Ford Mustang 5.0's
Savior1974
06-27-2004, 01:32 AM
Two questions, How fast is the 90-93 Ford Mustang Gt 5.0 V8 in the quarter mile and in the 0-60. I read on car stats that I ran 14.9s stock but I just can't believe that!!!!!!
Car-Stats.com
Report for 1992 Ford Mustang LX 5.0
Obtained from MT September, 1992
0-60: 6.2
1/4 Mile: 14.8
but here they say a 1991 gt will do it in 15.6, Aren't the gt and the 5.0 the same?
Car-Stats.com
Report for 1991 Ford Mustang GT
Obtained from
0-60: 7.3
1/4 Mile: 15.6
Also Isn't it true that ford continued the 5.0 engine into the 1994 mustang? I know not the 1995 and up but the 94's had it right. And if they did, did they still run 14's?
Car-Stats.com
Report for 1992 Ford Mustang LX 5.0
Obtained from MT September, 1992
0-60: 6.2
1/4 Mile: 14.8
but here they say a 1991 gt will do it in 15.6, Aren't the gt and the 5.0 the same?
Car-Stats.com
Report for 1991 Ford Mustang GT
Obtained from
0-60: 7.3
1/4 Mile: 15.6
Also Isn't it true that ford continued the 5.0 engine into the 1994 mustang? I know not the 1995 and up but the 94's had it right. And if they did, did they still run 14's?
kman10587
06-27-2004, 02:06 AM
The 5.0 was used in the Mustang GT and LX 5.0 until the car's re-design in 1994, when the LX 5.0 model was dropped. Ford continued to use the 5.0 in the Mustang GT from 1994 to 1995, but they switched over to a modular 4.6 engine in 1996 and have been using it since. In addition, the 5.0 was used in the Mustang SVT Cobra from 1993 to 1995, but it also got a modular 4.6 in 1996. And the first stats, from the Motor Trend magazine test, are correct. A 1992 Mustang LX 5.0 will run high 14's in the quarter mile. However, with simple bolt-ons and very little money, it can run much, much faster than that. :)
Savior1974
06-27-2004, 02:19 AM
holy shit thats crazy. Can the 94-95 do 14's? Isn't it the same 5.0?
zx2srdotnet
06-27-2004, 02:58 AM
they do very high 14's the body weighed more and i think they got a 10hp cut
the lx 5.0 is faster then the gt 5.0 only due to weight. the lx doesnt have the big bumpers, and wing and as many interior options
the lx 5.0 is faster then the gt 5.0 only due to weight. the lx doesnt have the big bumpers, and wing and as many interior options
GTStang
06-27-2004, 08:15 AM
If you had a brand new factory stock 5.0 you'd see mid 14's to high with a stick cause gearing was a crap shoot. High 14's with an auto.
speedfreak
06-27-2004, 06:10 PM
they do very high 14's the body weighed more and i think they got a 10hp cut
the lx 5.0 is faster then the gt 5.0 only due to weight. the lx doesnt have the big bumpers, and wing and as many interior options
There was no acutal reduction in HP, just the way it was measured. It is the same exact engine as a 225hp '87 EFI 5.0. Plus, rumor has it that the early 4.6 would have looked even worse if they didnt rate it at least slightly higher than the "old" 5.0. Also, the only thing that should hold a GT back is the bodywork. You could get an LX with full power everything and a GT with manual everything(and vice versa). It varied from car to car.
With someone who knows what they're doing and not some magazine schmuck, I would expect an '87-93 Mustang 5.0 to hit around 14.4-14.6 with a manual. Automatics around 14.7-15.0 and SN95 cars in general high 14s to low 15s.
the lx 5.0 is faster then the gt 5.0 only due to weight. the lx doesnt have the big bumpers, and wing and as many interior options
There was no acutal reduction in HP, just the way it was measured. It is the same exact engine as a 225hp '87 EFI 5.0. Plus, rumor has it that the early 4.6 would have looked even worse if they didnt rate it at least slightly higher than the "old" 5.0. Also, the only thing that should hold a GT back is the bodywork. You could get an LX with full power everything and a GT with manual everything(and vice versa). It varied from car to car.
With someone who knows what they're doing and not some magazine schmuck, I would expect an '87-93 Mustang 5.0 to hit around 14.4-14.6 with a manual. Automatics around 14.7-15.0 and SN95 cars in general high 14s to low 15s.
HiFlow5 0
06-27-2004, 07:49 PM
There was no acutal reduction in HP, just the way it was measured. It is the same exact engine as a 225hp '87 EFI 5.0. Plus, rumor has it that the early 4.6 would have looked even worse if they didnt rate it at least slightly higher than the "old" 5.0. Also, the only thing that should hold a GT back is the bodywork. You could get an LX with full power everything and a GT with manual everything(and vice versa). It varied from car to car.
With someone who knows what they're doing and not some magazine schmuck, I would expect an '87-93 Mustang 5.0 to hit around 14.4-14.6 with a manual. Automatics around 14.7-15.0 and SN95 cars in general high 14s to low 15s.
Actually, they are not the same exact motor from 87 to 93. There was a reduction in output ratings for many reason, such as a stack-up of minor mechanical changes and by the way Ford conducted their engine evaluation processes. Dictated mainly by emissions, fuel economy and customer satisfaction requirements, a series of mechanical revisions had been made since Ford initially assigned the engine's 225-horsepower rating for 1987. These include a restrictive resonator added to the inlet tract (1987-1993) that produced a 5-7 horsepower loss, which was not accounted for in the motors initial rating. The small camshaft profile change in 1989, which reduced output by 3 horsepower. The restrictive mass airflow meter in the inlet tract introduced in 1989 yields 2-3 horsepower less than the speed density system. Some minor exhaust system revisions made between 1987-1993 also add up to another small reduction in engine output. The second contributing factor in the re-rating of the ‘93 V8 involved changes in the processes that Ford used to select engines for testing and the engine's state of dress (with all engine-driven accessories) during testing. Combined with the ‘87-93 mechanical revisions, the revised-for-1993 testing procedures add up to the ‘93 model years reduced output ratings. It is however false that the addition of hypereutectic pistons caused the hp and torque rating to drop.
With someone who knows what they're doing and not some magazine schmuck, I would expect an '87-93 Mustang 5.0 to hit around 14.4-14.6 with a manual. Automatics around 14.7-15.0 and SN95 cars in general high 14s to low 15s.
Actually, they are not the same exact motor from 87 to 93. There was a reduction in output ratings for many reason, such as a stack-up of minor mechanical changes and by the way Ford conducted their engine evaluation processes. Dictated mainly by emissions, fuel economy and customer satisfaction requirements, a series of mechanical revisions had been made since Ford initially assigned the engine's 225-horsepower rating for 1987. These include a restrictive resonator added to the inlet tract (1987-1993) that produced a 5-7 horsepower loss, which was not accounted for in the motors initial rating. The small camshaft profile change in 1989, which reduced output by 3 horsepower. The restrictive mass airflow meter in the inlet tract introduced in 1989 yields 2-3 horsepower less than the speed density system. Some minor exhaust system revisions made between 1987-1993 also add up to another small reduction in engine output. The second contributing factor in the re-rating of the ‘93 V8 involved changes in the processes that Ford used to select engines for testing and the engine's state of dress (with all engine-driven accessories) during testing. Combined with the ‘87-93 mechanical revisions, the revised-for-1993 testing procedures add up to the ‘93 model years reduced output ratings. It is however false that the addition of hypereutectic pistons caused the hp and torque rating to drop.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026