HP ratings

I'm always amazed at horsepower ratings of new cars;
V6s with 200-300 HP, imports with 300-400 HP, and Mustangs
with 500+ HP. How much torque in these cars? I had a 63 Chev
409 that could burn rubber from a standing start in 1st, 2nd,
and 3rd gears, but it did bog down in 4th. It was a straight
line car. I also had a 68 Camaro 350/300 HP that was a joy to
drive on twisting back roads. Now, I'm still driving my 84 Capri
5.0 with a mere 200+ HP, but damn, it sure is fun!

Ah, memories,
Dick

"Dick R." > wrote in message
. ..
> I'm always amazed at horsepower ratings of new cars;
> V6s with 200-300 HP, imports with 300-400 HP, and Mustangs
> with 500+ HP. How much torque in these cars? I had a 63 Chev
> 409 that could burn rubber from a standing start in 1st, 2nd,
> and 3rd gears, but it did bog down in 4th. It was a straight
> line car. I also had a 68 Camaro 350/300 HP that was a joy to
> drive on twisting back roads. Now, I'm still driving my 84 Capri
> 5.0 with a mere 200+ HP, but damn, it sure is fun!
>
> Ah, memories,
> Dick

You must have done some work on that puppy. At best, from the factory, it
was rated at 175 HP.

And that was before Ford changed the way it rated horsepower, resulting in
my own 1993 version of the 5.0, which was putting out a mere 205.

Oh - and that 500+HP Mustang (540, I think) puts out 510 lb-ft. of torque.
Damn respectable.

dwight
www.tfrog.com

dwight wrote:
>
> "Dick R." > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>> I'm always amazed at horsepower ratings of new cars;
>> V6s with 200-300 HP, imports with 300-400 HP, and Mustangs
>> with 500+ HP. How much torque in these cars? I had a 63 Chev
>> 409 that could burn rubber from a standing start in 1st, 2nd,
>> and 3rd gears, but it did bog down in 4th. It was a straight
>> line car. I also had a 68 Camaro 350/300 HP that was a joy to
>> drive on twisting back roads. Now, I'm still driving my 84 Capri
>> 5.0 with a mere 200+ HP, but damn, it sure is fun!
>>
>> Ah, memories,
>> Dick
>
> You must have done some work on that puppy. At best, from the factory,
> it was rated at 175 HP.
>
Hi Dwight,
My memory sometimes fails, but I drove that car off the showroom floor
back in 84 (they slid the glass showroom doors open so I could drive
the car out). I've only seen 1 other Capri like it in Minnesota in the
last 24 years, but I found a few when I was googling. Mine is black with
the original RS paint scheme and 68,000 miles. I still have the original
window sticker. I agree that it was probably rated at 175 HP, but it's
still fun to drive!

Thanks for the reply,
Dick

Dick R. wrote:
> dwight wrote:
>>
>> "Dick R." > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>> I'm always amazed at horsepower ratings of new cars;
>>> V6s with 200-300 HP, imports with 300-400 HP, and Mustangs
>>> with 500+ HP. How much torque in these cars? I had a 63 Chev
>>> 409 that could burn rubber from a standing start in 1st, 2nd,
>>> and 3rd gears, but it did bog down in 4th. It was a straight
>>> line car. I also had a 68 Camaro 350/300 HP that was a joy to
>>> drive on twisting back roads. Now, I'm still driving my 84 Capri
>>> 5.0 with a mere 200+ HP, but damn, it sure is fun!
>>>
>>> Ah, memories,
>>> Dick
>>
>> You must have done some work on that puppy. At best, from the factory,
>> it was rated at 175 HP.
>>
> Hi Dwight,
> My memory sometimes fails, but I drove that car off the showroom floor
> back in 84 (they slid the glass showroom doors open so I could drive
> the car out). I've only seen 1 other Capri like it in Minnesota in the
> last 24 years, but I found a few when I was googling. Mine is black with
> the original RS paint scheme and 68,000 miles. I still have the original
> window sticker. I agree that it was probably rated at 175 HP, but it's
> still fun to drive!
>
> Thanks for the reply,
> Dick
Hey, it's 200 to you, who cares! Hey Dick, the 84 Mustang GT had little
slapper (traction) bars, did the RS have that? Nice looking cars...Take
care of it.

