Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 52
  1. #31
    Administrator SVOeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Richmond, KY
    Posts
    12,840
    SVO's: 86-1C & 86-1E
    One is from the Ford techinal information (on the FAQ page) the history page is from a brochure, possibly the same brochure you have. Which is listed on the same history section, under brochures.

    I wouldn't compare a marketing brochure to a SAE standard, or a mill spec.

    To be realistic, the 85.5, and 86 should have both been listed as 205 HP, but Ford Marketing said NO -- we can't have a 4-cyl with more HP than the GT. -- My guess is the tecnical manual was printed before the Ford marketing people said change it, or (more likely), the technical guys said SCREW YOU YOU MARKETING HIPPIES, we will print what we want )

    I'm not saying that 200, or 205 is the correct number, I am saying there is no difference between the 85.5, and 86.
    Eric C
    SVOCA Webmaster

  2. #32
    OVER-BOOST!! svobud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    6,797
    SVO's: 1985.5 1B
    Originally posted by Kendal Coker
    Well you need to update your site, on the history page you have the 85.5 rated at 200hp and on the facts page you have it at 205.
    Like I said earlier if you look at the 85.5 brochure it rates it at 200 per J1349. Where I work when we have a mil spec to go by such as J1349, you go by it. You dont make up something that you like and then say that is so. There are lots of opinions on this site including mine, but so far I am most impressed with Mike Flemming. Just some more thoughts. Kendal Coker
    Jeez Louise. I see we're still being anal about this .. and where you work Kendall is Govt controlled. You're not selling anything. Take off the Engineering blinders and use some Marketing/Business ones to see things more clear when it comes to this topic.

    We'll get right on that update Kendall. But first we need to know what HP number YOU want us to list. Ya know ... the one that totally freaking irrelavent because there's no freaking difference or what you claim?

    I'll 2nd the opinion that Mike Fleming is an impressive guy, but more so with his hand shoved in a boxhole than here.

  3. #33
    Administrator SVOeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Richmond, KY
    Posts
    12,840
    SVO's: 86-1C & 86-1E
    For more info on the Mike in the box, see the below listed reference material.

    Mike in the BOX
    Eric C
    SVOCA Webmaster

  4. #34
    OVER-BOOST!! Kendal Coker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Decatur Alabama
    Posts
    1,066
    Easy Bud, If it wasnt for these type of discussions there would be no need for the website. I look forward to everyones opinion. I was just stating in the brochure that you get from the dealer for a 85.5 per standard (J1349) says 200hp. By the way everyone goes by standards not just the goverment. If it were not for standards every bolt and nut would be a different size. Everything that has been said through out all of this, I have read somewhere at one time, I guess it is what ever you want to believe. I hope I havent offended anyone by what I say now or in the future. Have a nice day. later Kendal
    Kendal Coker

  5. #35
    OVER-BOOST!! svobud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    6,797
    SVO's: 1985.5 1B
    Kendal - I'm not pissed nor have you offended me, but you continue to restate your point - 3 or 4 times now. Yes, Ford printed they used the J1349 standard when obtaining their HP figures .. but that doesn't necessarily make what they print the total truth. That is what you're not conceding here.

    Marketing Depts will "change" things to what they perceive will SELL MORE PRODUCT. To them - it's a mere stretching or shortening of the actual figures in order to be more appealing to the public. V8 Mustangs were/are a cornerstone of Ford's $$$. The Mustang SVO was not.

    Two examples of how Ford has 'fudged' it's product ..

    1. The 5.0 liter V8 (ie: 302ci) is NOT 5 liters .. it's 4.9
    2. The advertised (vs. actual) HP of the 1999 SVT Cobra. Ford published it as being gained thru the same recognized standard. Someone busted their baloons ... and they had a massive recall.

  6. #36
    Boosted Pat_in_L.A.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Sunland, California
    Posts
    8,005
    SVO's: Several

    Two examples of how Ford has 'fudged' it's product .

    Make it three...

    The 1969/1970 Boss 302 had 290 HP in advertisements?

    AHHH CHOOO (pronounced "BULL$7!T")

    Back then, 300 HP was the "Insurance company" line in the sand. Z-28 was the same way to avoid dinging the buyers of these neat cars by the insurance standards of the day.

