H.O. cam vs explorer 5.0L cam - Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum
Go Back   Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum > Windsor Tech Forums > 5.0/5.8 Engine Tech

Corral.net is the premier Ford Mustang Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-11-2011, 10:19 AM   #1
Registered User
 
351GT40's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: metro detroit MICHIGAN
Posts: 1,072

H.O. cam vs explorer 5.0L cam

off the top of thier head does anyone know how similar the stock 91ish mustang H.O cam is to the 96ish explorer 5.0L cam ? i used to know this crap but i am getting old and senile i guess.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------

buying US silver coins pre-1965 *** '95 cobra #3787 5.8L ***
351GT40 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-11-2011, 10:25 AM   #2
Registered User
 
89Ranger5.0's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Saratoga, NY
Posts: 204

Explorer cam is aweful. Made for low end torque. HO cam has a but more lift and a better suited duration. I threw my RV cam (96 expo 5.0) in the garbage. IMO its better as scrap weight.
__________________
Stranger, 2wd, 5.0, t5, gt40s (home ported by me), Ecam, 373, 8.8, Cobra intake, 65mm TB, c&l maf

** Irish Motorsports **
89Ranger5.0 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2011, 10:36 AM   #3
Registered User
 
351GT40's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: metro detroit MICHIGAN
Posts: 1,072

ok, for some reason i thought they were both very similar, so now im wondering how an HO cam would perform in an explorer ?
__________________
---------------------------------------------------

buying US silver coins pre-1965 *** '95 cobra #3787 5.8L ***
351GT40 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2011, 10:37 AM   #4
Registered User
 
danond's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (25)
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bismarck, ND
Posts: 896

Garage
Yeah I've read the same. Google should prove us all correct though.

--
Dan in ND
'89 'vert GT undergoing full resto.
__________________
1989 GT converted to 5 spd triple black. Full restoration, Explorer block/heads/intake, TFS1 cam, MM suspension, Corbeau seating, lots of '93 parts. This winter's project: Air-to-Air Intercooled V1 S trim.
danond is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2011, 10:38 AM   #5
Registered User
 
RBELL's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (20)
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Marion, TX
Posts: 1,846

I have the specs for both H.O. cams and the Explorer cam at work. The H.O. cams are small, but the Explorer cam is very small, I think it has less than 200 degrees duration at .050 lift. Not good for much more than making an engine start and run.
__________________
If I buy a part or parts from you do not send me those parts through USPS, I would actualy like to get the parts I purchase.
RBELL is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2011, 10:39 AM   #6
Registered User
 
RBELL's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (20)
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Marion, TX
Posts: 1,846

An H.O. cam would make an Explorer engine run noticeably better with the heads and intake they came with from the factory.
__________________
If I buy a part or parts from you do not send me those parts through USPS, I would actualy like to get the parts I purchase.
RBELL is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2011, 10:50 AM   #7
Registered User
 
351GT40's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: metro detroit MICHIGAN
Posts: 1,072

ok well heres my situation, im swapping an explorer 5.0L into a ranger, the engine has about 100K on it, runs fine, BUT..... i have a line on a rebuilt 91 H.O. shortblock with maybe 20K on it, id much rather use the lower mileage engine but i dont wanna ditch the H.O. cam if it will work with the explorer ECM which it should being that both are mass air, while im assembling the shortblock, i wouldnt be entirely opposed to shoving a better cam in it, im just not sure what would be a decent cam for driving around town, not even interested in racing it, but the truck will be yellow, and its gonna sound good, so it will have the show, and it has to have the go.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------

buying US silver coins pre-1965 *** '95 cobra #3787 5.8L ***

Last edited by 351GT40; 12-11-2011 at 10:56 AM.
351GT40 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2011, 11:04 AM   #8
Registered User
 
RBELL's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (20)
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Marion, TX
Posts: 1,846

If you are going to use the Explorer computer, you may need to change the firing order of the injectors. The Explorer is not listed as an H.O., so it may have the original 302 firing order. Check the firin order, I have never checked the firing order on a Explorer engine, nor have I ever heard anyone say anything about the firing order of those engines. I know back in the '80s and '90s when Ford had the 5.0 H.O. engine and then the non H.O. 5.0 engines, they had two different firing orders, so the Explorer engine may have a common 302 firing order.
__________________
If I buy a part or parts from you do not send me those parts through USPS, I would actualy like to get the parts I purchase.
RBELL is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2011, 11:16 AM   #9
Registered User
 
