1991-1993 Thunderbird 5.0 questions. - Ford Mustang Forum
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 8 (permalink) Old 11-07-2007 Thread Starter
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
Spraguepsycho1's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Sprague River
Posts: 102
 
1991-1993 Thunderbird 5.0 questions.

I might be picking up a free 1991-1993 Thunderbird with the 5.0 and aod transmission in the next day or so. I know the Thunderbird had a more restrictive intake and exhaust than the ones used on the Mustangs, but is the rest of the engine the same (same cam, same throttle body, computer?). I am mainly wondering if it uses the mass air sensor like the mustang, or the harder to modify system used in the trucks. Suposedly the engine runs good, but a solenoid or piston in the transmission went out, so the transmission won't enguage, that's why I'm getting it for free. I'm not sure yet if I will keep the car to use as a daily driver or not, depends on what kind of condition the rest of it is in when I finally get to see it. If the rest of the car is trashed, I might just pull the engine and transmission out, and swap over my performer rpm intake and electronic distributor, along with a bigger camshaft, then drop it into my 1965 Mustang coupe. Any info is greatly appreciated. I've searched Thunderbird forums and couldn't find much as far as performance/interchangability information, so figured I'd try here.

John

'65 Mustang Coupe (daily driver turned project car)
Spraguepsycho1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 8 (permalink) Old 11-07-2007
SHELBY GT-40 ULTIMATE Member
4.6L Member
5.0L Member
 
EagleAutosports's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Graham
Posts: 51,297
               
The base engine is just about the same but the cam is different. You could use many Mustang parts on it, mechanically it'll respond to mods as well. The computer is also different, but you could swap over a Mustang box into it. The Thunderbird computer has different settings than a Mustang.

Best Car & Motorcycle Insurance | Auto/Moto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

AFM Site Administrator
Member: Mustang Club of America #82740, White Mustang Registry #362, NMRA, Fun Ford Weekend, Mustangs of Burlington

MOOG Certified Technician
For mods and sound clips, see profile and gallery.

EagleAutosports is offline  
post #3 of 8 (permalink) Old 11-07-2007 Thread Starter
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
Spraguepsycho1's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Sprague River
Posts: 102
 
Sounds good. Hopefully I'll hear back from the guy today or tomorrow, and I'll pick it up. If it's clean, I might just build the engine and keep it in the T-bird, and just use it as a play/travel car but I also like the idea of getting my '65 back on the road. (decisions decisions) lol

John

'65 Mustang Coupe (daily driver turned project car)
Spraguepsycho1 is offline  
post #4 of 8 (permalink) Old 11-07-2007
Made Member
5.0L Member
 
stevo1111's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Location: Meriden
Posts: 330
 
Mine had- ported and polished E7's, cobra upper and lower intake, e303 cam, bumped up timing, mild shift kit, 3.73 gears in an eaton posi, true dual exhaust... it was still wicked slow. Slower infact then my bone stock 1995 Mark VIII. This being said, pre 92 come with forged internals. They differ only by upper intake ( or so I've been told on several occasions) and exhaust manifolds. Cam and such are the same.

Never Buy an Auto!
stevo1111 is offline  
post #5 of 8 (permalink) Old 11-07-2007
Apprentice
5.0L Member
 
LedFox's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Canton
Posts: 98
 
I am pretty sure the cam is not the same, hence the different firing order.

1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8 (5.0L HO and 351W order).
1-5-4-2-6-3-7-8 (straight 302)

The mustang 5.0 was the HO, while the 5.0 in the Thunderbird was not. I maybe mistaken, but I am sure that someone here knows for sure. Just something to look at.

1992 Mustang lx 5.0 convertible, Saleen body kit, headers, Steeda Tri-Ax short throw shifter, H pipe, Dual Flowmasters, Underdrive Pulleys, Subframe connectors, GT-40 305X heads, BBK SSI upper and lower intake, 1.6 roller rockers, 24lb/hr injectors, C&L Power Pipe, 65 mm Throttle body, 73mm MAF, X303 FRPP camshaft.

276.8 rwhp GOAL 300 rwhp
309.2 rwtq
LedFox is offline  
post #6 of 8 (permalink) Old 11-07-2007 Thread Starter
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
Spraguepsycho1's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Sprague River
Posts: 102
 
Everything I've found online so far says the '91-'93 were the HO, the 80's models may have been standard 5.0's.

John

'65 Mustang Coupe (daily driver turned project car)
Spraguepsycho1 is offline  
post #7 of 8 (permalink) Old 11-07-2007
MACH I Member
5.0L Member
 
FoxChassis's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: NOYB
Posts: 2,986
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spraguepsycho1 View Post
Everything I've found online so far says the '91-'93 were the HO, the 80's models may have been standard 5.0's.
That is correct.

There was also no 5.0L in Thunderbird or Cougars in '89 and '90 (the highest output engine was the supercharged 3.8L V6). And in '94 the V8 was the 4.6L, hence the reason why the H.O. 5.0 stopped after '93.

1979-1993 Fox Capri and Mustang VIN Decoder: foxchassis.com

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  
post #8 of 8 (permalink) Old 11-18-2007
Rookie
Classic Member
 
LPG21051's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Taylors
Posts: 1
 
Send a message via Skype™ to LPG21051
T-bird 5.0

I have a 66 conv v8/c4. I want to put a 5.0 AOD in it, but I have almost given up on finding a 90-93 mustang donor within my budget.

A local used car lot owner suggested a 92 t-bird (he had one for $700) with a 5.0 AOD, but I did not have any information on doing a swap with this engine, so I passed.

If I understand what you guys are saying, the t-bird 5.0 is an HO? and would be suitable as a '66 upgrade?

And I was thinking that it would be better for the PCM to match the engine and transmission and would be more appropriate in this type of swap rather than a mustang PCM (since it would be set up for a different engine).
LPG21051 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome


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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183