What is the horsepower and torque numbers for the '86-'96 5.0L 302 Ford truck motors? Did they come with cast or forged pistons? Is there any difference between the 5.0L upper intake and the 5.8L upper intake? Any differences between the 5.0L throttle body and the 5.8L throttle body?
Thanks
__________________
1995 Ford Bronco Eddie Bauer 4x4
1990 Mercury Grand Marquis GS
1982 Kawasaki KZ750
1982 Kawasaki KZ440
What is the horsepower and torque numbers for the '86-'96 5.0L 302 Ford truck motors? Did they come with cast or forged pistons? Is there any difference between the 5.0L upper intake and the 5.8L upper intake? Any differences between the 5.0L throttle body and the 5.8L throttle body?
Thanks
87-91 5.0 truck motors were rated 185hp and 210 lb/ft TQ with a flat tappet cam. 92-93 motors got a roller cam but it was nearly the same grind and power output was the same. The cam was upgraded to the better F4TE roller in '94 and the numbers jumped to 200hp and 220lb/ft tq.
All truck motors came with cast pistons, the early motors with 8.5:1 CR, the later roller motors were 9:1.
The 5.0 and 5.8 intakes are totally different, both the upper and lower, and cannot be interchanged. The 5.0 uses very large rectangular ports and the 5.8 uses smaller oval ports similar to the 5.0HO. Yes that's right.. the 5.8 users smaller ports, can you say engineering mixup?
Both motors use the exact same throttle body which have 52mm bores I believe.
__________________
Paul O
1990 F150 4x4 XLT X-Cab 5.0, 3.55, Comp 35-349-8, Flowtech LT's to 3" single, FRPP Mass Air Conversion
Under construction: '85 351HO, Dart Iron Eagles, Roller Rockers, Typhoon intake, Crane 444232, 24lb Injectors, TweecerRT, Innovate LC-1 wideband O2
1990 Ranger 2wd, 2.3 Briggs & Stratten, 5-speed, 3.08 gears, sliding rear window.
87-91 5.0 truck motors were rated 185hp and 210 lb/ft TQ with a flat tappet cam. 92-93 motors got a roller cam but it was nearly the same grind and power output was the same. The cam was upgraded to the better F4TE roller in '94 and the numbers jumped to 200hp and 220lb/ft tq.
All truck motors came with cast pistons, the early motors with 8.5:1 CR, the later roller motors were 9:1.
The 5.0 and 5.8 intakes are totally different, both the upper and lower, and cannot be interchanged. The 5.0 uses very large rectangular ports and the 5.8 uses smaller oval ports similar to the 5.0HO. Yes that's right.. the 5.8 users smaller ports, can you say engineering mixup?
Both motors use the exact same throttle body which have 52mm bores I believe.
I am under the assumption that all late 86 trucks also came with the E7 truck engine, my dads truck was like that from the factory. Also I think your a little low on the torque rating for the 87-91 truck im pretty sure it was like 240 or 260. I dont think the 92 got a roller cam and I think that the 93's got the F4TE roller early, there was no truck roller before the F4TE. Also you can bolt a 351 truck upper to a 302 truck lower the ports are just different, and you might gain a little torque doing so because the cross section on the 351 upper is much smaller than the 302 upper.
__________________
74/71 maverick grabber EFI HO (under construction)
Torque was 270 for the 302 in the trucks. As for the upper intake manifolds, whatever you might gain from the smaller ports of the 351 manifold on the 302, you'd probably lose when they dumped into the large rectangular ports of the 302 lower. I've also heard of people having a roller cam that used the regular 302 firing order, so there had to have been something between the flat tappet and the F4TE cam...
Thanks Paul!!! Are you sure about the Truck torque numbers? My '90 Grand Marquis' stock 5.0L dynoed 239 lb ft. torque at the wheels.
Yes I think I did make a mistake on the TQ numbers, the 5.0 should be 270lb/ft for most versions except the HO which made 300lb/ft. It would seem Ford put all sorts of versions of this motor into vehicles. The 5.0 powered Vics had a base roller cam with the E6 heads, and I suspect this motor found its way into some trucks using the truck intake due to supply issues. There's no way to know this without tearing the motor down, but just as a for instance, I believe Jrock909 found this combination in his truck when he recently did the HO upgrade.