351GT40's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: metro detroit MICHIGAN
Posts: 1,072

ill keep that in mind, i know the H.O. uses the 351W firing order, not sure about the explorer, being the DIS system, it may not be an issue, or it may be a HUGE issue.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------

buying US silver coins pre-1965 *** '95 cobra #3787 5.8L ***
351GT40 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2011, 11:20 AM   #10
Registered User
 
89Ranger5.0's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Saratoga, NY
Posts: 204

Explorer uses a ho firing pattern not the old school 302 one. To the OP any questions just ask me I just finished putting a 96 expo 5.0 in mine.
__________________
Stranger, 2wd, 5.0, t5, gt40s (home ported by me), Ecam, 373, 8.8, Cobra intake, 65mm TB, c&l maf

** Irish Motorsports **
89Ranger5.0 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2011, 11:23 AM   #11
Registered User
 
GT347SC's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Haughton LA
Posts: 1,088

In 96 (I think) Ford switched all the 302 to the 351 firing order so the explorer should be the ho order
__________________
92 LX 351 T5--89 GT 347 T5--91 LX 5.0 AOD
88 LX 302 T5--93 LX 2.3 A4LD
GT347SC is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2011, 11:25 AM   #12
Registered User
 
89Ranger5.0's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Saratoga, NY
Posts: 204

Mustang ho cam in a gt40 top end setup work VERY well for factory parts. What Trans do you plan to use?
__________________
Stranger, 2wd, 5.0, t5, gt40s (home ported by me), Ecam, 373, 8.8, Cobra intake, 65mm TB, c&l maf

** Irish Motorsports **
89Ranger5.0 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2011, 12:06 PM   #13
Registered User
 
tripleblackvert's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (73)
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: mountaintop,pa
Posts: 5,218

the exploder cam specs as ive seen them are:
5.0L Truck, Explorer F4TE-6250-BA Hydraulic Roller
Intake at 1.6 rocker ratio .422" lift 256 duration
Exhaust at 1.6 rocker ratio .448" lift 266 duration
116 lobe separation

stock mustang cam "advertised" specs
__________________
1987 Notch - N/A stock 302, TFS heads, Holley Systemax, FTI cam, Astro A5
Best so far: 10.92 @ 123mph with a 1.49 60ft
tripleblackvert is online now  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2011, 04:17 PM   #14
Registered User
 
351GT40's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: metro detroit MICHIGAN
Posts: 1,072

im using the auto trans from the explorer, want to keep the 4WD but not all that crazy about the AWD
__________________
---------------------------------------------------

buying US silver coins pre-1965 *** '95 cobra #3787 5.8L ***
351GT40 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2011, 05:29 PM   #15
Registered User
 
89Ranger5.0's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Saratoga, NY
Posts: 204

Then use a manual t case from a ranger.
__________________
Stranger, 2wd, 5.0, t5, gt40s (home ported by me), Ecam, 373, 8.8, Cobra intake, 65mm TB, c&l maf

** Irish Motorsports **
89Ranger5.0 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-12-2011, 02:01 AM   #16
Registered User
 
351GT40's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: metro detroit MICHIGAN
Posts: 1,072

the transfer cases in the 5.0L explorer (as far as i am aware) are the AWD style, and the ranger tcase would work just fine... that is if it would bolt up to the V8 trans.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------

buying US silver coins pre-1965 *** '95 cobra #3787 5.8L ***
351GT40 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-12-2011, 08:19 AM   #17
Registered User
 
Bullitt95's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Al Ain, UAE
Posts: 2,626

Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by 89Ranger5.0 View Post
Explorer cam is awful. Made for low end torque.
Not awful if more low/midrange torque is what you're looking for.
__________________
2006 GT - 5MT - 12.8 @ 108 - 305rwhp 317rwtq
1995 GT - 4AT - 13.8 @ 103 - 244rwhp 284rwtq - SOLD
Bullitt95 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-12-2011, 04:29 PM   #18
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 488

Hyjacking this thread a bit with a question.

