mustang 5.0 v8 do all come with HO?

[74_5.0L_Z]

The machinist did not make any comment with regards to the harmonic balancer. He balanced the rotating assembly by taking some weight out of the center counterweights and a little weight out of the flywheel (I didn't notice the flywheel until I got home).

 

The balancer runs true, and suprisingly the "0" mark was perfectly aligned with the pointer at TDC (I checked the alignment using a piston stop).

 

This is actually the second Romac balancer that I have had. The first was an 0241SA/50 which has a 50 in-oz imbalance to match the stock 5.0L engine. It was on the stock bottom end for about the last 2500 miles or so and was a huge improvement over the stock balancer.

 

When I built the new bottom end, I required a balancer with 28 in-oz of imbalance to match the new rotating assembly. So, being happy with the Romac on the old engine, I purchased one for the new engine (P/N 0241SA/28).

 

If anyone is interested, I have the old Romac (P/N 0241SA/50) for sale for $200.00 + shipping. These are $350.00 new from DSS.

 

 

[Careless]

sweet... I was wondering because I have a romac balancer for my RB30 and I didn't hear of anyone running one on a high-strung motor yet.

 

thnx

[Guest Gr8White]

i check that and reread it. unless it miss something but wiki doesnt even mention HO. it just said that 87-93 was iether 2.4l or 4.9l

 

A 302 is actually a 4.9, the "5.0" was for marketing....One thing to keep in mind is what the plans for your 5.0 are modification wise. The 87-93 Motors are the same, the engine management systems are not. 87-88 are speed density (I believe the 88 California cars were as well) and the 89-93 are mass air flow. if you are planning anything other than basic bolt ons the mass air is the way to go. Speed density is great for stock engines and will usually run better than a stock mass air car since there is no restriction with the meter, but it is ill equipped for internal mods such as a cam, intake or any wholesale change in engine flow.

[Michael Yount]

The 85-95 Stangs were all HO (and roller) 5.0's. 85's were carbed; 86-88 were speed density sefi; 89-95 mass air sefi. The exception were 88 CA cars - they were mass air cars. As others mentioned -- other good candidates for roller/HO motors are the Lincoln MkViii, the later model T'birds and Cougars with the 5.0 motors, and perhaps best of all, the Explorer and Mountaineer motors. The SUV motors were roller motors and also had the GT40 (96/early 97) or GT40P (97-01) heads and GT40 intake --- MUCH better than the stock HO E7 heads and HO intake. The camshaft has to go unless you want to shift at 4500 rpm -- but most of you are going to change out the camshaft anyhow. Also, the 86 Stang had flat tops with no valve reliefs and an E6 head which is a real dog compared to the E7 -- so generally, that's a year you want to stay away from. If you search around, you'll also find roller motors in various Crown vics, full size Mercury sedans, F150 trucks and Lincoln Town cars - but head, intake and cam choice mean that for a performance application most of these are gonna be useful primarily for the shortblock. Explorer/Mountaineer is the hot set up -- especially if you want to go with the distributorless ignition that these vehicles came with. 93-95 Mustang Cobras also came with 5.0L roller motor with GT40 heads and the Cobra intake. The Explorer/Mountaineer/Cobra/GT40 tubular intakes all share the same lower intake and it's the bottleneck to flow (about 210 cfm per runner stock) - so they all perform the same. The tubular upper weighs several pounds less than the other cast upper options.

 

Having someone who knows what they're doing port the GT40 lower (Tom Moss - St. Louis, Missouri), adding a decent exhaust system, a set of AFR165 aluminum heads, 24 lb/hr injectors and a matching maf (75mm), a 65mm throttle body (you can use the Explorer/Mountaineer with a bit of modding for the throttle cable attachment) and the stock HO cam will deliver a motor capable of about 300 rwhp, 330 rwtorque, idle at 700 rpm smoothly/quietly, and get a solid 20 mpg around town and 25-29 on the highway if you can control your right foot.

 

BTW, if you're adding boost - the switch to Hypereutectic pistons was made in late 92 - so some 92's have the hypers. 91 and earlier have the forged units. The only way to be sure is to pull the pan and look for the TRW logo on the bottom of the forged units - you cannot tell from the exterior or the top of the piston. Also if adding boost - the stock thinwalled castings aren't the strongest in the world. With time at extended rpm (say above 6500), when HP/torque start to reach into the 450 range or if detonation continues unabated for long periods of time, the stock blocks are know quite often to split right through the middle of the lifter valley. So if you're gonna boost or juice - best to start with a Dart block. Or go GM/LS-1/2/3.....

