'93 5.0s are faster

Discussion in '1994 Ford Mustang GT' started by MaximusMeridius, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    the 93 GT is rated at 215 not 225
     
  2. They had 225Hp. From what I heard they have more Hp @ the rear wheel.<!-- Signature -->
     
  3. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    They had 10 horsepower more and were a couple hundred pounds lighter,...but they didn't look as good though
     
  4. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    faster in a straight line yes....but on a road course...the SN-95 would kill a 93<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    The 93 5.0 actually had 205 hp/ 275 ft lbs , compared to the 225 hp/ 300 ft lbs of the 87-92 5.0's
     
  6. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from stangr50</i>
    <b>The 93 5.0 actually had 205 hp/ 275 ft lbs , compared to the 225 hp/ 300 ft lbs of the 87-92 5.0's</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->and to tell u the truth Ford changed the way they rated the hp in 94 so in all actuallity the cars with 225 ACTUALLY have 215 but the Fox bodies were lighter...the SN95 chassis is obese<!-- Signature -->
     
  7. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    they were faster but they could not handle as well nore could they
    slice throu the air as well so after the 1/4 mile the 94's and up would catch them.
     
  8. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    faster then what? a geo metro? well maybee, if it's not an automatic
     
  9. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Mig29</i>
    <b>faster then what? a geo metro? well maybee, if it's not an automatic</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->ur just a moron...u cant believe how ignorant some people are lol you make me laugh<!-- Signature -->
     
  10. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Mig29</i>
    <b>my prelude's faster than what? a geo metro? well maybee, if it's not an automatic</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Well said mig29.
     
  11. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    anyone looking to modify there mustang as far as port and polish all the way to a complete engine.

    call DTA racing & performance.

    the number is 832-556-0441<!-- Signature -->
     
  12. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    here is a picture af a head swap kit for 96-98 mustangs. they are 99 and up heads and if you want can be ported and polished.<!-- Signature -->
     
  13. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    here is a picture of a ported head for y'all.<!-- Signature -->
     
  14. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from TheMaxx</i>
    <b>anyone looking to modify there mustang as far as port and polish all the way to a complete engine.

    call DTA racing & performance.

    the number is 832-556-0441</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Why are you posting that here?

    Do you work for him or what?<!-- Signature -->
     
  15. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    yes, and it was the one year they didnt have forged pistons.
     
  16. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    Slow is slow no matter how you slice it.
     
  17. #17 240SXer, Jul 18, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    The 93 was faster... The 94+ are all slow. The 93 was no monster, but for the time it was decent. Since then, the mustangs have just been a joke. Don't think so? Compare a 1999-02 Mustang GT, or even Cobra, to a 99-02 Camaro Z28.. The z28 would walk on all the mustangs, it would even give the new SUPERCHARGED Cobra a good run. Face it everyone, mustnags were made to look cool, not go fast. Might as well buy a civic if you get a mustang.

    www.racingonthestreet.com
     
  18. Re:

    For the most part, I agree with you 240SXer. A Supercharged Cobra would beat a Camaro Z28 fairly easily though. Of course, Chevy's Z06 Corvette doesn't need a supercharger to take the Cobra.
    Do I hate Mustangs? No... Why would I? It proves Ford is all about contradicting logic, right? Hondas are popular because they're great cars. On the other hand, Ford proves you can make a crappy car and still have popularity among the masses.
     
  19. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    Who said 93 5.0s are faster? They were lowered in hp compared to the 90s-92s because of emissions. Mayb a 92 is faster.
     
  20. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    The difference there is that Civics make good foundations as race cars when it comes to autocross and rally racing, hell, with the room under the hood, Civics (being lighter cars) have more potential than mustangs as Drag cars.....you just need to invest a whole lot more.
     
  21. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    Were not talking about camaros, were talking about Fox Body stangs vrs the newer ones, and theres no way a fox can beat a 99-up GT or Cobra.
     
  22. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    I have not raced a 93 with my 94 but I can say you might be quicker
    in 1/4 mile but your not faster on top. I have driven 93 before.
     
  23. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    87-89 imho was the best year for the fox III...after that they got into airbags and more weight....then in 93 the lx 5.0 or a gt wasnt as good as previous years...
     
  24. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    More Hp doesn't equal more speed dip shit.
    Camaro's are faster anyways, always have been,
    always will be. Sorry it's been proven. Faget.
    You are all pussy's I will #$%# all of you.
     
  25. Re: '93 5.0s are faster

    dude but look how many cubes the camaro got on the stang...look at the 5.4L still smaller that camaro's but will romp on most...
     

Share This Page