I have a choise between using a HO can or a Cobra cam to install in my truck which has a 351/C6 SD FI. It will also get a set of GT40 heads(Mildly ported), 1.7 Cobra RR's, and long tube headers. The intake will be left stock as I am looking for more low and midrange torque for towing. It won't see anything over 4500 rpms.
__________________
"Drag racing is for those people who don't know how to down shift and brake at the same time. "
DD '12 VW Jetta TDI, Race car '87 ITA 16V Scriocco
Cars owned: '86 Mustang GT, '92 Mustang LX, '93 Mustang Cobra "R" #58
Jim Brozynski is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-12-2011, 08:38 PM   #19
Registered User
 
Michael Yount's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (7)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 32,005

If you look at the Ford data sheet up above you'll see that Ford sped'd the Cobra cam for the heavier Thunderbirds and Cougars in the early/mid 90's. They're data indicates that the Cobra cam made a bit more low end torque than the HO in the same set up. If you have access to one - I'd use it in your application. Also -- the relatively heavy Explorer did just fine on bottom end grunt with the Explorer/GT40 intake. It should offer torque/hp gains all across the tach compared the restrictive stock unit. You should end up with a motor that makes great torque from idle to 4500-5000 rpm.
__________________
Michael Yount - Charlotte, NC - 82 Volvo 242 - 5.0L, T5Z, 8.8" rear; '10 Cayman S; '15 Fit
Michael Yount is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2011, 12:06 AM   #20
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 488

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Yount View Post
If you look at the Ford data sheet up above you'll see that Ford sped'd the Cobra cam for the heavier Thunderbirds and Cougars in the early/mid 90's. They're data indicates that the Cobra cam made a bit more low end torque than the HO in the same set up. If you have access to one - I'd use it in your application. Also -- the relatively heavy Explorer did just fine on bottom end grunt with the Explorer/GT40 intake. It should offer torque/hp gains all across the tach compared the restrictive stock unit. You should end up with a motor that makes great torque from idle to 4500-5000 rpm.
Much as I'd like to update the intake these mods are being done to a 351 in a full size Ford van and no aftermarked or Ford intake fits except the OEM one.
One thing I do plan on doing is porting the #1 & #5 runners in the lower half of the intake as these are know to not flow as well as the other 6 runners.
If this were a PU I'd be all over a GT40 intake off a Lighting PU.
__________________
"Drag racing is for those people who don't know how to down shift and brake at the same time. "
DD '12 VW Jetta TDI, Race car '87 ITA 16V Scriocco
Cars owned: '86 Mustang GT, '92 Mustang LX, '93 Mustang Cobra "R" #58
Jim Brozynski is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2011, 12:40 AM   #21
Registered User
 
351GT40's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: metro detroit MICHIGAN
Posts: 1,072

ok, im going to change the question a bit, my winter project is a ranger V8, im using the drivetrain from a 97 explorer, EFI 5.0L, auto trans, 373 gears and presently all wheel drive, now, what would be a good cam choice for every day use ? the ranger is fairly heavy, im assuming a bit lighter than the explorer, but probably not much. im going to use the 91 H.O. shortblock just not sure if i should leave cam in the shortblock, or re-use the explorer cam or buy one of the alphabet cams, the B is out for sure, just wanted some opinions cuz you guys know yer $H!T, i can build it i just prefer to do it right the first time, this may be the last truck i build for a while, and id like it to be fun.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------

buying US silver coins pre-1965 *** '95 cobra #3787 5.8L ***
351GT40 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2011, 07:03 AM   #22
Registered User
 
89Ranger5.0's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Saratoga, NY
Posts: 204

Use the mustang cam. Worlds better than the explorer. If ya don't believe me try lol but I'd take my word for it.
__________________
Stranger, 2wd, 5.0, t5, gt40s (home ported by me), Ecam, 373, 8.8, Cobra intake, 65mm TB, c&l maf

** Irish Motorsports **
89Ranger5.0 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2011, 08:27 AM   #23
Registered User
 
Michael Yount's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (7)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 32,005

