5.0 Hp
#2
12-05-2006, 07:32 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
lol....
HP i think is around 225 at the crank. torque i think is pushing over 270 but im not sure.
0-60 in 6.4 and the 1/4 mile in 14.9
here is the page i found the 1/4 mile. i have no idea how accurate it is
http://www.albeedigital.com/supercou...0-60times.html
#6
12-05-2006, 07:48 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
i heared that some years of the 5.0's came with forget internals. anybody know about that?
The foxbodys are badass. Im gonna be getting rid of my 04 and going for an 89-91 5.0... gonna be a project car. get a nice little 351w in there and see if i can get 400 to the wheels all motor.
The foxbodys are badass. Im gonna be getting rid of my 04 and going for an 89-91 5.0... gonna be a project car. get a nice little 351w in there and see if i can get 400 to the wheels all motor.
#7
12-05-2006, 10:39 PM
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Sp...tang&trimid=-1
225hp 300 ft.lbs TQ to the flywheel
underrated from the factory of coarse
225hp 300 ft.lbs TQ to the flywheel
underrated from the factory of coarse
#8
12-06-2006, 07:05 AM
http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/94-98/94/
215 for the 94 GT according to this site, which is actually a really good one.
215 for the 94 GT according to this site, which is actually a really good one.
#9
12-06-2006, 08:13 AM
http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/94-98/94/
215 for the 94 GT according to this site, which is actually a really good one.
215 for the 94 GT according to this site, which is actually a really good one.
he has a 90 LX
so that does him no good
#11
12-06-2006, 08:18 AM
read it again^^^
he obviously wants to know the power his car makes... so give him the #s for his car... not another one
#12
12-06-2006, 08:39 AM
87-92 = 225 hp at the flywheel, and 290 lb/ft tq with forged pistons.
93 = 205 hp at the flywheel, and 270 lb/ft tq with hypereutectic pistons(highly underrated, IMO)
Average time for 87-93's was a 14.7, some faster(example: 89-92 notch, 5 speed, which are capable of low 14's, BONE STOCK), some slower(example: Mustang Gt convertibles with an AOD, lucky to break 14's.).
93 = 205 hp at the flywheel, and 270 lb/ft tq with hypereutectic pistons(highly underrated, IMO)
Average time for 87-93's was a 14.7, some faster(example: 89-92 notch, 5 speed, which are capable of low 14's, BONE STOCK), some slower(example: Mustang Gt convertibles with an AOD, lucky to break 14's.).
#13
12-06-2006, 08:41 AM
i heared that some years of the 5.0's came with forget internals. anybody know about that?
The foxbodys are badass. Im gonna be getting rid of my 04 and going for an 89-91 5.0... gonna be a project car. get a nice little 351w in there and see if i can get 400 to the wheels all motor.
The foxbodys are badass. Im gonna be getting rid of my 04 and going for an 89-91 5.0... gonna be a project car. get a nice little 351w in there and see if i can get 400 to the wheels all motor.
I assume the reason you left out 87-88 cars, is because they are non mass air cars. Your going to be upgrading the mass air meter on an 89-91 if you go to a 351w anyway, so all you would need for the 87-88 cars, is a bit of wiring, which is now a common kit that you can buy.
Also, not sure why you left 92 out, as these are the same as 89-91's.
#14
12-06-2006, 01:28 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why only 89-91? If you're going to put the money into swapping a 351w into a fox body, your going to need the supporting bolt ons as well.
I assume the reason you left out 87-88 cars, is because they are non mass air cars. Your going to be upgrading the mass air meter on an 89-91 if you go to a 351w anyway, so all you would need for the 87-88 cars, is a bit of wiring, which is now a common kit that you can buy.
Also, not sure why you left 92 out, as these are the same as 89-91's.
I assume the reason you left out 87-88 cars, is because they are non mass air cars. Your going to be upgrading the mass air meter on an 89-91 if you go to a 351w anyway, so all you would need for the 87-88 cars, is a bit of wiring, which is now a common kit that you can buy.