__________________
Paul O
1990 F150 4x4 XLT X-Cab 5.0, 3.55, Comp 35-349-8, Flowtech LT's to 3" single, FRPP Mass Air Conversion
Under construction: '85 351HO, Dart Iron Eagles, Roller Rockers, Typhoon intake, Crane 444232, 24lb Injectors, TweecerRT, Innovate LC-1 wideband O2
1990 Ranger 2wd, 2.3 Briggs & Stratten, 5-speed, 3.08 gears, sliding rear window.
The 87-92 HO rating of 225HP and 300FtLbs wasnt a correct SAE net rating--Ford derated these HO 5.0s to 205 HP and 275 FTLBs in 1993--with the same performance in the Mustang in quarter mile standing start times..and no change in engine specifications from 92 to 93.Ford cheated rating the 87-92 HO at 225/300--it never made that much power in stock form .It was the gross rating--not the SAE net rating.
The MAF 96 Truck 5.0 was rated the same as the derated,more realistic 1993 HO 5.0--205/275!!! And the truck MAF 5.0 only had single exhaust!!
These factory truck single exhaust systems must be pretty efficient--to allow the same output as the HO dual exhaust!!
__________________
92 F150 XLT 4x4 regular cab/short box.5.0 V8,5sp trans ,108k miles-- on synthetic oil. Trailering/Handling option(stabilizer bars front /rear and quad shocks).Factory skid plates,manual hubs, manual transfercase, Super Cooling.4.09/4.10LS.31'' tires. 20.3 MPG @ 60 MPH.4350 lbs with full tank of gas!!
Last edited by phoneman91 : 07-05-2007 at 02:14 PM.
These factory truck single exhaust systems must be pretty efficient--to allow the same output as the HO dual exhaust!!
Ha!!! That's a laugh. As you stated the published numbers were gross ratings(on an engine dyno with no accessories), so the vehicle exhaust is not taken into account. Make no mistake, the trucks from this era were completely smothered by the whisper quiet factory single 2.25" exhaust system, much more so than the Stangs.
__________________
Paul O
1990 F150 4x4 XLT X-Cab 5.0, 3.55, Comp 35-349-8, Flowtech LT's to 3" single, FRPP Mass Air Conversion
Under construction: '85 351HO, Dart Iron Eagles, Roller Rockers, Typhoon intake, Crane 444232, 24lb Injectors, TweecerRT, Innovate LC-1 wideband O2
1990 Ranger 2wd, 2.3 Briggs & Stratten, 5-speed, 3.08 gears, sliding rear window.
I don't think that those numbers were gross. Gross power ratings went away in the 70's, right? I'm pretty sure they were still net ratings, but the SAE testing procedure changed, lowering the rating. I'm pretty sure you could get more than 225 from a 5.0 HO with no accessories. The pistons were changed to hypereutectic from forged in the 92 and older HO engines.
Ha!!! That's a laugh. As you stated the published numbers were gross ratings(on an engine dyno with no accessories), so the vehicle exhaust is not taken into account. Make no mistake, the trucks from this era were completely smothered by the whisper quiet factory single 2.25" exhaust system, much more so than the Stangs.
You misunderstand--the 225/300 were gross ratings.Ford didnt have accessories on the engine when taking these 225/300 ratings.
The 205/275 for the truck MAF 302 and for the 93 HO are net SAE ratings. The exhaust system is on the engines when they are tested for net ratings. Unless Henry also lied about the truck MAF ratings---it would seem that the factory single exhaust must be pretty efficient--or the slightly hotter cam in the HO makes up for it.
It is possible that the air intake on truck engines (dual throttle bodies) and the intake manifold also make up for the truck factory exhaust.
I agree--that it seems not likely that a truck 5.0 with MAF and the 93 HO 5.0 have the same net SAE ratings--but they do. Even with the 2.25 inch single factory exhaust of the truck. And the 225/300 and 205/275 run the same in the Mustang. Same Mustang engine specs for the most part for both ratings.
