Horsepower rating for a 1993 F150 with a Fuel Injected 5 liter V8.

 

205hp at 4000, 270tq at 3000.

Unless it's a non-roller which I think that 93 is...it would be 185hp.

 

The 87-93 5.0 was a Speed Density/batch fire fuel injection system and it's horsepower was 185 net SAE and 270 net SAE torque.

The truck 5.0 was rated at 205 in 1996 when it had Mass Air fuel /Sequential fire Injection and a hotter cam--almost the same as the Mustang HO factory cam in lift and duration. Same horsepower rating as the 93 5.0 Mustang HO engine!! And the Mass Air injection also gave better MPG. You guys with the 96 5.0 dont know how lucky you have it--Mustang power from the factory--and more gas economy and more horsepower!!

Starting in MY 1992--all 5.0 truck engines were rollers--had roller lifters from the factory and had 8 percent less internal friction . And probably--more horsepower--though the factory horsepower rating wasnt changed by Ford from 1991 to 1992--when the rollers appeared.

 

The MAF wasn't the cause of the hp increase. In fact, MAF was only in place on 94 cali emissions vehicles, 95 automatic 5.0s, and in 96 it started with OBD2.

My 95 302 was still speed density - 205hp.

In 93ish they changed from solid hyd lifters to hydraulic roller lifters. This free'd up some power - and they may have changed the cam profile I'm not sure, I assume so.

The ones with the solid hyd lifters only rev'd to 5000 rpm or so, where as another 500 rpm came on board with the roller lifters.

MAF does make a touch more power than SD, but the HP increase was before the MAF change.

 

I understand that MAF actually makes less power because of the added restriction of the MAF sensor in the air intake.But the added ability of MAF to fine tune the air injection over a wide range of conditions-- increases throttle response and this makes up for this added restriction because the MAF allows increase duration and lift in the cam and while still maintaining low emissions. The added restriction of the MAF sensor in the intake was one of the reasons that Ford derated the Mustang 5.0 in 1993 from 225 to 205 horsepower--I believe the MAF sensor air intake restriction caused a loss of 7 horsepower--with the same cam .

My 92 5.0 has rollers and the Ford Factory Shop Manual shows these rollers.

If I remember correctly--the 94 and 95 truck 5.0 had a slightly different cam from the 87-93 truck 5.0s.

The Federal MAF truck 96 5.0 cam profile is almost identical to the Mustang cam profile for the 5.0 HO.

What is your source of information that tells you that your 95 Federal 5.0 Speed Density OBD1 is factory rated at 205 horsepower?? I heard that the California 1995 truck 5.0 was rated at 205 horsepower--but that fuel injection system was MAF.

 

The MAF sensor can be considered a restriction in some applications, but certainly not this one. That MAF sensor is in no way restrictive to airflow in this application. The only time MAF comes into play as a restriction, is when you're a racer looking for every last ounce of power. Those guys run a speed density type system and can modify the system between runs, even for such things as weather conditions. That's a whole different ball game.

What increases throttle response is the fact that MAF is sequentially injecting the engine, instead of the SD bank/batch fire.

The MAF was NOT the reason Ford de-rated the 93 5.0. How could it? They had MAF from 88+....

http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=771180

What makes you think MAF could be that restrictive??? The only thing in it is the tube inside - the rest of it is just hollow...the CFM #'s of the meter will determine if it's restrictive or not - and people just run larger meters. My aftermarket 75mm meter is good for over 450hp because it can flow enough CFM. I don't know for sure but it's been said that mustangs have 75mm's stock. I think our trucks have 55mm stock.



Look at any sources of info on these trucks...it doesn't matter...theres no source better than the next...the real way you know is by looking at the engineering aspects that make it have the power it has.



IE - roller lifters increase power
IE - different cams increase power
etc...

I can tell just by the fact that it has 500 extra RPM to work with.

It's hard to find cam specs on these engines, the only way to really know is to measure. My educated guess is that Ford changed the cam specs when they went with a hyd roller cam and lifters - and wouldn't change that spec. If the motor came from the factory with MAF vs SD, it may or may not have a different cam in it - who knows...but the differences are SO slight who cares?

 

MAF in 88+ 5.0's? Mustang's maybe but not F150's from what I've found. (Lightnings may be an exception)

F150 5.0's

87-94 MFI (read speed density/bank injection/EEC-IV)
HP 185 @ 3800 TQ 270 @ 2400

95 MFI
HP 205 @ 4000 TQ 275 @ 3000 (appears to be when the cam was changed)

96 SFI (MAF/sequential injection/EEC-V)
HP 199 @ 4200 TQ 270 @ 2400

These are for manual transmission apps. AT drops HP 10 and TQ 5.