Also, not sure why you left 92 out, as these are the same as 89-91's.
lol
So an 87-88 would be easier for the swap? Might plan on one of those instead.
Yeah, i could care less about the engine size in the fox when i get it. its all coming out anyways.
my knowledge of Fox Bodys is pretty limited. I dont plan to buy one untill around late spring anyways so i have some time to do my reading. I need to find a good site to do some reasearch on the differences between all the years.
#15
12-06-2006, 01:43 PM
Actually i just figured i would have less problems with Rust on 89+
lol
So an 87-88 would be easier for the swap? Might plan on one of those instead.
Yeah, i could care less about the engine size in the fox when i get it. its all coming out anyways.
my knowledge of Fox Bodys is pretty limited. I dont plan to buy one untill around late spring anyways so i have some time to do my reading. I need to find a good site to do some reasearch on the differences between all the years.
lol
So an 87-88 would be easier for the swap? Might plan on one of those instead.
Yeah, i could care less about the engine size in the fox when i get it. its all coming out anyways.
my knowledge of Fox Bodys is pretty limited. I dont plan to buy one untill around late spring anyways so i have some time to do my reading. I need to find a good site to do some reasearch on the differences between all the years.
LOL, you lucked out then. No, the 87-88 wouldn't be any easier, it would be just about the same, but if your swapping engines anyway, anything from 87-93 will work. So i wouldn't limit yourself to those years, because i've also seen rusted to the ground 93's and immaculate 87's, just depends on whats available when you are ready to buy.
Now if you were to ask me which year i prefer, its 92, because of the bigger fenders, painted moldings(if its an LX, all gt's had painted moldings), and still had 225hp with forged pistons, but that doesn't even matter because you are swapping engines anyway. The 92's are also the lowest number of fox bodies produced.
Most fox bodies you will find, have gray interior. You might get lucky and find a black interior though.
In 93 they went to an opal gray interior, which is impossible to find anything for, ask me how i know....
From 90-92, the used the titanium interior for the gray color, which is the light gray and not too hard to find, and from 87-89 they used the smoke gray which is also somewhat easy to find.
I think its really dumb how many little stupid things they changed during the 7 year timespan. I could go on forever, but that would bore you.
If I were you, I would go buy the ford racing peformance hand book for 79-93 mustangs. Awesome info in there.
#16
12-06-2006, 01:50 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
LOL, you lucked out then. No, the 87-88 wouldn't be any easier, it would be just about the same, but if your swapping engines anyway, anything from 87-93 will work.
Now if you were to ask me which year i prefer, its 92, because of the bigger fenders, painted moldings(if its an LX, all gt's had painted moldings), and still had 225hp with forged pistons, but that doesn't even matter because you are swapping engines anyway. The 92's are also the lowest number of fox bodies produced.
Most fox bodies you will find, have gray interior. You might get lucky and find a black interior though.
In 93 they went to an opal gray interior, which is impossible to find anything for, ask me how i know....
From 90-92, the used the titanium interior for the gray color, which is the light gray and not too hard to find, and from 87-89 they used the smoke gray which is also somewhat easy to find.
I think its really dumb how many little stupid things they changed during the 7 year timespan. I could go on forever, but that would bore you.
If I were you, I would go buy the ford racing peformance hand book for 79-93 mustangs. Awesome info in there.
Now if you were to ask me which year i prefer, its 92, because of the bigger fenders, painted moldings(if its an LX, all gt's had painted moldings), and still had 225hp with forged pistons, but that doesn't even matter because you are swapping engines anyway. The 92's are also the lowest number of fox bodies produced.
Most fox bodies you will find, have gray interior. You might get lucky and find a black interior though.
In 93 they went to an opal gray interior, which is impossible to find anything for, ask me how i know....
From 90-92, the used the titanium interior for the gray color, which is the light gray and not too hard to find, and from 87-89 they used the smoke gray which is also somewhat easy to find.
I think its really dumb how many little stupid things they changed during the 7 year timespan. I could go on forever, but that would bore you.