__________________
92 F150 XLT 4x4 regular cab/short box.5.0 V8,5sp trans ,108k miles-- on synthetic oil. Trailering/Handling option(stabilizer bars front /rear and quad shocks).Factory skid plates,manual hubs, manual transfercase, Super Cooling.4.09/4.10LS.31'' tires. 20.3 MPG @ 60 MPH.4350 lbs with full tank of gas!!
Last edited by phoneman91 : 07-06-2007 at 03:46 PM.
I don't think that those numbers were gross. Gross power ratings went away in the 70's, right? I'm pretty sure they were still net ratings, but the SAE testing procedure changed, lowering the rating. I'm pretty sure you could get more than 225 from a 5.0 HO with no accessories. The pistons were changed to hypereutectic from forged in the 92 and older HO engines.
You are correct--GM went to gross/net ratings in 1971 and completely to net horsepower ratings in 1972 . Ford and Mopar went to net ratings in 1972.
Ford stated the 225/300 were SAE net ratings--where they were actually gross horsepower ratings. They cheated .
I noticed that the stock RWHP of Mustangs always seemed low for the stock 225/300 crank ratings. But are just right for the 205/275 ratings.
The stock RWHP of 5.0 MAF in trucks and Mustangs are pretty close--the ones that I have seen posted. And there is a reason for that!!
__________________
92 F150 XLT 4x4 regular cab/short box.5.0 V8,5sp trans ,108k miles-- on synthetic oil. Trailering/Handling option(stabilizer bars front /rear and quad shocks).Factory skid plates,manual hubs, manual transfercase, Super Cooling.4.09/4.10LS.31'' tires. 20.3 MPG @ 60 MPH.4350 lbs with full tank of gas!!
Last edited by phoneman91 : 07-06-2007 at 03:59 PM.
You are correct--GM went to gross/net ratings in 1971 and completely to net horsepower ratings in 1972 . Ford and Mopar went to net ratings in 1972.
Ford stated the 225/300 were SAE net ratings--where they were actually gross horsepower ratings. They cheated .
I noticed that the stock RWHP of Mustangs always seemed low for the stock 225/300 crank ratings. But are just right for the 205/275 ratings.
The stock RWHP of 5.0 MAF in trucks and Mustangs are pretty close--the ones that I have seen posted. And there is a reason for that!!
You are wrong. Ford never rated anything in gross ratings after 72. The 225/300 rating was completely true, its why you can dyno a stock 87/88 5-sp mustang at 190 RWHP. Ive had both engines the gross rated 69 302 and the 91 5.0 ho as well as an 88 SD HO. The HO's would eat the 69 alive, way more power. Its a fact that ford started using SAE revised testing methods on the 93 cars, even the 93 cobra will put down its flywheel rating at the rear wheels. They were never gross ratings.
__________________
74/71 maverick grabber EFI HO (under construction)
The 87-92 HO rating of 225HP and 300FtLbs wasnt a correct SAE net rating--Ford derated these HO 5.0s to 205 HP and 275 FTLBs in 1993--with the same performance in the Mustang in quarter mile standing start times..and no change in engine specifications from 92 to 93.
The camshafts were changed between 88 and 89 which made a little less power. Also, in 89, they got the restrictive 55mm MAF which is smaller than the 60mm TB which restricted airflow even more.
The 87-88 SD Mustangs were the fastest (93 Cobra not included) due to the camshaft and lack of a restrictive MAF.
To prove it, I raced my 88 5.0 SD 5-speed in the 1/8 mile bone stock with 2.73 gears. It ran 9.05. My friends 89 5.0 MAF 5-speed with 3.08 Gears ran 9.15. I drove both. Even with lower gears, the 88 made more power and was faster. Plus the earlier engines had Forged pistons.
Its a pretty common misconception that the earlier cam was bigger, thats not true. The later MAF cam actually had 10 more degrees of intake duration, its just that the ramp rate was less so it hit less hard. The MAF was indeed a restriction, but some people argue that the better metering of air actually made up for this; there is no way 5mm on the maf cost 20hp/25ft/lbs. The power discrepancy was due to the rating process, though the maf and cam may have had a little to do with it, but not much.
__________________
74/71 maverick grabber EFI HO (under construction)
'86-'96 5.0L 302 EFI questions
