• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-

GT-40 M-6049-X303 Plug Gap

  • Thread starter Thread starter 93gtmustang
  • Start date Start date Jun 22, 2024

93gtmustang

10 Year Member
Oct 21, 2006
515
43
49
Jun 22, 2024
#1
  • Jun 22, 2024
  • #1
I'm using Motorcraft SP-447A Plugs with the GT-40x heads. Was just wondering what you guys that are running these heads are gapping the plugs at?
When I bought the motor, Ford Racing said 0.044. I've seen 0.045, 0.050 and 0.052.
Thanks !
 

FastDriver

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet
SN Certified Technician
Sep 5, 2001
6,086
2,689
224
Vass, NC
Jun 22, 2024
#2
  • Jun 22, 2024
  • #2
All will work if your ignition system is strong enough. I recommend .045 with autolite 3924s for naturally aspirated combos. I don't know your plugs but if they're right for the heads and copper core the gap should be the same.
 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,249
17,934
224
Massachusetts
Jun 23, 2024
#3
  • Jun 23, 2024
  • #3
I’m running 0.054” on 3924s on my N/A HCI setup.

It really all depends on the strength of the ignition. For N/A you want to open up and expose the spark as much as possible without making it unsustainable causing misfires. If 0.045” works nice, try 0.050”. If it feels like you are having misfires, close the gap up a bit.
 
Reactions: 93gtmustang and FastDriver

93gtmustang

10 Year Member
Oct 21, 2006
515
43
49
Jun 23, 2024
#4
  • Jun 23, 2024
  • #4
FastDriver said:
All will work if your ignition system is strong enough. I recommend .045 with autolite 3924s for naturally aspirated combos. I don't know your plugs but if they're right for the heads and copper core the gap should be the same.
Click to expand...
The Motorcraft SP-447A plugs replaced old Motorcraft number AGSF32C. They're actually a 4 cylinder plug lol! That's weird. The Autolite number is 104.
Yup they're copper core.
 
Reactions: FastDriver

FastDriver

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet
SN Certified Technician
Sep 5, 2001
6,086
2,689
224
Vass, NC
Jun 23, 2024
#5
  • Jun 23, 2024
  • #5
Only difference I see is the .708" length vs. the 3924s at .750". Maybe yours are nickel coated... read something like that while searching around. Anyways, should work fine.

@Mustang5L5 is right. The wider you can gap, the stronger the spark, but the more ignition system it requires. Strong spark means better burn, theoretically. And stock is .054 IIRC. But, I've run gaps all the way down to .028" in high-boost setups and it all seemed the same to me. The only notable thing about too wide a gap is that I've had it break up at high RPM (Not enough dwell time for coil to rebuild a strong enough magnetic field) or higher boost (denser higher resistance air where a shorter gap yields the same resistance needed and just as strong a spark).
 

93gtmustang

10 Year Member
Oct 21, 2006
515
43
49
Jun 23, 2024
#6
  • Jun 23, 2024
  • #6
The Motorcraft plugs are copper core. 0.044 gap. That gap I believe is for a 4 cylinder. That's probably why the guy at Ford racing gave me that spec. He was probably looking at the Motorcraft parts book?
That's right on the stock Gap. I just looked in the 5.0 Mustang tech reference book. 1987-93 5.0L H.O. ASF-42 Motorcraft Plugs .054 gap.
The 93 GT-40 cobra. AWSF-42C Plugs .050 gap. I think I'm going to open them up to .050. I'm running the stock ignition and I'm up to 6000-6100 at the track, so I don't know if I'll have any problems? I read this just recently. " The gap should be set to requirements of the ignition system.
So on my 1993 it calls for .054. I don't know? Makes sense.
 

FastDriver

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet
SN Certified Technician
Sep 5, 2001
6,086
2,689
224
Vass, NC
Jun 23, 2024
#7
  • Jun 23, 2024
  • #7
Yeah, just play with it and if you have any high RPM break up, back the gap down. You know enough to figure it out, now.
 
Reactions: 93gtmustang
J

Jarhead67

5 Year Member
Nov 24, 2018
171
64
38
Windsor Locks, Connecticut
Jun 29, 2024
#8
  • Jun 29, 2024
  • #8
93gtmustang said:
I'm using Motorcraft SP-447A Plugs with the GT-40x heads. Was just wondering what you guys that are running these heads are gapping the plugs at?
When I bought the motor, Ford Racing said 0.044. I've seen 0.045, 0.050 and 0.052.
Thanks !
Click to expand...
I gap mine at .045. That’s what the gap is on SP-447A out of the box.
 