Granted these numbers are sourced from a Chiltons manual and not Ford documents or dyno's.

 

In mustangs, yes - that was what I was refering to (context was about mustangs in that sentence).

Chiltons manual is a chiltons manual - it can be wrong just as any other source. You will always find discrepancies in printed literature.

I think we've said enough on this issue - the conclusion has been made.

Talk about blowing a simple question out of the water....we're all guilty of that.

Have you ever actually had that apart and checked to see if it was infact a roller engine?

 

MustangGT221---relax guy--dont be so argumentative. I have been enjoying your posts for years and didnt mean for you to get defensive. I was seeking a discussion--not an argument in my earlier post on this thread.

I have never read any source that said that MAF didnt restrict the intake to some degree--not a lot --but there is still added restriction. Stating that engineers and racers just use larger intakes with MAF ---doesnt support your agument. My contention is that MAF is inherently more restrictive--for a given intake pipe size. This restriction isnt large--but it is still there.And tuning can negate the loss of this added restriction.

The 88 thru 92 Mustang 5.0 HO was overrated from Ford--it never put out 225 SAE horsepower. The real output was 205 . And I was just trying to make a point that the MAF 5.0 Truck had the same output--at least for the 96 MY.

I have read from several sources that the 92 and new 5.0 were roller--and this have been verified by several sources on this site and others. And the 1992 factory service manual shows rollers. My 5.0 is running good and no--I havent looked. I suspect that if there is still disbelief--the Ford parts guy should be able to tell us what it has.

I agree that it is the responsiveness of the MAF that gives it increased throttle response and allows a hotter cam to be installed at the factory.

I have been reading your posts for the last several years--and you seem to be informed and have much insight.

Knowledgeable people like yourself and other "regulars" on this site makes it enjoyable to read and post.

If anyone knows of a source of information --especially from Ford that actually gives the horsepower rating for each year and each powertrain combination--please post the source. It is too bad our trucks dont have a rating plate --like the trucks back in the 50s--that would give the net horsepower rating for that particular truck.

 

You know what, you're right...I shouldn't of been as argumentative. It's been a rough week, I applogize.

I don't have the time to reply to your post as I'm running out the door but I will when I get a chance, I have some things to reply with.

I also didn't intend to come off THAT argumentative....

When I said "Have you ever actually had that apart and checked to see if it was infact a roller engine?" I ment it literally with no attitude - I wanted to know because that is the only real way to know for sure. Books and manuals are not reliable enough to say for sure whether X is there or not. When you work on vehicles long enough and deep enough (no idea what your experence is, just talking about my own) you realize that nothing is set in stone and there's always things that are wrong.

 

To clear the air if you are running SD check the firing order to determine which motor you have. 1-3 is the HO 205 Horse, 1-5 is the non ho 185 hp. MAF did not account for the extra power as said above.

 

MAF allows hotter cam profiles and permits more protential horsepower at WOT and also gives better throttle response at part throttle and in different operating conditions and still maintain emissions.

Ford derated the 5.0 HO because it hadnt been rated since the HO was SD back in 1987--and Ford found out that the MAF wasnt putting out 225--because of the restriction of the MAF sensor and because the cam had a different profile in 93 compared to 87 and because Ford didnt rate the engine with all of the accessories on the engine--like they should have--back in 87.It was more of a gross SAE rating than a net SAE rating when it was rated at 225 horsepower.

Another interesting thing to consider: The 96 MAF 5.0 truck has the same rated output as the 5.0 93 HO--though the HO has true dual 2 1/4 exhaust with H pipe and tubular factory headers and the truck has the single 2 1/4 inch exhaust and restrictive cast iron headers and smaller throttle body. The truck must be actually outputting more gross horsepower--to make up for the less efficient factory exhaust.But what could be the reason for the truck MAF 5.0 to have the same horsepower rating as the exhaust efficient H0--when both have almost the same cam profile. Perhaps the wonders of MAF?? With the added efficiency of better intake track--to overcome the added restriction of the MAF sensor.

Does the truck MAF have a larger or more efficient/higher flowing throttle body compared to the SD 5.0 truck engine?? I bet it does.

 

I have read just as many that say MAF is a restriction - but you have to realize the value of what they're saying. If you put a larger MAF meter on the (stock) engine, is it going to make more power? No. IF there were, it would be due to the signal the MAF is giving the computer.

Yes, it's another "thing" in the way of air going into the engine, but so arn't the butterflies in the throttle body.

Would we all rather it not be there? Yes...which is why avid racers don't use MAF. But they also have the resources to use a very sophisticated tunable EFI system.

