"RightFootDown" (rightfootdown)
06/18/2015 at 10:17 • Filed to: None
14
15|
"RightFootDown" (rightfootdown)
06/18/2015 at 10:17 • Filed to: None | 14
| 15 |
The Blue Oval Boys are back. The Ford Mustang reclaimed the streets in the early 1990’s thanks to the development of the fuel injected high-performance 5.0L V8 engine. Today, 225 horsepower is laughable from a big displacement V8 but in 1988 225 horsepower was impressive. Tack on 300 pounds foot of torque and we had a heavy hitting engine. And that’s exactly what the lightweight FOX body Mustangs packed from 1987 to 1992 (Ford changed the pistons and down-rated the engine to 205 HP in 1993). Best of all, this gem of an engine could be had in both the Mustang LX and GT in any configuration – convertible, coupe or hatchback.
And then the aftermarket got ahold of this new fuel injected 5.0L V8 and power figures went through the roof. Ford fully backed this performance engine with the release of various cams, intake manifolds and gear ratios. Supercharger companies popped up left and right with bolt-on kits for the 5.0 and in short time tuners had these engine putting down 300 horsepower and well in to the high 400’s with a whistler.
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
The Bow Tie Boys had something to worry about. That V8 Mustang was now a box of chocolates. Listen closely. Very closely. What is hidden upstream of those mean sounding Flowmasters? This heavy convertible could be a 16-second slug or a unibody-bending 10-second Race Wars Champion.
Blue was anything but the feeling of the oval fans in the first half of the 90’s. In 1994 Ford radically changed the design of the Mustang but it retained that magical 5.0L. Until 1996.
A New Era
Other than vertical tail lights and wheels and fender badge, the 1996 Mustang GT looked identical to the 94-95s. But under the hood, Ford replaced the proven pushrod V8 with a 2-valve, SOHC (single overhead cam), modular V8. Nobody knew what to make of it. Displacement was reduced from 5.0 to 4.6 but horsepower was about on par with the outgoing engine. First impressions of the 2V SOHC 4.6 were commendable. The Mustang GT’s power plant was now smoother and seemed to beg for RPM.
But things weren’t all green. The 2V SOHC 4.6 engine made great exhaust notes however making horsepower was a big problem. The engine was simply anemic. It ran out of steam quickly on the top end and that’s just the beginning. Tuners quickly poked holes in the engine’s design. Ford used fragile hyper eutectic pistons which were not detonation friendly and discouraged forced induction. If boost was added the next concern became the cylinder-head fasteners head gaskets. The intake manifold was made of brittle plastic that was known to crack and leak. And yet we haven’t touched on the biggest power restriction of the 1996-98 2V SOHC 4.6 engine – the heads.
I won’t bore you with the combustion chamber cc’s, cam lift and profiles, but in short the heads on the 1996 to 1998 Mustang GT were paper weights literally holding the engine back from producing decent power. Even with a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! The meanest sounding 2V in the world won’t run more than a 14 second quarter mile without forced induction or serious weight reduction and slicks.
Read The Original Article Here (Opens New Window)
The Cure
But all hope isn’t lost for the 1996-1998 Mustang GT. Ford redesigned the engine in 1999 and power increased to the tune of 260 ponies. These engines became known as performance improved, or PI, and it wasn’t long until we discovered the heads and cam would swap over to the older 1996 to 98 performance starved 4.6. Owners can expect something along the lines of 30 horsepower and 40 pounds feet torque and a bump in compression ratio.
The head swap has become more popular in recent years but the bang-for-the-buck isn’t great nor is it an afternoon job. Unless the owner is completely Gung Ho about their 96-98 Mustang GT, chances are it’s just a loud turd.
Read The Original Article Here (Opens New Window)
//Follow Josh on Twitter
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
Josh’s first three cars were modified Mustangs. He spent way too much time at performance shops, drag strips and autocross courses until giving up on the FOX/SN95 platform and heading for greener pastures.
William Byrd
> RightFootDown
06/18/2015 at 10:24 |
|
Thankfully I had a 1993 and a 2003.
