HO cam into non HO 302 motor

phutch11 · Sep 9, 2008

Hey guys,

I'm looking to stab my old 1993 Stang cam into my dad's 1993 F150 5.0. The F150 forum guys aren't helpful - so here's the question:

1) Is a 1993 5.0 non-HO block a roller motor?
2) Besides swaping the firing order via the dizzy, will I have to re-wire the injectors? (Its a bank fire system)
3) Will the Stang cam throw off the truck computer?
4) Is the Stang cam a good grind for a truck that will do some light towing?
5) Has anyone here down this?

Thanks in advance.

jrichker · Sep 9, 2008

1.) The block is set up for roller cam if you use the spider to hold the lifters in place. However the valve springs are not designed to work with the fast lift rate of the Mustang roller cam. This means the valves may float a lot sooner than you would think. Hello new valve springs for all cylinders.

2.) Moving the injector wiring around messes up the computer's ability to manage the air/fuel mixture. See Ford Fuel Injection Injector Firing Order for more information.

3.) The cam in the Mustang was designed with a peaky torque curve that runs from 2500- 5000 RPM. This is best suited for a lightweight car that can get some RPM’s up before it sees the full impact of moving the car.

Trucks have a broad, flat torque curve that starts at 1700 RPM and runs up to about 4200 RPM. They will pull smoothly and not stumble or struggle with the load.

4.) Have I done this - no.

Would I do this - not unless I planned to use the truck more as a race vehicle that pulling loads.

NIKwoaC · Sep 9, 2008

I agree with jrichker on the power band issue. If you really wanted to try it, I'd imagine a shorter rear gear would help compensate for the move in the torque curve, and make pulling off the line more ideal. I'd be willing to bet though, that highway towing and passing, as well as hill climbing, would feel stronger with the HO cam.

phutch11 · Sep 9, 2008

Excellent responses guys.

Do you think that I'd pick up enough low end grunt with a set of ported e7's, an FIPK, and some headers to offset the potential low end loss by going to the Stang cam?

Thanks again

Posted via Mobile Device

NIKwoaC · Sep 9, 2008

Check the pistons to make sure you can actually install E7s... You might run into piston-to-valve clearance issues. You might not actually gain much torque from the E7s unless your compression ratio increases from the difference in combustion chambers. I'd see that as more of a breathing improvement, especially with the fact that they are ported, so while you will probably pick up some torque, again, it would be more of a HP improvement, and you'd see more performance in mid-to-high rpm range. Headers are a good idea in any application.

Sounds like a hot rod truck project! Good luck, tell us how it goes!

Mustang5L5 · Sep 9, 2008

phutch11 said:
Excellent responses guys.

Do you think that I'd pick up enough low end grunt with a set of ported e7's, an FIPK, and some headers to offset the potential low end loss by going to the Stang cam?

Thanks again

Posted via Mobile Device

I wouldn't go with the stang cam.

I'd figure out your combo and them contact one of the custom cam companies to grind you a cam that will give you a nice flat torque curve.

Darkwriter77 · Sep 9, 2008

People were unhappy with the '86 GT's performance with the first iteration of SEFI, as it had the flat-top pistons, weaker cam, crappy heads (not the E7's), and more restrictive upper intake. The '87 H.O. used the E7 heads from the F-150 motor, so it stands to reason that F-150 heads would fit on an F-150 motor.

FWIW, an '87-'93 H.O. cam can be poked into a lo-po 5.0 roller motor with flat-top pistons, along with E7's, without any issues as far as piston-to-valve clearance. H.O. conversions are done all the time on Box-body Panthers (Crown Vics/Grand Monkeys/Town Cars) using the stock lo-po short block, crank, and pistons and just upgrading the whole top-end and cam with stock H.O. stuff. Only issues with the flat-top pistons are that you don't get as high a compression ratio and you don't really have any cam or valvetrain upgrade options.

LiquidGT · Sep 9, 2008

Have you ever thought about the Explorer cam, it has the H.O. firing order and its made for a truck. I know that cam isnt any good for a Mustang, but it might work well for an F150.

NIKwoaC · Sep 9, 2008

Darkwriter77 said:
People were unhappy with the '86 GT's performance with the first iteration of SEFI, as it had the flat-top pistons, weaker cam, crappy heads (not the E7's), and more restrictive upper intake. The '87 H.O. used the E7 heads from the F-150 motor, so it stands to reason that F-150 heads would fit on an F-150 motor.