GILL wrote:
> Dick R. wrote:
>> dwight wrote:
>>
>>> "Dick R." > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>
>>>> I'm always amazed at horsepower ratings of new cars;
>>>> V6s with 200-300 HP, imports with 300-400 HP, and Mustangs
>>>> with 500+ HP. How much torque in these cars? I had a 63 Chev
>>>> 409 that could burn rubber from a standing start in 1st, 2nd,
>>>> and 3rd gears, but it did bog down in 4th. It was a straight
>>>> line car. I also had a 68 Camaro 350/300 HP that was a joy to
>>>> drive on twisting back roads. Now, I'm still driving my 84 Capri
>>>> 5.0 with a mere 200+ HP, but damn, it sure is fun!
>>>>
>>>> Ah, memories,
>>>> Dick
>>>
>>> You must have done some work on that puppy. At best, from the
>>> factory, it was rated at 175 HP.
>>>
>> Hi Dwight,
>> My memory sometimes fails, but I drove that car off the showroom floor
>> back in 84 (they slid the glass showroom doors open so I could drive
>> the car out). I've only seen 1 other Capri like it in Minnesota in the
>> last 24 years, but I found a few when I was googling. Mine is black with
>> the original RS paint scheme and 68,000 miles. I still have the original
>> window sticker. I agree that it was probably rated at 175 HP, but it's
>> still fun to drive!
>>
> Hey, it's 200 to you, who cares! Hey Dick, the 84 Mustang GT had little
> slapper (traction) bars, did the RS have that? Nice looking cars...Take
> care of it.
Hey Gill,
I'm not sure about the traction bars, but I do take good care of that buggy.
It's stored in the winter and hasn't been in the snow for 20 years. My kids,
both in their 40s are lusting for that car, but it will be part of my estate.

Dick

"Dick R." > wrote in message
...
> dwight wrote:
>>
>> "Dick R." > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>> I'm always amazed at horsepower ratings of new cars;
>>> V6s with 200-300 HP, imports with 300-400 HP, and Mustangs
>>> with 500+ HP. How much torque in these cars? I had a 63 Chev
>>> 409 that could burn rubber from a standing start in 1st, 2nd,
>>> and 3rd gears, but it did bog down in 4th. It was a straight
>>> line car. I also had a 68 Camaro 350/300 HP that was a joy to
>>> drive on twisting back roads. Now, I'm still driving my 84 Capri
>>> 5.0 with a mere 200+ HP, but damn, it sure is fun!
>>>
>>> Ah, memories,
>>> Dick
>> You must have done some work on that puppy. At best, from the factory,
>> it was rated at 175 HP.
>>
> Hi Dwight,
> My memory sometimes fails, but I drove that car off the showroom floor
> back in 84 (they slid the glass showroom doors open so I could drive
> the car out). I've only seen 1 other Capri like it in Minnesota in the
> last 24 years, but I found a few when I was googling. Mine is black with
> the original RS paint scheme and 68,000 miles. I still have the original
> window sticker. I agree that it was probably rated at 175 HP, but it's
> still fun to drive!
>
> Thanks for the reply,
> Dick

No question. I owned an '84 LX .5.0 Mustang for about 3 years, so I'm
familiar with the platform.

But I do remember that the 5.0 began as an OPEC-strangled 125 horses, and
slowly was built up in performance through the years to its zenith in
'87-'88. My nephew-in-law had an early LX convertible, and I took great
delight in pointing out that my (then) new '93 had all of 205.

As you say, today's six cylinder passenger cars are boasting 300+, and yet I
marvel that my little 205 can not only keep up, but handle most of them
easily. I think that it's more the driver than the engine, though. I don't
believe that most passenger car drivers are comfortable pushing the skinny
pedal to the floor... and holding it there.