  7. #37
    OVER-BOOST!! Kendal Coker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Decatur Alabama
    Posts
    1,066
    I had a couple of 69 428 cobra jets, they were rated at 335, guess they steped over the line..
    Kendal Coker

  8. #38
    the well known PIA VIN guy Ken Potter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Woodstock, Georgia
    Posts
    7,599
    SVO's: 84,85,85.5,86x2
    And hey, the Z06 magically became 405 HP after the 03 Cobra came out at 390 HP. I think the Z06 was rated as 385 at first press release? I guess they couldn't do anything about the price though ( of the Z06 ).

  9. #39
    18 PSI Boost sar4497's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Prairie Village, Kansas
    Posts
    369
    SVO's: '86
    I don't like what you're implying about price. The Z06 is worth every penny and more. It is a better performer than the '03 Cobra in every way, and easily trumps many sports cars that cost twice as much.

    Speaking of insurance number fudging...it's well known that the '03 Cobra puts out over 400hp, but the word on the street is that eclipsing the magic 400 mark would cause insurance rates to change drastically.
    '86 running MegaSquirt

  10. #40
    the well known PIA VIN guy Ken Potter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Woodstock, Georgia
    Posts
    7,599
    SVO's: 84,85,85.5,86x2
    Well I can't help how you feel. I personally think the Z06 and all of GM's products are way over priced. I've owned one GM product ( 72 442 ) that I restored and helped restore a 70 GTO, 69 COPO clone, and a 69 T-top Vette. The prices for the same comparable parts on a early model Mustang are about 1/4. As far as performance goes I've seen 03 Cobras run with Z06's ( both mildly modified ) at Road Atlanta and while the Cobras weren't passing the Z06's sure couldn't get away. Although there is a mineral grey Ferrari 550 that I've seen at Road A. that was eating both Z06's and supercharged Z28's. The only thing the Ferrari wasn't passing were two race prepped 935's. Lastly everybody has opinions and this is a FORD webpage.

  11. #41
    banned ricer v8eatr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    so cal ventura county
    Posts
    66

    some more meat for the grinder

    back in the 80's I read a lot of car mags and I saw the mustang gt go from (205,84) (210,85)(200,86)and a 86 svo was 205hp,they compared it to the porshe 944 four turbo that had247hp. but I rember a change of hp rating that ford made back then too.

    also I have done the dyno testing on 03 cobra's and the 405hpvet
    the funney thing about the cobra and the lighting is the computer won't give you 390 at the wheels until 4 th gear.

    04cobra's have a sticker under the hood that say's"when you dyno this car (not if) turn off the tration control"

    405vet made 380 at the rear wheels
    stock03/04 cobra's make 390to400

    one more monkey wrench.we have also tested cars before changing to mobil 1 synthec moter oil and after they avrage 7hp to the wheels...so did the 85.5 come with mobil one oil in it? did the 86 come with it?

    also my boss that runs the dyno says he see around 12hp per pound of boost I though it was 7hp per pound.

  12. #42
    Cornolio!! rschonegg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Posts
    1,986
    SVO's: IIA2RIAS - 86 2R

    does Mike F. really know his stuff ?

    Mike, who manufactured the Air that was originally put into SVO tires on the production line before 07/85. I heard that Kar Kraft canned the air that was in the roofs of all the Coupes they cut off/and or out of the Mustang Convertables and T-tops from 84 to 93. this canned air was shipped back to Dearbord plant and used to fill SVO tires after 07/85......

    86 2R: 14/NOV/1985 #7606 deSkittled in SEP 2003

  13. #43
    Administrator SVOeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Richmond, KY
    Posts
    12,840
    SVO's: 86-1C & 86-1E
    the locks were made to be the same weight as the rest of the svo lug-nuts.

    were you running the SVO lock, and other lugs on the rest of the wheel ?

    BTW :: This really doesn't belong in the FAQ, or svo facts thread.
    Eric C
    SVOCA Webmaster

  14. #44
    16 PSI Boost unrealford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Buffalo,NY
    Posts
    178
    SVO's: 1984SVO,Option Delet
    The 2005-2007 Mustang is advertised as 300, but proff has shown it only provides between 260-272 on dynos, I also have a video of a 2007 Mustang GT-500 rated at 500 HP but , was tested at RW and only had,(well not only.LOL) But 447 Hp , thats nice HP

  15. #45
    16 PSI Boost KarlRodg88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Los Altos, California
    Posts
    154
    SVO's: 1985 2R
    new cars are rated at the crank, so when you put it on a chassis dyno it comes out alittle less, add about 17% iirc and youll get your 300.
    '85 2R
    PE, 35s, A237 Cam, Eibachs, MM Camber Caster, Alum. Drive shaft, 3" DP, 2.5" Dynomax, 18psi, More to come...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •