New Taurus 3.5 Duratec!

[Harrry]

I've seen an article that had an 87 LX 5.0 5-speed, racing a GN, both were running low 14's stock. The Mustang ended up nicking a high 13, and that was bone stock with 2.73 gears. An LX with less options is faster than a fulley loaded GT. I know what you are saying though. My 93 SHO ran a 15.08. But it was not nearly as fast as my 89 GT. Which would run mid 14's spinning on stock tires. But the mid 90's GT's were slower, and were in the 93-95 5-speed SHO range.

The 87-93 gt's manual version ran 14.4-14.9's. I know this because my brothers bone stock 1993 gt rang 14.5 with stock tires at Milan. We all know Milan's track sucks. They were really underrated.

Automatics ran 14.9+ and the automatic convertibles ran mid to high 15's.

 

[95pgt-t]

the 89-90 sho's would also run 14.9's. as they were the quickest of the sho lineup.

 

[morbid]

The 87-93 gt's manual version ran 14.4-14.9's. I know this because my brothers bone stock 1993 gt rang 14.5 with stock tires at Milan. We all know Milan's track sucks. They were really underrated.

Automatics ran 14.9+ and the automatic convertibles ran mid to high 15's.

LX's were much faster than the GT's. Also, during that era, the mustangs *could* have 3 different rears, from what I recall... 2.73, 3.23, 3.43 gears.. depending on when and where they were built. The dealers didn't know what gears it had. We had to measure them when we were looking for ones with the better gears.

Purely a guestimate.. based on my past Camaro's times, and compared to Mustangs I'd get paired up with at the track, I'd say a stock GT ran around 15.0. A stock LX around 14.5. Hell... I think even the 1980's vette (can't recall years.. round tail lights and L98 350) ran 14.7-14.9's.

 

[biminiLX]

LX's were much faster than the GT's. Also, during that era, the mustangs *could* have 3 different rears, from what I recall... 2.73, 3.23, 3.43 gears.. depending on when and where they were built. The dealers didn't know what gears it had. We had to measure them when we were looking for ones with the better gears.

Purely a guestimate.. based on my past Camaro's times, and compared to Mustangs I'd get paired up with at the track, I'd say a stock GT ran around 15.0. A stock LX around 14.5. Hell... I think even the 1980's vette (can't recall years.. round tail lights and L98 350) ran 14.7-14.9's.

Pretty much all wrong.
LXs were marginally quicker than GTs, coupes (only available as LX) were lighter while LX hatches are slightly lighter (ground effects and less options) but this is not very significant. So, yes, a coupe will be slightly quicker, maybe 2 tenths.
Gears....2.73/3.08/3.27 and the dealers know based on the axle code in the vin and the tag on the diff.
Please don't spew data w/o any facts.
-J

 

[morbid]

That's just what I recalled from when I was into v-8's. And as I thought about it, I was wrong about the times. I'm unsure about transmissions, but LX's were closer to 15.0. I never lost to a stock LX/GT, but a mildly modified LX would take me. Weren't the LX's 200-300lbs lighter?

If I still had my CarCraft collection, I'd dig up the issue that stated Ford's random final gears used in the late 80's Mustangs. Though that may in fact be incorrect, I was not intentionally "spewing".

 

[jmcgee2000svt]

I had 95 Mustang GT 5.0 ran it with prob 93-94 SHO, he was on my a**...Didnt pass me up but would certainly run it with me.

Now having the Contour SVT in my opinion the 95 GT was nothing as my SVT seems to run pretty close, I believe and have heard the older 5.0's were better and the 4.6 is even better then the 94-96 mustangs.

 

[SVTDawg]

That's just what I recalled from when I was into v-8's. And as I thought about it, I was wrong about the times. I'm unsure about transmissions, but LX's were closer to 15.0. I never lost to a stock LX/GT, but a mildly modified LX would take me. Weren't the LX's 200-300lbs lighter?

If I still had my CarCraft collection, I'd dig up the issue that stated Ford's random final gears used in the late 80's Mustangs. Though that may in fact be incorrect, I was not intentionally "spewing".

A stock 5spd lx coupe could run low 14s. mid 14s more common. I've seen most Gts, heaviest of the 3 bodies run mid 14s stock. A good driver makes all the difference of course. Got to beat it like a red-headed stepchild. The coupes were a couple hundred lbs lighter than a gt, hence 2 or 3 tenths quicker. also those 5.0 engines back in the day had some looser tolerances. A lot of difference could be found in HP with stock motors. Some stock 5.0's were making 245hp. got lucky and had one in a 5spd coupe and you were golden!

