Power Add-on's
Post Fiend
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 14,947
Likes: 6
From: Topsfield, MA
Originally Posted by Blurry94
which is why I think comparing motors and modifications
between EEC-4 F-150's and Mustangs is pointless.
between EEC-4 F-150's and Mustangs is pointless.
Pretty much what we've done here.
Last edited by MustangGT221; Jul 28, 2006 at 10:02 AM.
New User
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Ok, so I want to get a better idea of some actual mods and their results. Say I had a 1995 F-150 with the 5.0 (hypothetically, of course) and I had to change the intake manifold anyway for clearance issues. 
If I put a mustang HO cam and upper/lower intake (& TB), K&N air filter, some shorty headers and 2.25" exhaust with twin high-flow Magnaflow cats and a 2.25" DI/DO magnaflow muffler with tru-x core, what kind of power gains would you expect? 
'95 is already a mass-air system with correct firing order. Fuel rail/injectors should drop right in, right? Are there any other supporting mods (the "Oh, I didn't think of that" mods) that would need to be done?
Thanks! Sorry to hijack/resurrect this thread, but the discussions have been great!
If I put a mustang HO cam and upper/lower intake (& TB), K&N air filter, some shorty headers and 2.25" exhaust with twin high-flow Magnaflow cats and a 2.25" DI/DO magnaflow muffler with tru-x core, what kind of power gains would you expect? '95 is already a mass-air system with correct firing order. Fuel rail/injectors should drop right in, right? Are there any other supporting mods (the "Oh, I didn't think of that" mods) that would need to be done?
Thanks! Sorry to hijack/resurrect this thread, but the discussions have been great!
FTE Legend
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 31,930
Likes: 1,499
From: Ottawa, Ontario
Originally Posted by supra89t
Ok, so I want to get a better idea of some actual mods and their results. Say I had a 1995 F-150 with the 5.0 (hypothetically, of course) and I had to change the intake manifold anyway for clearance issues. If I put a mustang HO cam and upper/lower intake (& TB), K&N air filter, some shorty headers and 2.25" exhaust with twin high-flow Magnaflow cats and a 2.25" DI/DO magnaflow muffler with tru-x core, what kind of power gains would you expect?
If I put a mustang HO cam and upper/lower intake (& TB), K&N air filter, some shorty headers and 2.25" exhaust with twin high-flow Magnaflow cats and a 2.25" DI/DO magnaflow muffler with tru-x core, what kind of power gains would you expect? I'll add that since this thread was started, new information has come in. One of posters here had the oportunity to dyno a 5.0HO he put in his truck. It has a complete exhaust on it, possibly GT40 heads, but otherwise used the stock longblock. With the mustang HO intake on it made ~275hp.. which is consistent with other dyno figures I have seen for well equipped HO's. With the 5.0 truck intake it made just over 300hp.
New User
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Conanski
You should start a new thread if you have additional questions.
That setup is very much how the mustang came from the factory, it will make 220-250HP depending upon how well the exhaust flows. Short tube headers are a waste if you are replacing the whole system anyway, and longtubes will boost low rpm TQ, something the 5.0 desperately needs in a heavy truck.
Low-end torque is good, though. The issue is going to be clearances in my engine bay. I have been told the truck intake is too tall and will hit my hood. I don't know that long-tube headers will clear my frame rails. If space wasn't an issue, those are the obvious choices for power.
I'll add that since this thread was started, new information has come in. One of posters here had the oportunity to dyno a 5.0HO he put in his truck. It has a complete exhaust on it, possibly GT40 heads, but otherwise used the stock longblock. With the mustang HO intake on it made ~275hp.. which is consistent with other dyno figures I have seen for well equipped HO's. With the 5.0 truck intake it made just over 300hp.
Thanks for your help. I, like most, am in search of a strong 302. I will share what I learn in the process and appreciate any help that others can offer me.
FTE Legend
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 31,930
Likes: 1,499
From: Ottawa, Ontario
Originally Posted by supra89t
Its not going to be in a heavy truck. Low-end torque is good, though. The issue is going to be clearances in my engine bay. I have been told the truck intake is too tall and will hit my hood. I don't know that long-tube headers will clear my frame rails. If space wasn't an issue, those are the obvious choices for power.
