What does 10 lb-ft of torque get you?
- Thread starter MX693
- Start date
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
...is it even real? The 1992 Mustang GT was rated at 225hp/300#tq, while the 1993 Mustang GT was rated at 205hp/275#tq. They performed identically.
- :
- Soon to be 2.5T CX-5
A .10 second if tuned across the board and done right, but most likely in this case, nothing.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
So basically, tire weight matters more, even among same-size tires.
I am not denigrating it, if it's a real 10# increase...mo is betta! Just saying I haven't been inspired to trade mine in, and if we see REAL reductions in ET's, it's going to be because of more than just a 10# peak torque increase.
- :
- Soon to be 2.5T CX-5
Hey, I totally agree. Another reason I buy General Altimax RT43, they’re light tires that perform uber well for their price.
They’ve yet to do anything to get me to really wanna buy one, until they add about 60 more lbs of torque and 50ish horsepower.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Honestly, I kindof wish I'd bought a lightly used Audi SQ5 some days. Other days, I like the 5mpg or so more I am getting.Hey, I totally agree. Another reason I buy General Altimax RT43, they’re light tires that perform uber well for their price.
They’ve yet to do anything to get me to really wanna buy one, until they add about 60 more lbs of torque and 50ish horsepower.
- :
- 2023 CX-5 2.5 Turbo AWD Auto
RIP 8/23:2013 CX-5 Sport FWD Auto 120k
that was exactly what I was thinking when I saw the thread title lol
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Why not? Didnt they advertise the 1 horsepower gain of the 2.5NA motor? Lol!
Short reply is that the 1992 and 1993 5.0 engine is unchanged other than changing from forged to cast pistons. From 1987 to 1993, there were multiple small changes made that reduced the power, but it wasn't reported until 1993.
The long winded version from the Mustang Registry:
"The 1993 Mustang GT was the last of the breed of Fox-chassis based 5.0L’s. Production for 1993 increased slightly by 5,656 units perhaps because of this. Although there were no mechanical changes from 1992 to 1993 (aside from hypereutectic pistons replacing the previous forged aluminum pistons), both the horsepower and torque ratings dropped for ‘93 - horsepower by 20 and torque by 25. The reduced ratings were influenced by a stack-up of minor mechanical changes and 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 engine’s 225-horsepower rating for 1987. These include a restrictive resonator added to the inlet tract (1987-1993) that produced a 5-7 horsepower loss. The small camshaft profile change in 1989 reduced HO output by 3 horsepower. The restrictive mass airflow meter in the inlet tract introduced in 1989 yields 2-3 horsepower less than the speed density system. Some minor exhaust system revisions made between 1987-1993 also add up to another small reduction in engine output. The second contributing factor in the re-rating of the ‘93 V8 involved changes in the processes that Ford used to select engines for testing and the engine’s state of dress (with all engine-driven accessories) during testing. Combined with the ‘87-93 mechanical revisions, the revised-for-1993 testing procedures add up to the ‘93 model year’s reduced output ratings."
I agree. If you can report you have 10 more torques, do it.