No need to dig up your CarCraft collection. There were no "random gears" put in late 80's mustangs. They were 8.8 rear ends. Ford only made certain ratios as stated by biminilx. 2.73, 3.08, 3.27 stock. The popular mod was to put in 3.55, 3.73, or 4.11 gears. say bye bye at the stop light!

 

[SVTDawg]

I had 95 Mustang GT 5.0 ran it with prob 93-94 SHO, he was on my a**...Didnt pass me up but would certainly run it with me.

Now having the Contour SVT in my opinion the 95 GT was nothing as my SVT seems to run pretty close, I believe and have heard the older 5.0's were better and the 4.6 is even better then the 94-96 mustangs.

I don't know how this got turned into a mustang discusion, but whatever. The 87-89 speed density were the fastest fox bodies stock. 94-95 were pigs. same 5.0 but heavy. Then came the modular motors.

The thing is you really can't compare a taurus and contour to the mustang. Don't think Ford really did either. They knew even if the sho or svt would run close in 0-60 and 1/4 mile that the buyers were completely different.

Also, Ford put those tall gears in the mustang for EPA gas mileage purposes. Totally kills the performance of the car and they know that almost every V8 mustang buyer modifies their car for faster acceleration. The first thing you do is bump the timing, pulleys, and rear gear. 3.73 and awaaay you goooo! low/mid 13's

Can't do that with a sho or svt. not for that little money. you can also beat on a mustang pass after pass and it'll keep on keepin' on. nada with a contour.

Get on a twisty mountain road and that's where svt or sho would shine!

 

[skunk]

I don't know how this got turned into a mustang discusion, but whatever. The 87-89 speed density were the fastest fox bodies stock. 94-95 were pigs. same 5.0 but heavy. Then came the modular motors.

The thing is you really can't compare a taurus and contour to the mustang. Don't think Ford really did either. They knew even if the sho or svt would run close in 0-60 and 1/4 mile that the buyers were completely different.

Also, Ford put those tall gears in the mustang for EPA gas mileage purposes. Totally kills the performance of the car and they know that almost every V8 mustang buyer modifies their car for faster acceleration. The first thing you do is bump the timing, pulleys, and rear gear. 3.73 and awaaay you goooo! low/mid 13's

Can't do that with a sho or svt. not for that little money. you can also beat on a mustang pass after pass and it'll keep on keepin' on. nada with a contour.

Get on a twisty mountain road and that's where svt or sho would shine!

LOL it is funny how it went into a mustang thread and it needs to get back on track doubt, you are correct 87-89 where faster but it's ever so slightly, there is only a 4-5hp difference between the speed density cars and mass air. the speed density cars had more aggressive cam lobe contours(funny) and a leaner mix. the mass air cars had the cam change and the mass air flow system ran a slightly richer fuel curve. It would be slower in a 1/4 but not by much. alot of the speed density guys change over to mass air for better tuning and mods and switch to the A9L computer for example. A fox body with a stiffended chassis, lowered, and good tires and brakes will keep up with a stock sho or svt in the turns, the V8 has the torque to power out of the corners and get down the straights, now stock no way unless it had a real good driver maybe.

 

[turbo_fox]

LOL it is funny how it went into a mustang thread and it needs to get back on track doubt, you are correct 87-89 where faster but it's ever so slightly, there is only a 4-5hp difference between the speed density cars and mass air. the speed density cars had more aggressive cam lobe contours(funny) and a leaner mix. the mass air cars had the cam change and the mass air flow system ran a slightly richer fuel curve. It would be slower in a 1/4 but not by much. alot of the speed density guys change over to mass air for better tuning and mods and switch to the A9L computer for example. A fox body with a stiffended chassis, lowered, and good tires and brakes will keep up with a stock sho or svt in the turns, the V8 has the torque to power out of the corners and get down the straights, now stock no way unless it had a real good driver maybe.

89's were not speed density, they were mass air. the drop in factory rated hp came from a couple of reasons, not just the mass air swap. but we are talking peanuts anyways.

 

[SVTDawg]

89's were not speed density, they were mass air. the drop in factory rated hp came from a couple of reasons, not just the mass air swap. but we are talking peanuts anyways.

Yep, that's right. just 87 and 88s were speed density. Wow this mustang talk has brought back memories! ha

Sorry didn't mean to keep the mustang talk going...

I wonder what a stock 98-00 svt contour and a stock 98-00 mustang would run on the same road course. Bet if it was more of a technical track with short straits, the svt would run faster. The braking and 4-link rear suspension in the mustangs are like Highlander, "SH*T!"

I've road raced a fox mustang with a stock rear setup, except springs and konis, and it was crap. Rediculous to get the power down in tight corners and snap oversteer at the limits because of binding.

 

[turbo_fox]

Yep, that's right. just 87 and 88s were speed density. Wow this mustang talk has brought back memories! ha

Sorry didn't mean to keep the mustang talk going...