HiredDriver
> RightFootDown
06/18/2015 at 10:27 |
|
I had a friend with a 97 GT with pretty much every bolt-on you could do short of a supercharger. Pulleys, headers, x pipe, catback, intake, chipped, gears, subframe connectors, etc. The car made 200 whp on a Dyno Jet. I couldn’t believe it. Sounded mean as hell but damn was it slow! Civic Si’s were putting the hurting to it!
PS9
> RightFootDown
06/18/2015 at 10:31 |
|
Today’s evil plan; find a mustang that looks like this and put Ford’s new Flat plane crank 5.2 under the hood. Sounds identical to stock, so no one would know what’s up until it was too late...MUAHAHAHAHAHA
T5Killer
> RightFootDown
06/18/2015 at 10:31 |
|
The one good thing is NPI 2v cars are super cheap now around here they are cheaper than fox bodies. I have been tempted to get the slowest of the slow a NPI 2v Convertible for a daily driver.
Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer
> RightFootDown
06/18/2015 at 10:50 |
|
Solution:
http://bangshift.com/general-news/s…
DoYouEvenShift
> RightFootDown
06/18/2015 at 11:05 |
|
Ive always been a big fan of the looks of a 94-04 Mustang. Put some nice wheels and a quality drop spring, and they can be stunners. The 4.6 2VV is a different story. But they do sound amazing with exhaust.
Something like this I would DD the hell out of.
RazoE
> RightFootDown
06/18/2015 at 11:22 |
|
Didn’t these Cobras run the 5.0, though?
|
RightFootDown
> RazoE
06/18/2015 at 11:30 |
|
That’s actually a GT badged as a Cobra. Happens more often than you’d think.
1994-95 Cobra’s had 240 HP 5.0L’s while the 96-98 Cobras had DOHC 4.6L making 305 HP. 99 Cobra’s made 320 HP.
|
T5Killer
> HiredDriver
06/18/2015 at 11:31 |
|
To be honest the 94-95 5.0 GTs are just as bad with bolt-ons due to the horrid stock tune on the T4mo ECU (It was very detuned from the Fox body A9Ls to protect the weak T-5 transmissions). Granted once it gets tuned they are great.
Back in the late ‘90s when the SN95 ECUs were not as tuneable as the Fox ECU there was a harness Pro-M sold to swap the A9L into SN95s called the PIH. Now its not needed since the ECU is no issue with modern tuning software. (94-95 Owner for 17 years now).
|
T5Killer
> PS9
06/18/2015 at 11:33 |
|
I cannot wait till that 5,2 is in the FRPP catalog.
Sketch
> RazoE
07/04/2015 at 00:58 |
|
The Cobra lost the 5.0 at the same time as the standard model. However, it got a significantly more powerful DOHC 4V modular 4.6.
Nauraushaun
> RightFootDown
07/04/2015 at 01:53 |
|
Is 225hp from 5L in 1988 really impressive? In 1989 the Z32 launched, with 222hp from a 3L V6. And that’s without the turbos.
OttoMaddox
> HiredDriver
07/04/2015 at 03:40 |
|
I daily drove a Bright Tangerine ‘96 GT convertible. Best bang for the buck was to put 3.73 gears in the rear end and call it done. It was still smooth and quiet, and I got an honest 27mpg at 70 mph on the freeway. I loved that car, and I’d still have it if someone hadn’t hit it when it was parked on the street.
The SOHC SN95 was far from the best Mustang, and far from the worst. But if you think of it as a smaller, lighter Panther it begins to make sense. Simple, reliable, adequate power, can be bought cheaply. I’m tempted to get another, maybe my dad’s ‘99 though I like that body style a little less.
|
OttoMaddox
> T5Killer
07/04/2015 at 03:41 |
|
Do it. They’re a lot of fun for short money. Get 3.73 gears and it’ll be fast enough.
Llama_of_Doom
> T5Killer
11/27/2015 at 12:55 |
|
Don’t forget about the ‘96-’97 Thunderbirds, which also came with the same npi 4.6. Due to a slightly longer wheelbase and four wheel independent suspension, (the irs Cobra rears were T-Bird derived) they ride better than the Mustangs. In ‘97, four wheel disc brakes were standard. The biggest downfall is though, lack of a proper row it yourself transmission, which can be remedied fairly easily.