What your saying isn't WRONG, it's just not all that important. You make it sound like a big deal, and it's really not. It's like saying the paper towels on my seat affect my gas mileage because of the weight.

When you go and do a H/C/I change on an engine, you have to upgrade and use a larger MAF. It's because the diameter and size of the meter is too small and cannot flow enough CFM to support the additional airflow those parts allow. It would be foolish to run a modified engine and leave the stock MAF meter. The other reason, is because people will surpass the 19# injectors and buy an aftermarket larger meter calibrated to the size injector they wish to use (24, 30, 36, 42, whatever).

You can't just upgrade the H/C/I and go...all of the parts in the chain have to be upgraded so that they flow enough. Otherwise, you're just moving the restrictions around and you won't make power. The throttle body, the intake tubes, everything has to be upgraded when you reach the limit of their CFM flow.


I posted the link to a discussion on the 205 vs 225 rating. There are many different theories on why this is...no point in discussing because the only people who really know are the people from Ford.

You don't know how many times I've seen in several places, and checked yada yada, and been pretty sure something is what it is...and find out it's not.

A 92 could very well have rollers, but with the amount of time I've spent and read material on here and other places...I'm not convinced until I am shown a 92 (verified by #'s) with rollers. Otherwise...who knows...

The trucks never had a 302HO.

You have no idea why Ford derated the 5.0 - neither do I or anyone else here...

I have my own theory as to why - I read it in a Mustang book by Matt Stone, and I have yet to find another reason that sounds better to me. I don't go around telling people my theory because I know it could very well be wrong.

The only thing people can agree on was that Ford was playing with the numbers, something they still do today (look at the 03' cobra, rated at 380hp...dyno proven to really put out around 440hp).

Even my engine, the 302 SD, had 205hp which is the same rating as the 93' HO. But I believe the tq on the HO was different. It's not just the MAF, SD too.

The mustang has the same heads, but it has a different intake and single 65mm TB (better than the twin 45mm in overall CFM flow), different cam, and exhaust like you mentioned. They also use a different firing order, but that isn't for power. The main difference in the firing order is in the bearings. Without getting into specifics, the only real difference is that it is better on the bearings with the HO firing order. The fact is they may be rated at the same HP level, but that doesn't mean they really are producing that.

The MAF and SD trucks use the same TB. The trucks had a 55mm MAF sensor stock. The mustangs, I've been told by a pretty reliable source (so I'd have to take his word for it) that the mustangs run a 75mm MAF stock.

You have to get a grip on the fact that in real life - MAF is not the restriction you have been led to believe it is. You will not until you have first hand experience with it as I know you won't just take my word for it...but think with an open mind and don't close yourself off to whats "fact" and "fiction".

There are very few real facts in the automotive world.

I take EVERYTHING I hear and read with a large grain of salt. I hardly ever believe what any 1 person tells me, I hardly believe what 10 people will tell me.

Take it for what it's worth to ya...

 

MustangGT221:

You take everything you read with a grain of salt--but still believe that the 5.0 SD truck engine in 95 had a advertised 205 horsepower. Again--what is your source?? And why do you believe it.


If the MAF sensor isnt a restriction in the intake--why is it always larger than the throttle body--ie: 75mm to the TB 55mm??I know that the size of the throttle body has to be small enough for throttle response--but still large enough for WOT power--but why the large difference in size?? You see this difference even in intake systems that have short intake pipes--not just the long ones that these trucks have. I am not saying that this MAF is a large restriction--but it has an apparent effect. And it seems that engineers design around the restriction.

What then is your argument: MAF isnt the source of more horsepower--or is the source of more horsepower in a factory emission controlled setup??

I am just stating that MAF in itself isnt the source--but the flexibily of tuning that it permits in a emission controlled vehicle allows more horsepower.

Most of us rely on published stated ratings or opinions. Ford has been usually quiet on the HP ratings of these trucks. I understand that you have an opinion about this--but I am just trying to understand it .

My opinion is that a cleaner, lower emitting emissions engine with more responsive MAF injection control is more tuneable for more emission controlled horsepower--via hotter cams, lower restriction exhaust--whatever--than a injection control that isnt as responsive--such as SD--with the same tuning. What is wrong with this opinion??

I also suspect that the WOT performance of the SD and MAF engine is the area that the SD outperforms the MAF--only.Such as the race track. And that throttle response at part throttle and low emissions are the areas that MAF performs the best--when emissions are a concern .

And if the SD outperforms the MAF at the track --what is the main difference between SD and MAF at WOT -- when both systems are in open loop?? The MAF intake two wire sensor!!

 

What I was saying is that when the firing order changed in the trucks from 1-5.. to 1-3.. (which happened in 94 I believe) the horsepower rating changed as well.