I wonder what a stock 98-00 svt contour and a stock 98-00 mustang would run on the same road course. Bet if it was more of a technical track with short straits, the svt would run faster. The braking and 4-link rear suspension in the mustangs are like Highlander, "SH*T!"

I've road raced a fox mustang with a stock rear setup, except springs and konis, and it was crap. Rediculous to get the power down in tight corners and snap oversteer at the limits because of binding.

exactly, thats why mine has an IRS, it was cheaper than a panhard bar, etc. haha

 

[skunk]

89's were not speed density, they were mass air. the drop in factory rated hp came from a couple of reasons, not just the mass air swap. but we are talking peanuts anyways.

I goofed on the 89 deal but if we really want to get technical in 1988 they had 49 state mustangs and california cars had mass air. I'm interested in what other reasons for the hp drop other than mass air and cam revisions. In all text that I have read and online stuff the cam revision cam in late 1988 and the restriction of the maf and the new mass air program all cost the mustang the hp other than for 1993 when they went to the crappy hypereutectic aluminmum pistons the motors where unchanged,exhaust was unchanged and save for the restrictive fender mounted air box muffler which was a restriction since 86 the hp loss from what I have read came from the cam change and mass air unless I'm missing something which is why I'm curious .I like to keep up to date :laugh: , also the transmission's and rearends where carry overs also.

 

[turbo_fox]

from the 1979 - 93 V8 Mustang Specification Guide by Al Kirschbaum:

For 1979-83, Ford specifications for net brake horsepower and net torque are derived from test results corrected to a dry air temperature of 85-degrees (F) and to an atmosheric pressure of 29.38-in./Hg. For 1984-93, Ford specifications for net brake horsepower and net torque are drived from test results conducted according to Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard J1349 corrected to a dry air temperture of 77-degrees (F), (25-dgrees Celsius) and to an atmosheric pressure of 29.61-in./Hg. For 1993, Ford lowered the 5-liter H.O.'s output ratings without making mechanical changes (aside from hypereutectic pistons) to the '93 engine. The reduced ratings were influenced by a stack-up of minor mechanical changes and are by changes to Ford's engine evaluation processes. Dictated mainly by emissions, fuel economy and customer satisfaction requirements, a series of mechanical revisions had been made since Ford initially assigned the engines 225-horsepower rating for 1987. These include a restrictive resonator added to the inlet tract (1987-93) that produces a five-to-seven-horsepower loss. A small camshaft profile change (1989-93) reduces H.O. output by three horsepower. The restrictive mass airflow meter in the (1989-93) inlet tract yields two-to-three horsepower less than the speed density system. Some monor exhaust system revisions made between 1987 and 1993 also add up to another small reduction in engine output. The second contributing factor in the re-rating of the '93 V8 involves changes in the processes that Ford uses to select engines for testing, and the engine's state of dress (with all engine-driven accessories) during testing. Combined with the 1987-93 mechanical revisions, the revised-for-1993 testing procedures add up to the '93 model year's reduced output ratings. The 1993 Cobra GT-40 engine is rated by the same standards that are used to rate the '93 H.O. version.

 

[skunk]

I have the same book.we discussed most of this already, didn't bring up the new hp rating for 93 because ford didn't change any motor parts just testing. the 5spd h.o's used the same exaust from 86-93 but in starting in 87 the aod cars used more restictive mufflers, headers and h-pipe are the same. oh well back on topic.

 

[95pgt-t]

i read a quote once
"in what other country could a manufacturer get away with lying about the horsepower and engine size,and even advertise it on the side of the car for years. and still have it be one of the most popular car's?":laugh:

 

[cobrawannabe]

i read a quote once
"in what other country could a manufacturer get away with lying about the horsepower and engine size,and even advertise it on the side of the car for years. and still have it be one of the most popular car's?":laugh:

Welcome to the promise land!

 

[tigerpwr]

Welcome to the promise land!

LOL

this turned out to be an interesting thread...I thought it was a big thread about the Duratec

I do remember reading in a Motor Trend or similar magazine that the new 3.5L would fit. Don't remember what car they were talking about but they made it a point to say the engine would fit in the older Fords. They also talked about how the duratec was first introduced in the US in the 1995 Contour and how it has evolved since. Man i need to find that article to confirm...

 

[95pgt-t]

i dont think the arugument is that they wouldnt fit in a contour,as they were designed to fit in the same area as a 3L. but its not a duratec in the sense were you used to. meaning the block isnt setup the same as the tried and true 3L

 

[ohiocsvt]

i say screw it i'm gonna try it i have searched this forum over and over and haven't found anyone that has really done the research if some has pm me let me know what i am getting into