HP ratings

You must have done some work on that puppy. At best, from the factory, it was rated at 175 HP.

And that was before Ford changed the way it rated horsepower, resulting in my own 1993 version of the 5.0, which was putting out a mere 205.

Oh - and that 500+HP Mustang (540, I think) puts out 510 lb-ft. of torque. Damn respectable.

dwight

Hi Dwight, My memory sometimes fails, but I drove that car off the showroom floor back in 84 (they slid the glass showroom doors open so I could drive the car out). I've only seen 1 other Capri like it in Minnesota in the last 24 years, but I found a few when I was googling. Mine is black with the original RS paint scheme and 68,000 miles. I still have the original window sticker. I agree that it was probably rated at 175 HP, but it's still fun to drive!

Thanks for the reply, Dick

Hey, it's 200 to you, who cares! Hey Dick, the 84 Mustang GT had little slapper (traction) bars, did the RS have that? Nice looking cars...Take care of it.

No question. I owned an '84 LX .5.0 Mustang for about 3 years, so I'm familiar with the platform.

But I do remember that the 5.0 began as an OPEC-strangled 125 horses, and slowly was built up in performance through the years to its zenith in '87-'88. My nephew-in-law had an early LX convertible, and I took great delight in pointing out that my (then) new '93 had all of 205.

As you say, today's six cylinder passenger cars are boasting 300+, and yet I marvel that my little 205 can not only keep up, but handle most of them easily. I think that it's more the driver than the engine, though. I don't believe that most passenger car drivers are comfortable pushing the skinny pedal to the floor... and holding it there.

My '84 was a lot of fun on occasion - those occasions when it was actually running. I bought it used (and it was abused), and those three years were filled with frustration. It was quite a while before I got back to Mustangs after that, and I was so impressed with my new 1993 LX (TFrog), that I swore I'd keep it forever.

TFrog just turned 15. Your '84 Capri is coming up on 25! I don't question why you keep this car (I know why), and I applaud you for still taking joy in it. In fact, with all of the hooplah over the upcoming 45th Anniversary celebration of the Mustang, there is a first-ever meeting of Fox Mustang owners coming up. (I'm sure that your Capri would be more than welcome, if you wanted to make the trip to Columbus, Ohio.) The first Fox (1979) is now a thirty-year-old pony - by comparison, mine are relatively YOUNG!

For anyone interested, arthritisautoshow.com (yes, ironically, the Fox reunion benefits the Arthritis Foundation - go figure).

dwight

"Dick R." wrote in news:3 _WdnXZfdMDIhOzUnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@posted.visi:

Take a look at where that HP is made - usually over 6000 RPM.

"dwight" wrote in news:gksm2i$29h$ snipped-for-privacy@news.motzarella.org:

dwight, you've got to know that the '93 cars had just as much actual power as those before. The only thing that changed was the way Ford rated them.

No, not really. The actual difference may be somewhere between 5 and 10 horses, but the 5.0 was definitely slightly detuned in the years after 1988. The change in rating method accounted for most of the drop, but there were other minor modifications to the engine, too.

Besides... if Ford changed the rating methods for a valid reason (and we assume that it was valid), then obviously the 1988 Mustangs were NOT putting out the 225 that they were rated for in 1988.

Wrap your head around THAT.

:()

"dwight" wrote in news:gl0rrj$a68$ snipped-for-privacy@news.motzarella.org:

I can't believe this is true. Is there any supporting evidence for this? And didn't Ford switch to a MAF around that time?

I've heard that one of the main reasons for the rating change was for insurance purposes. But it's been my understanding that the 5.0s from the late '80s have always put out 225hp. Time for some earnest research...

Exactly! Lots of high RPM HP but the low RPM Torque is a bit lacking! LOL!

Not to take away from your driving skills... the other thing to remember is those high HP V6's are not the best when it comes to torque... You have to rev the crap out of them to make peak HP...

and in the case of the S197, well, to put it politely it's a pig weight wise... My S197 V6 tipped the scales at close to 3700 pounds!

True enough. I spent a great long weekend in a rental convertible down in Arizona a few years back, and I enjoyed driving that car. A lot. But by the time my flight landed back home, I couldn't wait to take my Fox-body 5.0 out for a romp.

As I recall, the reason I went out scrounging for a leftover 1993 was that the then-new SN95 model was heavier, rounder, yet with the same powerplant (read: slower). This is a case where I agree with ol' NoOp - if you're going to raise the engine output, why not trim some of the fat, too? Imagine the current V8 powerplant in a car that weighs 500 pounds less.

dwight

I thought that was back in 1986.

Here's one site, the Mustang GT Registry:

Nope nope no! :)

My theory, and I'll bet anyone this is right, is that Ford scaled back the HP rating in 1993 cause the new 1994 Mustang was coming out and they had to show a horsepower increase over the Fox. In this case, 20. When the 1993 Cobra is rated at 30 more horse than the GT (seriously, c'mon Ford!) then the lying makes sense. Sure the engine lost a HP or two here and there over the years, but the idea to downgrade it the year before the new ones came out....? Coincidence? I think not.

Brad

"dwight" wrote in news:gl4d8a$mpn$2 @news.motzarella.org:

convertible,

The GT Registry site you referred to for the hp rating says that the '88 Cali cars got MAF; in '89 they all had it.

You might want to re-read the '93 section. In so many words, the web site states that between '87 and '93 (not just '93), Ford introduced various minor tweaks that affected horsepower. Ford also revised their rating system to consider emissions, customer satisfaction, engine dress, engine selection, etc. in '93.

All in all, the web page implies that the ratings were suspect throughout the Fox years due to ratings discrepancies and various "tweaks" throughout. That said, their claim that the addition of the air intake silencer resulted in a "5-7hp loss" makes me wonder about the accuracy of their information in general.

The bottom line here is that I believe equally optioned '92 and '93 cars will be almost identical in actual power and torque output.

My 84 Capri 5.0 has a 85 MPH speedometer which was also a reflection of the times. When I pass a car on a two lane road, I like to do it quickly, and it's not unusual to peg the speedometer. OTOH, when I'm cruising on the freeway and the engine is turning 1700-1800 RPM in fifth gear, I often wonder how fast that car could go with proper speed rated tires ... and perhaps a few other items. :-) Dick

I tend to side with Joe on this one. The major difference, IMO, between the early and late 5.0L post 1987 engines was the use of hyper pistons. Also, most dyno numbers for basically stock Mustangs didn't show a consistent 10% hp drop between the years. I always thought they down rated the '93s to make the new '94 model look better and not like the big step backward it was regarding hp.

Bingo! We have a winner here.

Okay. Cake and eat.

You guys seem to be saying that the 1988 through 1993 model years all had about the same power output, it's just that Ford changed the WAY it rated horsepower in 1993 to be more "honest". If that is true, then the vaunted

Or, as I maintain, the 5.0 engine could have suffered through a few minor changes (those hyper pistons, a different cam, etc.) that reduced power a bit each year, such that - in combination with the change in horsepower ratings - by the time 1993 rolled around, the 5.0 actually was putting out less power than its 1988 model. Not a lot less, but less.

dwight

Michael Johnson wrote in news:gl6b65$14h$ snipped-for-privacy@news.motzarella.org:

IIRC, the '93 was the only year that had the hyper pistons; I don't believe they affected actual horsepower one way or the other.