HP ratings

"dwight" wrote in news:gl7pkv$4i6$ snipped-for-privacy@news.motzarella.org:

Hope you put ice cream on it. It's best that way.

Not sure if "honest" is the correct term, but you get the picture.

Give or take a few, yes. Of course there are minor variables as mentioned on the GT Registry web site. Speed density/MAF, exhaust, cam, etc.

As has been previously mentioned, it's not unreasonable to assume that Ford "downrated" the '93 to make the '94 seem more impressive. That said, the SN95 car weighed more than the Fox car, so in fact the '94s were slower.

The hypereutectic pistons did not affect horsepower adversely. Their only issue is that you can't run massive boost on them and expect them to survive.

I still maintain that actual power didn't vary all that much from year to year. If anything, tuning, weight, and suspension certainly had much more of an impact on real performance.

I maintain that it was all the intake silencer. That's why that stupid hunk o' plastice was ripped out of my fender as the very first modification to TFrog.

(Of course, always thinking ahead, I still have it on the off chance that the "next owner" might want a purely stock Mustang.)

(( Maybe I should put it up on eBay. Somebody might be looking for one. ))

dwight

The '87s had 225 hp. The notches were light and structurally more rigid which made them faster than hatches or convertibles. The stiffness shouldn't be ignored because less power used to twist the chassis means more power makes it to the ground.

I think it was done for marketing reasons regarding the new 1994 model. There were a lot of engine changes between the '94s and '93s and most weren't for the better. Then there was the computer programing changes that further robbed hp. Remember also that Ford was competing against a new F-body that really upped the hp wars. Ford needed to make the new car Mustang look like a contender and an upgrade from the previous model.