Because from 1987 to 1993 absolutely nothing changed on the the Mustang HO engine (except the change to MAF). Because of changes in the rating system, and updating the numbers to account for the MAF sensor the 93 HO is rated at only 205hp (keep in mind it's the same exact motor that was one year prior rated at 225hp), the 94-95 is rated at 215 on the new rating system. That's 10hp more, so on the old rating system it would be 235hp.
 |
-
-
sounds like a bunch of bs to me..Originally posted by Blaze86Vic View PostGive a man a fish and he will be fed for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will promptly forget that he once did not know, and proceed to call anyone who asks, a n00b and flame them on the boards for being stupid.Comment
-
Yes, I made that elaborate story up just so I could tout the engine in my car being 10 more hp, yes that's it.
Comment
-
I found a set of HO heads for $65, off a low mileage Mark 7 LSC, with the intake included. How easy would this be to swap onto my lopo block while I work up the cash and parts to put the Mountaineer motor in? I'm only asking because I'm thinking of doing a little "extra" work to the Mountaineer motor before dropping it in. And yes, my TC does have really low miles. At 21 years old and 114k, though, I'd rather replace the whole motor. And maybe put a stick in it. Anyone know if a 4-speed out of an F-150 would work?
"No other man-made device since the shields and lances of the ancient knights fulfills a man's ego like an automobile." -Sir William
2011 Lincoln Town Car Signature Limited- Black on black, ADTR sway bars, 19" Mustang GT rims, Heinous rear control arms, dual exhaust with Flowmaster 10 series mufflers. MHS Stage 2 heads/cams, 80mm MAF, 75mm BBK throttle body, Accufab plenum, Stainless Works long tube headers, Ford Racing 24# injectors. ADTR T56 swap with Hurst shifter. 264HP/298TQ at the rear wheels.Comment
-
The 94-95 does have a better MAF. Not sure if the upper is worse, but even if it is worse, I doubt its worse enough to actually matter. The lower, then the heads are the major restrictions on the 87-93 HO motor so unless the 94-95 upper is so much worse that it flows even less than the lower, its not going to matter any in practical terms.86 Lincoln Town Car (Galactica).
5.0 HO, CompCams XE258,Scorpion 1.72 roller rockers, 3.55 K code rear, tow package, BHPerformance ported E7 heads, Tmoss Explorer intake, 65mm throttle body, Hedman 1 5/8" headers, 2.5" dual exhaust, ASP underdrive pulley
91 Lincoln Mark VII LSC grandpa spec white and cranberry
1984 Lincoln Continental TurboDiesel - rolls coal
Originally posted by phayzer5
I drive a Lincoln. I can't be bothered to shift like the peasants and rabble rousersComment
-
I know you didn't make it up lol, it just sounds fishy to me... so the 94-95's have the lesser restricted maf housing?Originally posted by Blaze86Vic View PostYes, I made that elaborate story up just so I could tout the engine in my car being 10 more hp, yes that's it.Give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will promptly forget that he once did not know, and proceed to call anyone who asks, a n00b and flame them on the boards for being stupid.Comment
-
yeah, its like 70mm vs the 55mm one. Its actually a fairly common upgrade among Mustang folks. It plugs right in and has the same transfer function as the early one.86 Lincoln Town Car (Galactica).
5.0 HO, CompCams XE258,Scorpion 1.72 roller rockers, 3.55 K code rear, tow package, BHPerformance ported E7 heads, Tmoss Explorer intake, 65mm throttle body, Hedman 1 5/8" headers, 2.5" dual exhaust, ASP underdrive pulley
91 Lincoln Mark VII LSC grandpa spec white and cranberry
1984 Lincoln Continental TurboDiesel - rolls coal
Originally posted by phayzer5
I drive a Lincoln. I can't be bothered to shift like the peasants and rabble rousersComment
Comment