My '84 was a lot of fun on occasion - those occasions when it was actually
running. I bought it used (and it was abused), and those three years were
filled with frustration. It was quite a while before I got back to Mustangs
after that, and I was so impressed with my new 1993 LX (TFrog), that I swore
I'd keep it forever.

TFrog just turned 15. Your '84 Capri is coming up on 25! I don't question
why you keep this car (I know why), and I applaud you for still taking joy
in it. In fact, with all of the hooplah over the upcoming 45th Anniversary
celebration of the Mustang, there is a first-ever meeting of Fox Mustang
owners coming up. (I'm sure that your Capri would be more than welcome, if
you wanted to make the trip to Columbus, Ohio.) The first Fox (1979) is now
a thirty-year-old pony - by comparison, mine are relatively YOUNG!

For anyone interested, arthritisautoshow.com (yes, ironically, the Fox
reunion benefits the Arthritis Foundation - go figure).

dwight
www.tfrog.com

"Dick R." > wrote in news:3
:

> I'm always amazed at horsepower ratings of new cars;
> V6s with 200-300 HP, imports with 300-400 HP, and Mustangs
> with 500+ HP. How much torque in these cars?

Take a look at where that HP is made - usually over 6000 RPM.

"dwight" > wrote in
:

> But I do remember that the 5.0 began as an OPEC-strangled 125 horses,
> and slowly was built up in performance through the years to its zenith
> in '87-'88. My nephew-in-law had an early LX convertible, and I took
> great delight in pointing out that my (then) new '93 had all of 205.

dwight, you've got to know that the '93 cars had just as much actual power
as those before. The only thing that changed was the way Ford rated them.

"Joe" > wrote in message
...
> "dwight" > wrote in
> :
>
>> But I do remember that the 5.0 began as an OPEC-strangled 125 horses,
>> and slowly was built up in performance through the years to its zenith
>> in '87-'88. My nephew-in-law had an early LX convertible, and I took
>> great delight in pointing out that my (then) new '93 had all of 205.
>
> dwight, you've got to know that the '93 cars had just as much actual power
> as those before. The only thing that changed was the way Ford rated them.

No, not really. The actual difference may be somewhere between 5 and 10
horses, but the 5.0 was definitely slightly detuned in the years after 1988.
The change in rating method accounted for most of the drop, but there were
other minor modifications to the engine, too.

Besides... if Ford changed the rating methods for a valid reason (and we
assume that it was valid), then obviously the 1988 Mustangs were NOT putting
out the 225 that they were rated for in 1988.

Wrap your head around THAT.

)

"dwight" > wrote in
:

>
> "Joe" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "dwight" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> But I do remember that the 5.0 began as an OPEC-strangled 125
>>> horses, and slowly was built up in performance through the years to
>>> its zenith in '87-'88. My nephew-in-law had an early LX convertible,
>>> and I took great delight in pointing out that my (then) new '93 had
>>> all of 205.
>>
>> dwight, you've got to know that the '93 cars had just as much actual
>> power as those before. The only thing that changed was the way Ford
>> rated them.
>
> No, not really. The actual difference may be somewhere between 5 and
> 10 horses, but the 5.0 was definitely slightly detuned in the years
> after 1988. The change in rating method accounted for most of the
> drop, but there were other minor modifications to the engine, too.

I can't believe this is true. Is there any supporting evidence for
this? And didn't Ford switch to a MAF around that time?

> Besides... if Ford changed the rating methods for a valid reason (and
> we assume that it was valid), then obviously the 1988 Mustangs were
> NOT putting out the 225 that they were rated for in 1988.
>
> Wrap your head around THAT.
>
>)

I've heard that one of the main reasons for the rating change was for
insurance purposes. But it's been my understanding that the 5.0s from
the late '80s have always put out 225hp. Time for some earnest
research...