Reactions: 93gtmustang and FastDriver

CAMTWO1070

Active Member
Dec 17, 2021
240
81
38
NY
Jun 29, 2024
#9
  • Jun 29, 2024
  • #9
I run .052" on my 351w but I also run a MSD 6 box where plug gap is dictated by compression ratio..

On my 347 with Vortec I run the gap at .035" as a safety to ensure the spark intensity stays true under boost..

Just because youre running a Motorcraft sparkplug thats recommended for your setup doesnt exactly mean its the proper heatrange for your setup...

The type of fuel injectors youre running ,piston top type , radiator and type of cooling as far as fans and the thermostat you have dictates alot about heatrange and theres a way to read sparkplugs to know if youre running the proper heatrange plugs too so gap is pretty moot if youre running out of specs....

Post up some pics of the tips of the old plugs ....The tip edges of the center electrode tells alot....

https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/spark-plug-reading-101-dont-leave-hp-table/
 
Reactions: 93gtmustang

93gtmustang

10 Year Member
Oct 21, 2006
515
43
49
Jun 30, 2024
#10
  • Jun 30, 2024
  • #10
Great info! Thanks! I'll get a pic of the plugs. I'll get some info up on what you were mentioning too.
 

93gtmustang

10 Year Member
Oct 21, 2006
515
43
49
Jun 30, 2024
#11
  • Jun 30, 2024
  • #11
The plugs are pretty new. Installed this past April.
Stock Ignition, 9.0:1 compression, Ford Racing 24 lb. injectors, Hypereutectic pistons (I think they are dish domed ? It's the old M-6007-XB3M Ford Racing Crate Motor) Aluminum Radiator, Electric Fan, 195 thermostat.
 

AeroCoupe

lube between the nut and the face. I know my lubes
Founding Member
Oct 28, 2001
5,870
3,992
183
Claremore, OK
Jun 30, 2024
#12
  • Jun 30, 2024
  • #12
I would say that the pistons are flat tops. The heads are the GT40X which have a 64cc combustion chamber, pistons probably have around 5cc of relief, head gaskets are probably around 0.040" thick compressed, and the pistons will be anywhere from 0.0075" below to 0.0135" above the deck so call it 0.00". All of that will give you right around 9:1 compression.

Ford's recommendation on that motor is 30 lb/hr injectors.

Motor data came from here:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://performanceparts.ford.com/download/instructionsheets/FordInstShtM-6007-B50.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjGgOOfiYSHAxVgEUQIHZ8EADIQFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2BkdOZUYKVCBSe3LZJByR3

Cylinder head data here:
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/FMS-M-6049-X303
 

93gtmustang

10 Year Member
Oct 21, 2006
515
43
49
Jun 30, 2024
#13
  • Jun 30, 2024
  • #13
AeroCoupe said:
I would say that the pistons are flat tops. The heads are the GT40X which have a 64cc combustion chamber, pistons probably have around 5cc of relief, head gaskets are probably around 0.040" thick compressed, and the pistons will be anywhere from 0.0075" below to 0.0135" above the deck so call it 0.00". All of that will give you right around 9:1 compression.

Ford's recommendation on that motor is 30 lb/hr injectors.

Motor data came from here:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://performanceparts.ford.com/download/instructionsheets/FordInstShtM-6007-B50.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjGgOOfiYSHAxVgEUQIHZ8EADIQFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2BkdOZUYKVCBSe3LZJByR3

Cylinder head data here:
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/FMS-M-6049-X303
Click to expand...
I still have the 2006 Ford Racing catalogue that had that engine in it lol! But there's no info on the pistons. Just that they are Hypereutectic. I don't know about flat tops. I think they only came on 1986. The Hypereutectic dished dome with four valve clearance reliefs came on the 1993 5.0's, and the 1993 Cobra Gt-40. That's according to the Mustang 5.0 technical reference hand book? I think I remember that the short block was a production 93. Makes sense. they probably had a bunch laying around to use up. They were used on the 94's and 95's too.
Yes they did recommend 30 lb injectors. I wish I had just went with them. At that time when I got the motor I had a C&L MAF. They told me to run 24's Probably for drivability. The car was street strip at that point.
 

AeroCoupe

lube between the nut and the face. I know my lubes
Founding Member
Oct 28, 2001
5,870
3,992
183
Claremore, OK
Jun 30, 2024
#14
  • Jun 30, 2024
  • #14
I’m telling you all factory Mustang 5.0’s from 85 through 95 were flat tops. “Dished some” makes zero sense to me. Pistons are either dished, flat, or domed (pop ups).
 

FastDriver

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet
SN Certified Technician
Sep 5, 2001
6,086
2,689
224
Vass, NC
Jun 30, 2024
#15
  • Jun 30, 2024
  • #15
24s are fine in your application.
 