FWIW, an '87-'93 H.O. cam can be poked into a lo-po 5.0 roller motor with flat-top pistons, along with E7's, without any issues as far as piston-to-valve clearance. H.O. conversions are done all the time on Box-body Panthers (Crown Vics/Grand Monkeys/Town Cars) using the stock lo-po short block, crank, and pistons and just upgrading the whole top-end and cam with stock H.O. stuff. Only issues with the flat-top pistons are that you don't get as high a compression ratio and you don't really have any cam or valvetrain upgrade options.

Darkwriter77, I like you, but almost everything you just said is false.

1. The 1986 GT posted the fastest 0-60 times from the factory of any of the 87-95 5.0 GT Mustangs. See below for explanation.

2. Ford used the same cam in HO Mustangs from 1985 to 1988. Ford actually "softened" the cam grind for 1989, making the '85-'88 cams the better performing camshafts.

3. E7 heads are actually an evolution of the E5 head, a truck head used in 1985. Some HO Mustang engines will actually have E5 heads.

4. Flattop pistons actually will produce MORE compression ratio than a similar setup with notched pistons, because of the absence of valve notches and therefore increased combustion chamber volume. The '86 Mustang had the highest compression ratio of the 5.0s. For that, the more aggressive cam grind, and the fact that the '86 weighed less than subsequent model year's GTs, the '86 GT had a fat torque curve and got to 60 quickest. Its lower peak numbers are deceiving.

Maryland Stang · Sep 9, 2008

NikwoaC said:
Check the pistons to make sure you can actually install E7s... You might run into piston-to-valve clearance issues.

All of the trucks have come with E7s since 1987. The head was originally designed for trucks and used to improve the performance of the 5.0 HO.

wildstang90 · Sep 9, 2008

Ok so its said that the 86 GT was the fastest from 0 to 60. I had no idea. I have raced many of stock 86 mustang in my old 93 way back in the 90s and they were allways in the low 15s in the 1/4 where stock I was a good 14.20s. Never have i seen a post that said the 86 were better but more the new guy and got some nice upgrades in 87 with new pistons and diff heads. If you look back the 85 gt smoked the 86. But this is not paper racing this is true 1/4 mile times that I saw when I raced in SIR every weekend in the early to mid 90s

Darkwriter77 · Sep 9, 2008

I guess I'm not following what you're saying. How is it the '86 GT was only rated for 200 horses and the '87 for 225 horses, yet the '86 is supposedly a more powerful motor? The '86 was actually a step DOWN in power from the carbed '85 GT 5-speed roller motor, which was rated at 210. Again, the '86 had a more restrictive intake, different exhaust headers (the ones on my '86 weren't cast manifolds, but they were way different-lookin' than the '87+ headers I've seen), and crappy-arsed cylinder heads that didn't flow nearly as well as the wedge heads in '85 or the E7's. Other than the '86 probably being a physically lighter chassis, I don't see how else they could have been the "fastest" of all Foxes when the '87-'93 motors had 25 more horses.

FWIW, the '86 GT that I had was a total DOG compared to any '87+ 5.0 Mustang I've driven - AOD or T-5. The only 5.0's I've had that were slower were my '90 Town Car and my current '84 CFI LX hatch (both AOD). It was to my understanding that the fastest Foxes were either the '85 GT's or the '87-'88 LX notch (both with T-5's, of course)...?

You're right, I think I had the compression issue backward, but either way, there's a difference in compression, and the E7 heads with a stock H.O. cam can be used on a flat-top piston setup with no ill effects. Just saying it can be (and has been) done, that's all.

joel5.0 · Sep 9, 2008

phutch11 said:
Hey guys,

I'm looking to stab my old 1993 Stang cam into my dad's 1993 F150 5.0. The F150 forum guys aren't helpful - so here's the question:

1) Is a 1993 5.0 non-HO block a roller motor?
2) Besides swaping the firing order via the dizzy, will I have to re-wire the injectors? (Its a bank fire system)
3) Will the Stang cam throw off the truck computer?
4) Is the Stang cam a good grind for a truck that will do some light towing?
5) Has anyone here down this?

Thanks in advance.

