5.0 question - Ford Muscle Forums : Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 12 (permalink) Old 11-28-2012, 11:19 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Springfield Missouri
Posts: 734
5.0 question

im about to obtain a low mile 5.0 out of an 198? ltd Crown Vic. which then i may swop it into my 68 f100, or trade it.

what are the differences in performance between the mustang mass air flow 5.0 compared to the stock LTD air flow 5.0?

and how much performance would i gain by intalling a mass air flow sensor?

thanks

1964 F-100 Custom Cab Short Bed
1968 F-100 Short Bed

1967 Fairlane 500 Convertable
1967 Fairlane GT/A 289ci SOLD
craigerGTA is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 12 (permalink) Old 11-28-2012, 11:28 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: W (BY GOD) V
Posts: 5,337
Post Re: 5.0 question

The 5.0L STD has much less HP but more torque than the 5.0L HO. It is made to pull heavy vehicles. Before considering a costly MAF upgrade, look for an HO take-out (IMO).

There was also a 5.0L Light Truck engine if you come across one.

DISCLAIMER-

The above posted information is in my opinion only. It may contain copy and paste material(s). Your opinion(s) and mileage may vary.
KULTULZ is offline  
post #3 of 12 (permalink) Old 11-29-2012, 07:06 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Central NY
Posts: 571
Re: 5.0 question

Actually '84 was the last year for the Crown Vic to have more TQ than the Mustang's 5.0. In '85 the Mustang had 70HP and 10TQ more.

In '89 both had mass-air but the Mustang was at 225HP and 300TQ. The Crown Vic was stuck at 150HP and 270TQ. I wouldn't bother with the Crown Vic motor; get a Mustang or truck one.
Mazlem is offline  
 
post #4 of 12 (permalink) Old 11-29-2012, 07:41 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA area
Posts: 10,299
Re: 5.0 question

The basic engines are very similar, with primary power differences are in the camshaft lift and timing, exhaust, and ECM tune. MAF has no advantage over SD in itself - it's the tune that's different. If you use headers and duals, uprated cam, and a new tune - you'll have HO equivalent HP and TQ. I would use whichever engine you have, or is cheapest or (especially) best initial condition and take it from there.

David

-=≡ If it was easy everyone would do it ≡=-
[size=1]HotShotsJava.com Hot Shots Java Coffeehouse, Poulsbo ,WA fair trade and 100% organic. Voted best espresso and coffee![/size]
PSIG is offline  
post #5 of 12 (permalink) Old 11-29-2012, 08:11 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Amarillo,Texas
Posts: 1,786
Re: 5.0 question

The MAF ones are preferred over the others for tuneability also, or thats my take on the situation. But David is correct in his assessment...

Cheap, Fast, Reliable... Pick 2...
'70 Mach1 351C 4v 4sp 4:56's Been abused sense '79, needing tlc
'61 Fairlane 500 292 2v Cruise-o-Matic also needing tlc
Mroldfart2U is offline  
post #6 of 12 (permalink) Old 11-29-2012, 09:52 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 674
Garage
Re: 5.0 question

The cam, heads, and injectors are different. Water pumps are std rotation on the CV as well as the front cover (CV fead mounts is an easy one if your removing things like AC and smog pump for std rotation). The early EFI intakes are the same for the Mustang and CV later the HO upper was installed on the Mustangs only. TBs on the CV were 48mm and Mustang were 60mm.
One build I did with My Grand Marquis and mixing up some of the LOPO parts and HO parts some mods to the LOPO and HO stuff resulted in 32.9MPG with 270RWT @ 2400 RPM, max 310 @ 3800 back to 270 @ 4600.
That was wit ha 3.55 rear and AOD 26.7" tires.

There is also a differance in firing orders between the cams

Last edited by turbo2256b; 11-29-2012 at 09:54 AM.
turbo2256b is offline  
post #7 of 12 (permalink) Old 11-29-2012, 10:04 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Central NY
Posts: 571
Re: 5.0 question

*Took too long to type before Turbo posted*

The Mustang also had better heads, at least for '87-93, and I believe a bigger throttle body. It's interesting how even for '86 with it's 'lower-preforming' E6 heads, the Mustang still had 200HP, 50 more than the Crown Vic, which didn't see 200HP til '92 (if it had dual exhaust.)
Mazlem is offline  
post #8 of 12 (permalink) Old 11-29-2012, 05:28 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 674
Garage
Re: 5.0 question

I think 86 Mustang had the factory headers and a different cam than before also larger dia exh and better flowing mufflers. Been planing on porting a set of E6s and installing old 351W VALVES IN them. Plan to get more low end and a bit more top end mostly for economy. Have a ported lower and ported LOPO upper which pulled better power. Ported HO upper pulled about 200 more RPM but not shure that it was all that useful as power in low end dropped quite aa bit at least in a heavy vehicle also economy took quite a hit.
turbo2256b is offline  
post #9 of 12 (permalink) Old 11-29-2012, 05:53 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 674
Garage
Re: 5.0 question

Think 92 was the first year for the 4.6 in a vic
turbo2256b is offline  
post #10 of 12 (permalink) Old 11-29-2012, 07:13 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Central NY
Posts: 571
Re: 5.0 question

That's right; got a nice power bump over the 5.0 but still only 190HP with single exhaust.

The Mustang got a new roller lifter cam and headers in '85. They were constantly improving the Mustang's engine, but seems they didn't hardly care about the Crown Vic's performance during it's whole run.

Last edited by Mazlem; 11-29-2012 at 07:17 PM.
Mazlem is offline  
post #11 of 12 (permalink) Old 11-29-2012, 07:44 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Amarillo,Texas
Posts: 1,786
Re: 5.0 question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazlem View Post
They were constantly improving the Mustang's engine, but seems they didn't hardly care about the Crown Vic's performance during it's whole run.

Which seems kinda bassakwards to me considering how many crown vics were sold as public service vehicles (ie: P71 Law Enforcement)

Cheap, Fast, Reliable... Pick 2...
'70 Mach1 351C 4v 4sp 4:56's Been abused sense '79, needing tlc
'61 Fairlane 500 292 2v Cruise-o-Matic also needing tlc
Mroldfart2U is offline  
post #12 of 12 (permalink) Old 11-30-2012, 12:21 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA area
Posts: 10,299
Re: 5.0 question

The standard 5.0 was designed to have better off-idle torque and slightly better mileage than the HO in a heavy car or truck. While the P71 started in '92 with the 4.6, police versions before that simply ordered the 5.8L/351W, so there was no need to milk the standard 302/5.0 any further. One of my daughters had a 1985 LTD CV with the CFI injection (throttle body injection). I was very impressed with it's performance in-spite of the massive weight and low factory HP rating. That sucker would flat scoot and was also used for towing a 26' boat at 5500 lbs. without complaint. If you wanted more than a standard 5.0, you ordered the 5.8.

While the Mustang received the HO over the standard 5.0, it did not have a 351W option until '95, and then only 250 were made. Bummer.

David

-=≡ If it was easy everyone would do it ≡=-
[size=1]HotShotsJava.com Hot Shots Java Coffeehouse, Poulsbo ,WA fair trade and 100% organic. Voted best espresso and coffee![/size]
PSIG is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Muscle Forums : Ford Muscle Cars Tech 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.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Brake question.... Master Cylinder question to be exact. wildosvt01 All Ford Techboard 13 04-24-2005 01:38 PM

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 On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

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