Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,337 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,299 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,786 Posts
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...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
*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.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,786 Posts
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)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,299 Posts
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
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top