1) Roller ready block.
2) Nope..... if the system is a single HEGO setup, no problem.
3) Nope..... 5.8L setups have exactly the same wiring configuration.
4) Yep.... just make sure you degree the cam and look into the possibility of advancing it.
5) Yep..... + a low boost SC (~6 psi) years ago.

LUK

NIKwoaC · Sep 9, 2008

Look up the Hot Rod magazine and Car And Driver magazine performance reports for these cars back in the day. I didn't believe it at first, either. Apparently the '86 motor produces a broader torque curve because of the increased compression ratio and improved combustion characteristics of the high swirl head. Any knowledgeable racer will tell you that it is average power that wins races, not peak numbers. Of course, the better flowing E7 heads really start to shine when other breathing mods are added, more so than an E6 car could hope for. I am in no way promoting E6 heads over E7 heads!

Yes, the throttle body is smaller, the upper flows less, and the heads do suck in terms of flow. The headers look different because in '87 they were reshaped to make them more interchangeable with the Lincoln Mark VIIs.

As far as quarter mile times, I can't say. That could also be an issue of driving talent. Seat-of-the-pants arguments need not apply.

Sorry this thread got so derailed! There are a lot of misconceptions about the '86, and I usually feel like I have a duty as an owner to speak up.

lastly, I made the statement about P-T-V clearance for two reasons:

1. I wasn't sure what the '93 F150 was equipped with in terms of cylinder heads.

2. It is always a good idea to check P-T-V when doing a cam and head swap anyway.

stykthyn · Sep 10, 2008

I second the custom grind or at the very least an OTS cam that was designed for a truck. that way you can still have the low end grunt and the neck snapping throttle response that you are looking for.

I am not sure how large of a project you are looking to tackle, but a first gen lightning 351 swap would make that truck haul.

phutch11 · Sep 10, 2008

Wow, even if the thread did get hi-jacked this forum kicks more ass than I realized - I got like 2 responses on the F150 forum - thanks guys!

After doing the research and getting some good advice, I think I'll stick with stock truck cam due more than anything to not wanting to have to fool with getting the roller lifters, spider, etc, to do the swap.

I think that I'll be pleasantly surprised by the low end torque I pick up from the heads, FIPK, and headers even if I don't bring over the cam.

Thanks again guys.

stykthyn · Sep 11, 2008

I wonder if the HO intake will flow better than the truck intake?
where is TMOSS when you need hime?

Maryland Stang · Sep 11, 2008

stykthyn said:
I wonder if the HO intake will flow better than the truck intake?
where is TMOSS when you need hime?

The truck intake outflows the HO intake. They used to use them for racing back before aftermarket intakes were developed for the Mustang.

I also doubt you'll feel much improvement with just ported E7s over stock E7s.

phutch11 · Sep 11, 2008

Believe it. I have them on my '66 5.0 swap Stang right now and they really woke that engine up.

Before working them, I made a science of reading every post that Thumper has ever written about porting e7's and looking at every picture I could find on any forum that he posted of his finished products. Then I read every intelligently written, fact based, porting article that I could find on modern port design and flow theory. And finally built a homemade flow bench to measure pressure drop across the port to monitor my work.

If you take a set of e7's and get a good performance mutli-angle valve job, back cut the stock valves (or better yet get bigger race valves), raise the ports' roofs, tear drop the valve guides, expand the port throat diameter to 85-88% the valve size and grind the port to allow for highly biased flow (i.e. swirl) - you'll get some great heads for not much more than the cost of your time.

AFR's they ain't, but anyone will notice a difference vs. stock heads.

Why put them on a truck you ask? B/c I just did the same procedure to a set of GT-40 irons that will be even better on the Stang.

Maryland Stang · Sep 12, 2008

phutch11 said:
Believe it. I have them on my '66 5.0 swap Stang right now and they really woke that engine up.

Yes, but what else did you do to that engine? On an otherwise stock engine simply the act of porting E7s won't do much.

HO cam into non HO 302 motor

Member

StangNet's favorite TOOL

中國製造

Member

中國製造

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

Resident Ranting Negative Nancy

Member

中國製造

Active Member

New Member

Resident Ranting Negative Nancy

Member

中國製造

I want to measure mine. It doesn't look that tall.

Member

I want to measure mine. It doesn't look that tall.

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency