Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: 1986 Mustang 5.0 (5-speed). Rough 1/4 mile time?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Michigan!
    Posts
    767

    1986 Mustang 5.0 (5-speed). Rough 1/4 mile time?

    Anyone know what a stock 1986 5.0 will run? I know they had 200 horsepower and 285 ft/lbs of torque (or so I read). What king of 1/4 mile times are they capable of? T hanks.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Washington PA
    Posts
    2,517

    Times

    The 85 GT did 0-60 in 7.2 and the 1/4 in 15.9

    The 87 Gt did 0-60 in 6.7 and the 1/4 in 15.3

    Couldn't find any times on the 86 but just average the two from 85 and 87

    Not sure how accurate these numbers are, I got them from this web site

    http://www.missouri.edu/~apcb20/times.html#Ford

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Reisterstown, Maryland
    Posts
    936
    Sorry, just my two-cents worth, but averaging the times won't get you anywhere... 1985 was the last year of the carburated Mustang 5.0, after that they went to fuel injection. Pretty sure there was actually about a 15 hp loss in the '86 fuel injected mustang which dropped it from 225 to 210? Not sure on the HP numbers, but I am sure on the change from carburation to fuel injection.

    Paul

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    17,289
    You can get both these cars with a good tune doing mid to low 14's...stock
    Doing a JD. Current most HP/TQ per lb of boost, turbo or Supercharged FActory 3.8 SC v6 ford block based. Yahh Buddy
    http://www.sccoa.com/forums/garage_v...vehicle&id=110
    Quote Originally Posted by ricardoa1 View Post
    I love the filter. Its pimp. paper element and 10Mircron filtration, 12" long cause size matters.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Margate, FL
    Posts
    762
    i thought 86 was like one of the slower years, i dont think that 85's even had 225hp, i thought they had like 185? so down to 170 maybe, then 87 was the big jump to 225, and stayed that way til 92, and for 93 i think they dropped to 215

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Washington PA
    Posts
    2,517
    Well Plev72 that is why the 1987 number is in there as well. Not to mention that 15 HP is not going to make a massive difference in accel times.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Reisterstown, Maryland
    Posts
    936
    From: The Complete Book of Mustang by the Auto Editors of Consumer Guide

    the 1985 Mustang offered either an OHV V-8 4 barrel or an OHV V-8 with throttle-body fuel injection. The 1986 Mustang offered an overhead V-8 with port ("multi-point") fuel injection.

    The 1985 Mustang GT (which was only offered with the 4 barrel) was rated at 210 hp. The 1985 LX 5.0 automatic (with the throttle-body injection) was rated at 180 hp.

    The 1986 Mustang 5.0 with multi-point fuel injection was rated at 200bhp and 285 lbs/ft of torque.

    in 1987 the 6-cylinder was dropped from the line-up. The OHV V-8 5.0 was rated at 225 hp and 300 lbs/feet of torque.

    Alright, looking back through this, guess I didn't help answer the question. Here is a useful link as well though http://www.mustangregistry.org/lx_85_86.htm
    also
    http://www.mustanggt.org/86gt.htm

    Otherwise, apparently you should be able to find the info in the February 1986 issue of Mustang (Hot Rod Magazine)
    Paul
    Last edited by plev72; 01-31-2003 at 09:26 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    17,289

    hey!

    The HP numbers posted were correct..The drop in HP in the later years was that ford started rating engines HP with accesories. Owning an 84 stick 4 barrel ho, 85 stick 4 barrel ho, 86 auto fuel injected , an 86 stick fuel injected an 87 stick fuel injected and a 90 auto..I can attest that all of my stick 5 liter cars with a good tuneup and playing with timing ect had run in the low 14 sec range regardless of rated HP. My 86 auto with just gears and exhaust ran a 14.3. Quicker then my 90 auto ever ran. Fuel injected wise the 87-88 speed density are faster from my experience stock for stock. ALso the earlier cars weighed less..Which coudl have attributed to the times..Regardless you cant go wrong speed wise with any 5.0 stang you buy..However Id go with the fuel injection :O)

    http://members.aol.com/xmetalgodnyc/page4.html

    Its for sale..$7,000
    Doing a JD. Current most HP/TQ per lb of boost, turbo or Supercharged FActory 3.8 SC v6 ford block based. Yahh Buddy
    http://www.sccoa.com/forums/garage_v...vehicle&id=110
    Quote Originally Posted by ricardoa1 View Post
    I love the filter. Its pimp. paper element and 10Mircron filtration, 12" long cause size matters.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Oak Ridge, TN
    Posts
    1,687
    From what I've seen at the track I wouldn't expect low 14's, even high 14's should be considered good. Just my opinion on a totally stock vehicle. Also, from what I remember the drop in horsepower in 86' was because the intake had to be low and the better heads came in 87'. This isn't suprising since the 87' mustang was supposed to have been the Probe. I believe torque was up a little in 86'.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Paulina, Louisiana
    Posts
    120
    85 GT's were definitely not 15.9, mine(long gone, sigh) went 14.49 in HRP with just a K&N filter. 82K miles and never touched the timing, mufflers, etc... My first car didn't know about modding.

    86's were solid high 14 sec cars. In poor tune would go in the 15's.

    My current 90 LX 5.0 convertible has run consistent 14.5's(10 passes) non slower than 14.59 with just a K&N, and pulleys. I've added a MAC prochamber but haven't gone back to the trap.

    So if you plan on racing the GT, it should be real close.

Posting Permissions

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