 

Lastly, the speed density cars will actually tolerate mild changes quite well. There are a number with GT40P heads, carefully ported Explorer intakes, 65mm throttle bodies, decent exhaust system, upgraded fuel pumps and pressure (for more fuel to go with more air) and stock HO cams that put down in the 250-280HP range, and 300-330 torque range all at the wheels. The key is to not go crazy with cam choice -- anything that significantly alters the vacuum signal at idle (18-20" stock) is gonna give the stock speed density ecu fits.

 

http://forums.corral.net/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=55168&ppuser=30684

[Michael Yount]

?Can't seem to get a signature line to show up.....? Ah, guess that solved it.

[Guest Gr8White]

Also, the 86 Stang had flat tops with no valve reliefs and an E6 head which is a real dog compared to the E7 -- so generally, that's a year you want to stay away from.

 

Yes, the 86 heads are boat anchors- anything that makes an E7 look like a performance head is a real turd!!!

 

 

I would agree with your statements about speed density for the most part, my statement about speed density was referring to wholesale changes in engine flow, i.e. a cam change. I would say you might could get away with sticking an E303 stick or similar in and retain decent drivability, but any kind of cam that affects vacuum (as you stated) really gives the Ford speed density fits. I drove my 88 GT for several years before converting to MAF and the B303 stick on speed density made day to day commuting a pain. Putting that cam in was to my computer like dropping off your kid at a Vietnamese school for the day and expecting him to tell the lunchroom worker he wants the hamburger and not the hot dog.....

[Michael Yount]

Actually the E is just as bad as the B. While it has less duration, if you look at the valve events and lobe separation it causes some of the same issues. Most folks are lucky to get 11-14" of vacuum at idle. I had to move my idle up to 1100 rpm to get to 12" of vacuum. Bottom end is killed in most combos and with speed density, that vacuum level throws everything off.

 

The CompCams XE258 will work pretty well, as will the cam many refer to as the 'baby Crower'. Both are sort of like the stock HO cam on steroids.

 

But it's pretty easy to make in the 280/330 hp/torque range with the stock cam and a careful selection of complimentary parts -- so, no reason to try and squeeze and aftermarket cam past the SD's stock tables. Just to finalize the thought - SIGNIFICANT air flow changes can be handled by the SD ecu (180HP stock at the wheels to 280 at the wheels represents over 50% increase in air flow); it's the vacuum signal being reduced at idle/low rpm that really mucks things up since the system pays so much attention to the MAP sensor.

[Guest Gr8White]

I had to move my idle up to 1100 rpm to get to 12" of vacuum. Bottom end is killed in most combos and with speed density, that vacuum level throws everything off.

 

 

LOL, those were the days. I remember doing exactly the same to get the vacuum up, I don't think I was even getting 12" though but close. You mention 180 hp vs. 280 HP, I am assuming that is what you have dynoed with the factory SD? That's pretty impressive, I was 25 hp short of that figure wrenching on the factory speed density, B303, bolt ons and plenty of timing. I was running 0.985V @ the TPS, off road pipes and 2 chamber Flows (you gotta love that classic 5.0 sound). I still have the old Flowmasters hanging in the garage, this has been so long (1989) that they were still made of steel back then! The 280HP is probably good for 12's in a Fox with 3.55's, mid 12s in a Z or better. I couldn't get out of the 13s @ 255 hp and 3.55s.

 

I think it is clear that there is nothing wrong with the 87-88 SD management, if your goals are conservative (relatively speaking) then you will be more than happy with it. That is where the problem started for me. The more you get, the more you want and I think we could all agree that in terms of building blocks, the mass air (with a good meter) is the way to go.

[Michael Yount]

One of the fox body intake gurus up in St. Louis - Tom Moss; 87 speed density fox body. GT40P cast iron heads, Explorer intake (ported lower), exhaust, 65mm Explorer throttle body, stock HO cam, 1.7 rollers - 277 rwhp, 330 rwlb-ft. Idles like stock, routinely gets 18-20 mpg around town, 25-27 mpg on the highway. So, it can work -- but mass air offers more flexibility.