Ask the Car People.SM


Ford Mustang (2005 and Newer)

2921 messages,  Last post on Nov 24, 2012 at 7:28 PM

You are in the Ford Mustang Forum.

What is this discussion about? Ford Mustang, Coupe

Messages Page 81 of 293

#792 of 2921 tayl0rd by rorr

Mar 22, 2005 (1:33 pm)

"What power increase did the previous GT have? As far as I know, it had the same 260HP from '99 to '04."
 
Correct. But I don't think you can look at a 5-year period from a single generation and make the claim that "in true Ford fashion, the GT won't see any power increases until the next generation."
 
There hasn't been a SINGLE generation of Mustang which did not see significant power increases within that generation (with the possible exception of the Mustang II cars sold from '74 through '78.....I've blotted those travesties from my consciousness).
 
The SN93 cars went from 215hp in the '94 cars (5.0 for '94 and '95) to 215hp 4.6 ('96 and '97) to 225hp ('98) to 260hp ('99 to '04). BTW-the 4.6 liter was NEVER rated at 190-210 in the Mustang and was only at the lower 215hp rating for TWO years.
 
The previous Fox-body cars saw an even more impressive bump in hp over the course of that generation from '79 to '93, from 140hp in a 2bbl 302 in 1979 to 225hp in the EFI models from 1987 to 1993 (rated at 205hp in 1993 for insurance purposes). What "true Ford fashion" are you referring too?

#793 of 2921 Re: tayl0rd [rorr] by tayl0rd

Mar 22, 2005 (1:54 pm)

Replying to: rorr (Mar 22, 2005 1:33 pm)
For the record, I wasn't the one who said the 4.6 was ever rated at 190HP.
 
The "fashion" I'm referring to is the same 225HP from 87 to 93. The new generation in 94 and 95 had the same 5.0 engine with the same 225HP, although rated at 215HP. Then there was a REDUCTION in power when the 4.6 was dropped in for 96 (rated or not). Had it not been for the uproar from Mustang enthusiasts, it would've still coasted along on that 215HP up to the 99 model. With the "New Edge" generation Mustangs, the 4.6 was bumped up to 260HP where it stayed until the new generation. Keep in mind I'm talking about the GT, not the spinoff, special models.
 
Personally, I don't consider the 94-95 to be the same generation as the 96-98 because of the subtle design differences and, most importantly, they didn't have the 4.6 engine.

#794 of 2921 Re: tayl0rd [tayl0rd] by rorr

Mar 22, 2005 (2:07 pm)

Replying to: tayl0rd (Mar 22, 2005 1:54 pm)
"For the record, I wasn't the one who said the 4.6 was ever rated at 190HP."
 
Correct. Sometimes, I'm too lazy to respond to multiple erroneous posts with multiple replies. So I tried to get it all in one.
 
And for the record, the 5.0 in the '94 and '95 Mustangs was not the same as the 5.0 unit in the earlier Mustangs (less under-the-hood room required a more restrictive intake manifold, therefore, the lower power rating).

#795 of 2921 Re: tayl0rd [rorr] by jae5

Mar 22, 2005 (2:09 pm)

Replying to: rorr (Mar 22, 2005 1:33 pm)
NEVER said the MUSTANG was rated at 190 - 210 when it used the 4.6. The statement was to the fact that when the 4.6 was intor'd in 91 it only had 190hp. Then a couple years later it had 210 with dual exhaust, but kept it's 190 rating with single exhaust.

#796 of 2921 Re: tayl0rd [rorr] by jae5

Mar 22, 2005 (2:12 pm)

Replying to: rorr (Mar 22, 2005 2:07 pm)
How was the 190hp rating erroneous? If I had stated the motor was rated at 190hp in the Mustang, then that would have been incorrect. But sorry, didn't state that. The part of the statement about it being out for ten years, as well as the motor not being placed in the SN-95, not SN93, platform until '96 should have given you a clue.
 
Seems like you are too lazy. ;}

#797 of 2921 jae5 by rorr

Mar 22, 2005 (2:13 pm)

"But you're right, considering the 4.6 was stuck at the 190 - 210 rating for about ten years pretty much sucked."
 
Well, considering this is the MUSTANG forum, I understandably made the assumption you were referring to the 4.6l application IN THE MUSTANG.
 
My mistake. I'll have to practice my mind-reading skills.

#798 of 2921 Re: jae5 [rorr] by jae5

Mar 22, 2005 (2:15 pm)

Replying to: rorr (Mar 22, 2005 2:13 pm)
Do that, because I knew you where talking the SN95 when you typed SN93. ;}

#799 of 2921 jae5 by rorr

Mar 22, 2005 (2:21 pm)

I don't suppose you could give lessons over the internet?
 
Wait....I think I'm picking something up.....looks like a nasty one from tayl0rd.....

#800 of 2921 does it matter? by graphicguy

Mar 22, 2005 (3:39 pm)

Are we splitting hairs over minutiae here?

#801 of 2921 graphicguy by rorr

Mar 22, 2005 (3:52 pm)

Does it matter? No, not really.
 
Splitting hairs over minutiae? Well, this IS the Townhall. Ever seen any of the debates over in the various minivan threads? Talk about splitting hairs over minutiae......
 
I just couldn't let the insinuation slide that Ford does not increase power output within any particular generation and that if one wants more power, they must wait for the next 'generation' to come. IMO, Ford has a history of doing exactly the opposite: as they go deeper and deeper into the life cycle of one particular generation, they progressively increase power output to keep interest (sales) up. This can be seen clearly in the 1st generation ('64 to '73), 3rd generation ('79 to '93), and 4th generation ('94 to '04). Each generation saw more and more power available in the mainstream (GT) vehicle. To a lesser extent, this is also true of the Mustang II generation ('74 to '78).
 
I suppose that if one wants to define "generation" as a period of time in which there is one motor available (4.6l V8), at one power rating (260hp), then it would be correct to say that one must wait for the next "generation" for more power.

Messages Page 81 of 293

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement