Go Back   Ford Mustang Forums > Mustang > 5.0 Mustang > 5.0L Tech

Welcome to our Mustang forums where Mustangers come together to hang out, discuss and enjoy their favorite Mustang hobby with fellow Mustang enthusiasts. We invite everyone to read, post, and enjoy our Mustang forum as well as the many other sections of our site.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest. By joining our community you gain access to post topics, communicate with members, upload your photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free so why wait, join our Mustang community today! If you have any problems with registration or your account login, please contact support.

5.0 Mustangs Tech Forum

5.0L Talk | 5.0L Tech | 94-95 Tech | 1979-1993   1994   1995   Upload Pictures | Timeslips | Power Adders | Mustang Tech 


Reply   Post New Thread
Unread 02-10-2004   #1 (permalink)
gavin123 is offline Rookie


Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 33 Threads: 19
san mateo
gavin123 is on a distinguished road
Default What year 5.0 has the best performing engine?

HI, i'm looking to buy a 302 out of a mustang for my 1965, i was wondering which on would be the best?

My friend has a crashed 94 mustang 302 and was wondering what this year is like? does it have a roller cam ?
gavin123 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Unread 02-10-2004   #2 (permalink)
Sniper is offline Made Member


Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 594 Threads: 155
 Sniper's Country Flag
El Paso   Texas
Sniper is on a distinguished road
Default

Some would say the early 5.o's like 87-89. i've driven 4 years of 5 liters, 88, 91, 93, and 94. The slowest one was the 94. It really doesn't matter what year you get but how you build it. And the Mustang 5.0's were all roller motors.
Sniper is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 02-10-2004   #3 (permalink)
ShadowStand is offline Rookie


Joined: May 2003
Posts: 34 Threads: 7
Nashville, TN
ShadowStand is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Sniper
Some would say the early 5.o's like 87-89. i've driven 4 years of 5 liters, 88, 91, 93, and 94. The slowest one was the 94. It really doesn't matter what year you get but how you build it. And the Mustang 5.0's were all roller motors.
This may be a newb question but even the 76-78 were roller?
ShadowStand is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 02-10-2004   #4 (permalink)
FoxChassis is offline MACH I Member

5.0L Member


Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,932 Threads: 12
 FoxChassis's Country Flag
NOYB
FoxChassis is on a distinguished road
Default

If you're exclude the H.O. 5.0L Cobra engine, the '87-late '88 H.O. 5.0L engine produced the most HP. There was a cam change in early August of '88 that reduced output by 3 HP (not reflected in the 225 HP rating).
__________________
Wanted (Dead or Alive): VINs, Vehicle Certification Labels, Buck Tags, Build Sheets, Window Stickers, Owner Cards, Warranty Tags, History 999 Reports, Invoices, Axle Tags
FoxChassis is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 02-10-2004   #5 (permalink)
FoxChassis is offline MACH I Member

5.0L Member


Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,932 Threads: 12
 FoxChassis's Country Flag
NOYB
FoxChassis is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ShadowStand
This may be a newb question but even the 76-78 were roller?
First roller 5.0L engine was in the '85 model year (4V engine only).

The '76 and '77 302 engine was not called a "5.0L". That moniker didn't appear until the '78 model year (on the King Cobra).
__________________
Wanted (Dead or Alive): VINs, Vehicle Certification Labels, Buck Tags, Build Sheets, Window Stickers, Owner Cards, Warranty Tags, History 999 Reports, Invoices, Axle Tags
FoxChassis is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 02-10-2004   #6 (permalink)
cobra28147 is offline Apprentice


Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 118 Threads: 3
cobra28147 is on a distinguished road
Default

In pure stock form the 87-88 was the most powerfull due to speed density. 87-92 had forged pistons. 94 and 95 may me just as fast as 87-88 due to the switch to a electric fan via the elimination of the clutch fan. I would take the 94 because it probably has less miles and newer components. Just to let sniper know that the 94 was slowest due to the weight difference the 94&95 had. It was alot heavier than the 87-93.
cobra28147 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 02-10-2004   #7 (permalink)
FoxChassis is offline MACH I Member

5.0L Member


Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,932 Threads: 12
 FoxChassis's Country Flag
NOYB
FoxChassis is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by cobra28147
In pure stock form the 87-88 was the most powerfull due to speed density. 87-92 had forged pistons. 94 and 95 may me just as fast as 87-88 due to the switch to a electric fan via the elimination of the clutch fan. I would take the 94 because it probably has less miles and newer components. Just to let sniper know that the 94 was slowest due to the weight difference the 94&95 had. It was alot heavier than the 87-93.
That's all true IF gavin123 was asking about a whole car. He is only asking about an engine though. Why '87-late '88 was the most powerful had nothing to do with the EEC system, or electric fan, or weight of the vehicle. None of that factored into the rated HP on the dyno.
__________________
Wanted (Dead or Alive): VINs, Vehicle Certification Labels, Buck Tags, Build Sheets, Window Stickers, Owner Cards, Warranty Tags, History 999 Reports, Invoices, Axle Tags
FoxChassis is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 02-11-2004   #8 (permalink)
Stangboy5666 is offline Made Member

5.0L Member


Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,263 Threads: 178
 Stangboy5666's Country Flag  View Stangboy5666's 11 photos
Seattle   Washington
Stangboy5666 is on a distinguished road
Default

It is not going to matter what block you put in, because they are essentially all the same. The reason some were sslower than others would be due to weight of vehicle, the whole s.d. vs. mass air deal, and stock intake, exaust... I would get an 87-92 for the forged internals, and thats about all I would worry about. All of these engines were virtually the same horsepower. Dont worry about it, if he's got a '94 on hand get it, if not go with an 87-92.
Stangboy5666 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 02-11-2004   #9 (permalink)
cobra28147 is offline Apprentice


Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 118 Threads: 3
cobra28147 is on a distinguished road
Default

Foxchassis you are wrong sorry. The 87-88 did have more power in stock form due and only due to speed density! Also, a electric fan does free up about 5-10 h.p. The ford h.p.was estimated on these year vehicles. The reason the 94&95 is 215 instead of 225 was due to Ford changing the way they calculate h.p. In reality the 94&95 would be more due to the electric fan.Thank-you!
cobra28147 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 02-11-2004   #10 (permalink)
Stangboy5666 is offline Made Member

5.0L Member


Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,263 Threads: 178
 Stangboy5666's Country Flag  View Stangboy5666's 11 photos
Seattle   Washington
Stangboy5666 is on a distinguished road
Default

Yeah Cobra's right. The 87 and 88 had a little more than 205hp (maybe like 20-215), and the later fox's steadily had less and less horsepower. Although Ford's official horsepower was 225, there must be some reason they dropped the 93 GT to 205 hp... Ford just decided to produce some real numbers, plus they wanted to keep the Cobra at a reasonable and conservative hp rating so more people would buy them. (Insurance rates). The 94-95 would have a little more uumph...
Stangboy5666 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 02-11-2004   #11 (permalink)
FoxChassis is offline MACH I Member

5.0L Member


Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,932 Threads: 12
 FoxChassis's Country Flag
NOYB
FoxChassis is on a distinguished road
Default

cobra28147, scoll up and re-read the question gavin123 asked. Did he ask about an engine or did he ask about a whole car? He asked about an engine.

Is the EEC system part of the engine? No, it is not. Is an electric fan part of the engine? No, it is not. Is the weight of the vehicle part of the engine? No, it is not.

Did he say he was going to take an engine AND the EEC system AND an electric fan and put all of that in his '65 Mustang? No, he did not. He asked which was the 'best' and I gave a factually correct answer.

Am I wrong about the cam change in late '88? No. I am not....

