1989 5.0-5.8 stock cams
#16
04-12-2014, 02:04 PM
The E7TE heads were used on all pickups and vans with the 5.0 and 5.8 from 1987 to 1997. If you're planning a boost motor with more than 500 HP and going to abuse it regularly, then you need to go with a stronger block, at a minimum, a 68-79 302 block. All the 68 -79 blocks are identical in iron content, including the 289 Hi-Po and the Mex blocks, plus the lesser known D8VE-A3A casting, these three have beefier main caps. Other than the main caps, the iron content (weight) is the same as the other 68-79 302 blocks. These blocks have 10 more pounds of iron in them(136 lbs) vs the 86-2001 roller blocks (126 lbs)
#17
04-12-2014, 02:50 PM
The E7TE heads were used on all pickups and vans with the 5.0 and 5.8 from 1987 to 1997. If you're planning a boost motor with more than 500 HP and going to abuse it regularly, then you need to go with a stronger block, at a minimum, a 68-79 302 block. All the 68 -79 blocks are identical in iron content, including the 289 Hi-Po and the Mex blocks, plus the lesser known D8VE-A3A casting, these three have beefier main caps. Other than the main caps, the iron content (weight) is the same as the other 68-79 302 blocks. These blocks have 10 more pounds of iron in them(136 lbs) vs the 86-2001 roller blocks (126 lbs)
* I just wanted cam advise from somebody who actually played with this combo
#18
04-12-2014, 02:54 PM
I would never consider a 302 for what you're doing. 351W at a minimum for a starting point. 302's are NOT and never were intended to be truck engines. Trying to bandaid one to be a truck engine is asking for trouble. The 351 will yield the same mileage in a truck as the 302 anyway, so there's no point in using a 302.
#19
04-12-2014, 02:57 PM
I would never consider a 302 for what you're doing. 351W at a minimum for a starting point. 302's are NOT and never were intended to be truck engines. Trying to bandaid one to be a truck engine is asking for troubl9e. The 351 will yield the same mileage in a truck as the 302 anyway, so there's no point in using a 302.
* I camp maybe 3 times a year. With the gooseneck hooked another 6 days. Hey I ditched the wife, now I have money, and I wanna play with it. 79 shorty needs a windsor. And my 77 scsb has a borrowed Cleveland in her right now. Picking my battles
#20
04-12-2014, 03:39 PM
Postmaster
#21
04-12-2014, 03:57 PM
#22
04-13-2014, 09:11 AM
#23
04-13-2014, 09:30 AM
You are underestimating a 300. Torque is its answer. And count the main bearings sometime. Then raise that with no timing chain with a side order of easy to work on.
#24
04-13-2014, 10:25 AM
The 351 on the other hand makes more peak torque stock and with a few cheap mods will make the kind of power the 300 simply can't compete with, and there is a massive list of aftermarket parts available to build as much power as you want. Plus it sounds cooler
so I simply don't get the 300 love.
#25
04-13-2014, 10:39 AM
If you're not making the power, you don't need them.
#26
04-13-2014, 11:39 AM
Postmaster
#27
04-13-2014, 11:52 AM
Why settle for the 460 ? My Powerstroke 7.3 runs rings around them AND gets 20 mpg !!!
#30
04-19-2014, 01:04 PM