Low-end torque is good, though. The issue is going to be clearances in my engine bay. I have been told the truck intake is too tall and will hit my hood. I don't know that long-tube headers will clear my frame rails. If space wasn't an issue, those are the obvious choices for power.
Originally Posted by supra89t
Is that 300hp through the twin 45mm TB's of the truck upper intake? Nice. What cam was he running?
New User
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Conanski
OK then.... the 5.0 feels pretty torquey in something the weight of a mustang, if you project is of similar weight then the extra hastle of longtubes may not be worth it.
If I remember correctly, it was a stock HO bottom end, stock HO cam, and GT40 heads. Also that was with a stock truck intake. The HO intake has known limitations. The TB neck is restrictive, and some of the lower intake runners are cramped. It generally needs porting to get beyond 260-275HP.
If I remember correctly, it was a stock HO bottom end, stock HO cam, and GT40 heads. Also that was with a stock truck intake. The HO intake has known limitations. The TB neck is restrictive, and some of the lower intake runners are cramped. It generally needs porting to get beyond 260-275HP.
My wife hates it. lol.If so, it may be worth the time to try and fit the truck manifold.
FTE Legend
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 31,930
Likes: 1,499
From: Ottawa, Ontario
Originally Posted by supra89t
What accounts for the difference in HP and TQ numbers from the HO mustang motor to the non-HO truck motor? Is it just the cam/intake/exhaust causing the difference?
When considering intakes though, you should look at the whole powerband, and not just the peak HP numbers. The truck intake may make more peak HP.. as will just about any other intake, but because of the large volume intake runners low rpm air velocity is down and as a result low rpm TQ is less than it could be. The HO intake may make ~25 fewer ponies at 5000rpm, but air velocity through the intake will always be higher, and as a result it will make more torque below 3500rpm, so on the street it makes for a better performing motor. There are more than a few people that got all carried away building a 5.0 for 300+HP with high flowing intake and heads, and then complain that the motor is completely gutless below 3000rpm. If you want those big HP numbers, then bump the compression to 10:1 or more to regain some of the lost TQ, or use a blower.
New User
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Thanks, Conanski! That helps a bunch. I have been going back and forth on which parts I want to use on this motor. I am not going to be making more than 250hp anytime soon, so I guess I will stick with a mustang HO cam and intake b/c it will be a better powerband than the truck cam and intake. Under 250hp, I would imagine that the peak figures would be pretty close, 10-15hp max difference between the two setups.
Would it be easier/just as good to do a set of 1.7 roller rockers on the truck cam as swapping in a mustang HO cam? Its a '95 mass-air roller motor. Or would the mustang cam with the original truck rockers be better? Are the rockers the same ratio on the truck as the mustang?
Would it be easier/just as good to do a set of 1.7 roller rockers on the truck cam as swapping in a mustang HO cam? Its a '95 mass-air roller motor. Or would the mustang cam with the original truck rockers be better? Are the rockers the same ratio on the truck as the mustang?
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Posting Guru
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 2
From: Florida
Like Blurry said...idfferent vehicles with different purposes in mind....would you gain something just by swapping overto MAF anyways?I'd think it would be a little more economical in the longrun and get you some better mileage as well......This discussion has been VERY enlightening and I cannot wait to start working on my 95......I've already got the exhaust done but I'm"upgrading" to true duals with dynomax race only bullet mufflers....a mild cam,gasket matching,port/polish on the heads and longtubes......can't wait to see what it does after that....then I'llhave to start beefing the tranny and probly gonna change the gears.......but that's another thread in the future...thanks for all the info guys.
FTE Legend
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 31,930
Likes: 1,499
From: Ottawa, Ontario
Originally Posted by supra89t
Would it be easier/just as good to do a set of 1.7 roller rockers on the truck cam as swapping in a mustang HO cam? Its a '95 mass-air roller motor. Or would the mustang cam with the original truck rockers be better? Are the rockers the same ratio on the truck as the mustang?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
benmoderow
1973 - 1979 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
11
Mar 8, 2011 08:11 PM
maschronic
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
23
Aug 1, 2007 01:56 PM