If I were you, I would go buy the ford racing peformance hand book for 79-93 mustangs. Awesome info in there.
I found an outfit that will build me a 351w that should push out 468hp at the crank for roughly 3500. that does not include the intake manifold and carb tho. Figure ill just got with a good Holly setup for that. Then again, Hot damn would i love to have a shaker setup. But what i really want are one of those chrome intakes with the three valves on the front that stick out of the engine. lol. that **** is sick.
I figure all that would work nicely with a TKO600 transmission, then ill have to see about getting a better ear end on it. I will be hoping to see about 400hp to the wheels all motor if everything goes right.
Im not sure what i plan to do with the interior. I do plan to make it a 2 seater. I might just go with new carpet, racing seats and dye the current interior panels if they are in good shape to how i want them.
Pretty much im gonna gut that ****er and turn it into a new car by the time im done. Its just going to be a hobby car though not a daily driver. So i figure i have years to get everything done so i can take my time and make sure everything is done right.
#18
12-06-2006, 01:56 PM
Ill go try to find that online and order it. Would be good to know all the ins and outs.
I found an outfit that will build me a 351w that should push out 468hp at the crank for roughly 3500. that does not include the intake manifold and carb tho. Figure ill just got with a good Holly setup for that. Then again, Hot damn would i love to have a shaker setup. But what i really want are one of those chrome intakes with the three valves on the front that stick out of the engine. lol. that **** is sick.
I figure all that would work nicely with a TKO600 transmission, then ill have to see about getting a better ear end on it. I will be hoping to see about 400hp to the wheels all motor if everything goes right.
Im not sure what i plan to do with the interior. I do plan to make it a 2 seater. I might just go with new carpet, racing seats and dye the current interior panels if they are in good shape to how i want them.
Pretty much im gonna gut that ****er and turn it into a new car by the time im done. Its just going to be a hobby car though not a daily driver. So i figure i have years to get everything done so i can take my time and make sure everything is done right.
I found an outfit that will build me a 351w that should push out 468hp at the crank for roughly 3500. that does not include the intake manifold and carb tho. Figure ill just got with a good Holly setup for that. Then again, Hot damn would i love to have a shaker setup. But what i really want are one of those chrome intakes with the three valves on the front that stick out of the engine. lol. that **** is sick.
I figure all that would work nicely with a TKO600 transmission, then ill have to see about getting a better ear end on it. I will be hoping to see about 400hp to the wheels all motor if everything goes right.
Im not sure what i plan to do with the interior. I do plan to make it a 2 seater. I might just go with new carpet, racing seats and dye the current interior panels if they are in good shape to how i want them.
Pretty much im gonna gut that ****er and turn it into a new car by the time im done. Its just going to be a hobby car though not a daily driver. So i figure i have years to get everything done so i can take my time and make sure everything is done right.
But here's what I think about carbs...
Why a carb? Fuel inject that bitch. And if your going to be putting this much money into, why not build a 408/418/427 stroker?
TKO600 is an awesome tranny. Check out my pics too, my cars a two seater.
#19
12-06-2006, 01:57 PM
#20
12-06-2006, 02:07 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
lol... EFI adds thousands to the build cost. Carb is way cheaper.
#21
12-06-2006, 02:08 PM
Blah.... Pay a little more, get a better running, tuneable, fuel efficient, user-friendly car. The car came with EFI from the factory, why change it???
#22
12-06-2006, 02:30 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
figured i would have to replace it.
#23
12-06-2006, 04:29 PM
You won't be able to use your stock manifold, and your going to want a bigger tb & mass air meter, and bigger injectors, but all the wiring is the same.
#25
12-06-2006, 05:50 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
That is true, carbed engines usually look a hellovalut nicer.
#26
12-06-2006, 07:01 PM
I'm not arguing the power output at all. They make tons of power. But why change to carb if its already EFI? The driveability is so much better with fuel injection, I don't care what anyone says. Either you have tons of power with a carb and not so good driveability, or you have a nice driving carb car with power missing somewhere. YOu can't beat the efficiency of having the exact same amount of fuel sprayed in every cylinder equally.