'85-late '88 H.O. 5.0L camshaft:
IVO 17 BTDC
IVC 69 ABDC
EVO 67 BBDC
EVC 19 ATDC
Advertised Duration 266
Overlap 36
Lift .278"/.444"
Part Number E5ZE-6250-AA

Late '88-'89 H.O. 5.0L camshaft:
IVO 20 BTDC
IVC 76 ABDC
EVO 67 BBDC
EVC 19 ATDC
Advertised Duration 276 Int./266 Exh.
Overlap 39
Lift .278"/.444"
Part Number E8ZE-6250-CA

The cam change reduced output by 3 HP but it was not reflected in the rating.
__________________
Wanted (Dead or Alive): VINs, Vehicle Certification Labels, Buck Tags, Build Sheets, Window Stickers, Owner Cards, Warranty Tags, History 999 Reports, Invoices, Axle Tags
FoxChassis is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 02-11-2004   #12 (permalink)
cobra28147 is offline Apprentice


Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 118 Threads: 3
cobra28147 is on a distinguished road
Default

Read my last post and I WAS talking about engine power! I would hope that when he does get a motor from a car he uses the cooling system, and whatever else he could use to save money. By the way, who cares about 3 h.p.? This is the order for most powerfull motors from 87-95.
1.87&88-due to speed density
2-94&95-fan elimination
3-89-93
Also, he may use the complete system so speed density and electric fan are important!
cobra28147 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 02-11-2004   #13 (permalink)
FoxChassis is offline MACH I Member

5.0L Member


Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,932 Threads: 12
 FoxChassis's Country Flag
NOYB
FoxChassis is on a distinguished road
Default

No, you were talking about engine power PLUS the EEC system's lack of an intake tract restriction PLUS less parasitic loss on the crank due to no crank-driven cooling fan.

gavin123 asked about the 'best' "302". He did not ask about a 302 PLUS the intake tract PLUS a cooling fan.

Does a crate engine's rated HP include a full intake tract and a fan?
__________________
Wanted (Dead or Alive): VINs, Vehicle Certification Labels, Buck Tags, Build Sheets, Window Stickers, Owner Cards, Warranty Tags, History 999 Reports, Invoices, Axle Tags
FoxChassis is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 02-12-2004   #14 (permalink)
StangGtDriver91 is offline Rookie


Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 21 Threads: 3
 View StangGtDriver91's HomePage
Kansas City, Missouri
StangGtDriver91 is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to StangGtDriver91
Default

1989-1992, no question about it.
__________________
BBK fender induction; Edlebrock 5.0 Performer upper & lower intake; 70mm Edlebrock TB; mac headers; O/R H-pipe; Flowmaster Single Chambers; Pro 5.0 shifter; 3.73's; centerforce clutch; Comp Cam; Holley 190lph fuel pump; electric fan; and that BLUE OVAL!!!
StangGtDriver91 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Unread 02-12-2004   #15 (permalink)
FoxChassis is offline MACH I Member

5.0L Member


Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,932 Threads: 12
 FoxChassis's Country Flag
NOYB
FoxChassis is on a distinguished road
Default

LOL!

Do tell what makes an '89-'92 ENGINE (this does NOT mean a whole fuggin car!) better than an '87-'88 engine. I explained above that the '87-late '88 camshaft produced more power than the late '88-'93 cam did. So how is there "no question about it"?
__________________
Wanted (Dead or Alive): VINs, Vehicle Certification Labels, Buck Tags, Build Sheets, Window Stickers, Owner Cards, Warranty Tags, History 999 Reports, Invoices, Axle Tags
FoxChassis is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply   Post New Thread



Thread Tools



Mustang Photos
Mustang Links    Top Sites    RSS    Link To Us    Add to Favorites    Archive    Terms of Use    Site Rules    Privacy    Contact    Sponsors    Advertise   
AllFordMustangs is not affiliated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company. ©Copyright 2002-2011 All Auto Enthusiasts Network

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164