.Any 1987--1995 5.0 makes 180-190 HP to the wheels!! The only difference in the 93 motor was the addition of Hyper.... pistons, instead of forged.There alot lighter then forged,but they are pretty fragile.There not good with any type of boost or nitrous.Small amounts are ok,but they cant handle the boost loads that forged pistons do.So pretty much there all the same,except cobra's.

 

[95WhiteVenom]

yea herd of a lot of cobras that dyno'd their car with well over 100k miles and like a couple of small bolt-ons and having 220-235 nice for a car with over 100k on the odo. I need to strap my on one and she what she puts out with nearly nothing done to it.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

You hit the nail rite on the head,it was a ploy.Any 1987--1995 5.0 makes 180-190 RWHP to the wheels!! The only difference in the 93 motor was the addition of Hyper.... pistons, instead of forged.There alot lighter then forged,but they are pretty fragile.There not good with any type of boost or nitrous.Small amounts are ok,but they cant handle the boost loads that forged pistons do.So pretty much there all the same,except cobra's.

Actually, most of the '87-'93s I've seen dyno'd put down a little more than that, right around the 190-195hp range. The '94-'95 made slightly less due to the more restrictive Thunderbird/Cougar upper intake manifold used to clear the hood line of the then new SN-95 hood line.

The hypereutectic pistons were used to keep the bean counters happy as they were cheaper to manufacture than the forged units. They did have some advantages however. Because of their blended silicon/cast design, they were still stronger than the cast pistons, but were able to be machined with closer tolerances than the forged units as they were less susceptible to expansion upon start up. This allowed quieter cold start up and better ring seal. BTW, Cobra's had hypereutectic pistons as well.

Just though I’d throw my hat into the ring.

 

[NightStalkersSO]

225hp and 300 ft/lb for the 87-93s.....215hp and 285 ft/lb for the 94-95....even though we get an electric fan, our intakes screw us over, thus the loss of 10hp and 15 ft/lb.....and 96-98s were rated at 215/285 too, but I've never seen one peform up to par with my 95

 

[Gt1995]

foxes dont beat up on sn95 5.0s tho right ?

 

[willys1]

If there both stock,the fox will win in performance!

 

[NightStalkersSO]

No, it's a pretty even match until you take it to a road course, then sn95 has much better chassis, braking, suspension, etc etc. but straight line, a fox 5.0 lx should beat a 94/95. Although, my friend in his 89 lx hatch has yet to beat me

 

[willys1]

Whats the usual for a 94/95 5 speed in the 1/4 mile?

 

[NightStalkersSO]

Low 15s and high 14s, on occasion you see the mid 14. I'm low 15s with my automatic, and I think I can be 14s with a good tune, but I've been putting that off for a while....too many projects and since I work at the track, I don't get to race ever

 

[willys1]

Foxes (5 speeds) are in the mid 14's off the show room floor,with a good driver and traction there in the low 14's, a 94/95 cant do that

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Yeah, the Fox's are usually anywhere from .4-.6 tenths faster in the quarter with comparable cars. This is due to both a combination of a few more horsepower and anywhere from 200-400lbs lighter weight with the Fox.

 

[yellowstang1994]

While we're here, I have a question thats been bothering me for a while. You guys say the '93 got the hyper pistons. Did Ford carry this over into the '94 and '95s. I always took it that they did because like one said already that they were more cost efficent. Yet how some of you talk on the posts you act like '93 was the only year to receive them? Who is right?

 

[Gearbanger 101]

'94-'95 got them too. They never used forged again in a GT after '92. And Cobra's didn't get them until '03

 

[NightStalkersSO]

yeah, but truth is, most guys don't know how to launch and the fact that 94/95s have bigger tires, it's easier to get traction. Also, you can't take a fox to a road course without having braking issues after a few laps because the lack of 4-wheel discs and the fact that the chassis alone in the sn95s is 45% stiffer. My friend squeels his tires going 25 around corners I take at 45 with no tire squeel. There's too many factors, each car has its benefits.....when it comes down to it though....how many of us have stock cars??? A stock mustang is like a 40 y/o supermodel virgin .....damn....wish we could find those in the auto trader

 

[Gearbanger 101]

yeah, but truth is, most guys don't know how to launch and the fact that 94/95s have bigger tires, it's easier to get traction.

You think low profile 17" wheels and tires are easier to get traction in the quarter of a mile than a 15" wheel and tire combo? Think again.

Check out your next track event. Everyone serious about traction has a set of 15-inch wheels and some sort of bias ply or drag radial mounted on them.
17" wheels and tires don't allow for sufficient side wall wrinkle and as such are crap for drag racing.

Guys blowing the launch on the Fox bodies are more due to their lighter back end and inability to hold their wad at the line, than anything else. It's just as easy to screw the pootch on an SN-95. Truth be told, in stock trim, most SN-95's i've seen have problems breaking them loose off the line even when they try, due to lack of power more than anything else (usually the Automatics).

As for your buddy squeeling around the corners in his Fox easier than you. I'm sure things would be a little more even if you were running a set of 15" 225/60/15's like he was. That's one place where the lower profile wheel and tire combo is superior to the smaller wheel.

 

[willys1]

OK,yeah,the 94/95 would be better on a road coarse,but we are talkin about the good old fashion 1/4 mile,you cant touch a fox 5.0,,,I know this is your forum,but dont deny the truth.

 

[NightStalkersSO]

OMG, this is retarded. Now you're making stupid ass comparisons, yeah, duh I'd squeel with 225s on a 15" rim. I own an 87 GT and a 95 GT, they're both really close to stock other than exhaust being the biggest mod. I know the 87 is faster straight line, I also know the 95 would crush it in a road course.

 

[willys1]

OMG, this is retarded. Now you're making stupid ass comparisons, yeah, duh I'd squeel with 225s on a 15" rim. I own an 87 GT and a 95 GT, they're both really close to stock other than exhaust being the biggest mod. I know the 87 is faster straight line, I also know the 95 would crush it in a road course.

Thats all I was saying peace