#27
12-06-2006, 07:13 PM
I'm not arguing the power output at all. They make tons of power. But why change to carb if its already EFI? The driveability is so much better with fuel injection, I don't care what anyone says. Either you have tons of power with a carb and not so good driveability, or you have a nice driving carb car with power missing somewhere. YOu can't beat the efficiency of having the exact same amount of fuel sprayed in every cylinder equally.
Also, Chris (jack the pooface) Is planning on dropping a crate motor in...
So w/ the crate engine (so long as the person who built it knew what they were doing) there won't be any drivabilty or power issues...
Carbs are just as reliable as EFI... They can't make as much power and they don't make great MPG... but so long as the person putting the engine together knows what they are doing (using the correct parts that will work together) and can make the adjustments necesary... A carb'd engine will run like a champ...
Ya know most racers still use em... NASCAR and funny car racing...
You just gotta know what your doing... And its not hard to learn...
Where as with EFI you need computers and dynos etc...
Now me personally... I could build a killer carb'd engine no sweat... on the other hand... I would have a harder time with EFI...
---------------------
off subject... I've never seen you post here before... have you posted pics and specs yet?
#28
12-06-2006, 07:35 PM
Well like said... why change to carb'd? Well its still alot cheaper...
Also, Chris (jack the pooface) Is planning on dropping a crate motor in...
So w/ the crate engine (so long as the person who built it knew what they were doing) there won't be any drivabilty or power issues...
Carbs are just as reliable as EFI... They can't make as much power and they don't make great MPG... but so long as the person putting the engine together knows what they are doing (using the correct parts that will work together) and can make the adjustments necesary... A carb'd engine will run like a champ...
Ya know most racers still use em... NASCAR and funny car racing...
You just gotta know what your doing... And its not hard to learn...
Where as with EFI you need computers and dynos etc...
Now me personally... I could build a killer carb'd engine no sweat... on the other hand... I would have a harder time with EFI...
---------------------
off subject... I've never seen you post here before... have you posted pics and specs yet?
Also, Chris (jack the pooface) Is planning on dropping a crate motor in...
So w/ the crate engine (so long as the person who built it knew what they were doing) there won't be any drivabilty or power issues...
Carbs are just as reliable as EFI... They can't make as much power and they don't make great MPG... but so long as the person putting the engine together knows what they are doing (using the correct parts that will work together) and can make the adjustments necesary... A carb'd engine will run like a champ...
Ya know most racers still use em... NASCAR and funny car racing...
You just gotta know what your doing... And its not hard to learn...
Where as with EFI you need computers and dynos etc...
Now me personally... I could build a killer carb'd engine no sweat... on the other hand... I would have a harder time with EFI...
---------------------
off subject... I've never seen you post here before... have you posted pics and specs yet?
Right, but NASCAR and funny cars will never see the street, and I'd be willing to bet this car will definately see the street, especially with a milder combo like a crate motor. I guess it all comes down to preference, I grew up on EFI.
I'm not new, but I joined a lonnnngg time ago, back when I bought my wheels, and just now discovered these boards again. I have pics in my gallery but haven't posted them anywhere else. Am I supposed to?
#29
12-06-2006, 07:44 PM
Right, but NASCAR and funny cars will never see the street, and I'd be willing to bet this car will definately see the street, especially with a milder combo like a crate motor. I guess it all comes down to preference, I grew up on EFI.
I'm not new, but I joined a lonnnngg time ago, back when I bought my wheels, and just now discovered these boards again. I have pics in my gallery but haven't posted them anywhere else. Am I supposed to?
I'm not new, but I joined a lonnnngg time ago, back when I bought my wheels, and just now discovered these boards again. I have pics in my gallery but haven't posted them anywhere else. Am I supposed to?
and yes dude... ***** it up... get as many pics as you can out there
#30
12-06-2006, 08:11 PM
i wouldnt go from EFi to carb either more so on a street car. You can get lots of power with efi and better mileage and streetability out of it aswell.