AeroCoupe

lube between the nut and the face. I know my lubes
Founding Member
Oct 28, 2001
5,870
3,992
183
Claremore, OK
Jun 30, 2024
#16
  • Jun 30, 2024
  • #16
Only thing that will tell you for sure is a wide band. I’m always going to over size the injectors as they can be tuned to work just fine. If they are too small well you just wasted money. Not saying the 24’s won’t work but 30’s provide more than enough.
 

93gtmustang

10 Year Member
Oct 21, 2006
515
43
49
Jul 1, 2024
#17
  • Jul 1, 2024
  • #17
AeroCoupe said:
Only thing that will tell you for sure is a wide band. I’m always going to over size the injectors as they can be tuned to work just fine. If they are too small well you just wasted money. Not saying the 24’s won’t work but 30’s provide more than enough.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the 24's are right on the limit. 345 hp at 90% duty cycle. That's what the rated horse power is for the engine. I might just get some 30's at some point and a new Pro- M MAF meter for 30's and be done with it.
 

AeroCoupe

lube between the nut and the face. I know my lubes
Founding Member
Oct 28, 2001
5,870
3,992
183
Claremore, OK
Jul 1, 2024
#18
  • Jul 1, 2024
  • #18
If it’s running well and the drivability is good then no reason to mess with it. If tou do go that route the 24’s will sell quick and you can call Pro-M and see if they will just sell the MAF sensor for your housing.
 

FastDriver

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet
SN Certified Technician
Sep 5, 2001
6,086
2,689
224
Vass, NC
Jul 1, 2024
#19
  • Jul 1, 2024
  • #19
If you're N/A making 345 bhp, 24s should be running at ~90% duty cycle (assuming a very conservative .5 BSFC). So, as mentioned, you're fine. If you REALLY want to confirm it to yourself, you don't need a wideband. You can use a digital multimeter off of an injector and have a buddy read it while you're at WOT.

If you pay attention to the way Ford selects injectors, you'll find that in most applications, they put 1 lbs of injector for every 10hp they rated their V8 cars. So, 30 lbs are probably "better", in that they'll keep the duty cycle down, but injectors either support the power or they don't. Yours do, or at least should, and therefore you'll end up wasting your money for nothing with this upgrade, now. If you go forced induction later, or install a tuner of some kind, 30s may be the wrong pick at that point. So, save the money, and get the right ones when you need em.

Before you go down some expensive rabbit hole, would you mind explaining why you think you need to swap them out? It seems like you read 30s are preferred and that's got you wanting to throw away money.
 
Last edited: Jul 2, 2024
Reactions: Potomus Pete and 93gtmustang

93gtmustang

10 Year Member
Oct 21, 2006
515
43
49
Jul 1, 2024
#20
  • Jul 1, 2024
  • #20
FastDriver said:
If you're N/A making 345 bhp, 24s should be running at ~90% duty cycle (assuming a very conservative .5 BSFC). So, as mentioned, you're fine. If you REALLY want to confirm it to yourself, you don't need a wideband. You can use a digital multimeter off of an injector and have a buddy read it while you're at WOT.

If you pay attention to the way Ford selects injectors, you'll find that in most applications, they put 1 lbs of injector for every 10hp they rated their cars. So, 30 lbs are probably "better", in that they'll keep the duty cycle down, but injectors either support the power or they don't. Yours do, or at least should, and therefore you'll end up wasting your money for nothing with this upgrade, now. If you go forced induction later, or install a tuner of some kind, 30s may be the wrong pick at that point. So, save the money, and get the right ones when you need em.

Before you go down some expensive rabbit hole, would you mind explaining why you think you need to swap them out? It seems like you read 30s are preferred and that's got you wanting to throw away money.
Click to expand...
Exactly, I read 30's are preferred. I've been running the 24's since 2007 lol!
 
Reactions: FastDriver
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Need some advice on upgrading GT-40-X303 heads
  • 93gtmustang
  • Sep 1, 2024
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
16
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Sep 5, 2024
Noobz347
Is This Over Maintenance?
  • 93gtmustang
  • Oct 27, 2024
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
3
Views
236
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 27, 2024
91AOD5.0LX
W
Help with 95 GT
  • waynewl34
  • Apr 5, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
1
Views
295
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 5, 2025
Noobz347
T
What's it Worth? 2002 GT conv/auto
  • tonydetesta
  • Jan 7, 2026
  • What is it Worth?!?!?
Replies
3
Views
635
What is it Worth?!?!? Jan 21, 2026
Mustang5L5
3
Eight inches is enough for me...
  • 351MooseStang
  • Nov 27, 2025
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech
Replies
5
Views
565
1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech Mar 2, 2026
Bullitt347
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?