Jim B - you might reach out to tmoss on the site. He may be able to port the lower for you and aid overall flow in addition to evening up the distribution.
__________________
Michael Yount - Charlotte, NC - 82 Volvo 242 - 5.0L, T5Z, 8.8" rear; '10 Cayman S; '15 Fit
Michael Yount is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2011, 07:16 PM   #24
Registered User
 
351GT40's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: metro detroit MICHIGAN
Posts: 1,072

i believe the mustang cam will work much better but will the explorer ecm tolerate the difference ?
__________________
---------------------------------------------------

buying US silver coins pre-1965 *** '95 cobra #3787 5.8L ***
351GT40 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2011, 07:26 PM   #25
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 488

Quote:
Originally Posted by 351GT40 View Post
i believe the mustang cam will work much better but will the explorer ecm tolerate the difference ?
They're both MassAir so the ECM will adjust for the added air flow.
__________________
"Drag racing is for those people who don't know how to down shift and brake at the same time. "
DD '12 VW Jetta TDI, Race car '87 ITA 16V Scriocco
Cars owned: '86 Mustang GT, '92 Mustang LX, '93 Mustang Cobra "R" #58
Jim Brozynski is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-13-2011, 09:50 PM   #26
Registered User
 
351GT40's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: metro detroit MICHIGAN
Posts: 1,072

jim, why wont any aftermarket intakes fit a van ? the van and the truck intakes are the same arent they ?
__________________
---------------------------------------------------

buying US silver coins pre-1965 *** '95 cobra #3787 5.8L ***
351GT40 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-14-2011, 12:02 AM   #27
Registered User
 
danond's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (25)
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bismarck, ND
Posts: 896

Garage
He might be talking about clearance issues...?

--
Dan in ND
'89 'vert GT undergoing full resto.
__________________
1989 GT converted to 5 spd triple black. Full restoration, Explorer block/heads/intake, TFS1 cam, MM suspension, Corbeau seating, lots of '93 parts. This winter's project: Air-to-Air Intercooled V1 S trim.
danond is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-14-2011, 11:35 AM   #28
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 488

Quote:
Originally Posted by 351GT40 View Post
jim, why wont any aftermarket intakes fit a van ? the van and the truck intakes are the same arent they ?
There is only one aftermarket intake made that is of the same configuration as the OEM van intake. It's made by Edelbrock and they are specific about the fact that it does not fit Ford vans, plus it costs over $600!

Seeing that I am looking for only low and mid-range torque and nothing above 4500 rpms I will stay with the OEM intake.
__________________
"Drag racing is for those people who don't know how to down shift and brake at the same time. "
DD '12 VW Jetta TDI, Race car '87 ITA 16V Scriocco
Cars owned: '86 Mustang GT, '92 Mustang LX, '93 Mustang Cobra "R" #58
Jim Brozynski is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-14-2011, 02:14 PM   #29
Registered User
 
Trey LePark's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Greenville, NC
Posts: 1,505

The truck intake flows better than the Mustang but not as good as the Explorer. It was the intake to have until the GT40 came out.
__________________
'92 5.0 5 speed
Trey LePark is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-14-2011, 03:14 PM   #30
Registered User
 
Michael Yount's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (7)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 32,005

Trey - he's got a 351 - not a 302. Not sure what those flow characteristics are. I am pretty sure that even the bottom end characteristics can be improved with careful work to the stock lower.
__________________
Michael Yount - Charlotte, NC - 82 Volvo 242 - 5.0L, T5Z, 8.8" rear; '10 Cayman S; '15 Fit
Michael Yount is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-14-2011, 08:25 PM   #31
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: south carolina
Posts: 414

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey LePark View Post
The truck intake flows better than the Mustang but not as good as the Explorer. It was the intake to have until the GT40 came out.
Not for a 351, as Michael Yount stated the 302 truck intake is a good piece. The 351 truck intake is a piece of .........well you get the idea.

tim
TS 95Cobra is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-15-2011, 03:35 PM   #32
Registered User
 
Michael Yount's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (7)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 32,005

Actually - I think Trey pointed that the truck intake for the 302 used to be the schnizzle for an upgrade. I was trying to remind Trey that it didn't matter as the OP had a 351, not the 302.

"Does your dog bite?" ........ "That's not my dog."
__________________
Michael Yount - Charlotte, NC - 82 Volvo 242 - 5.0L, T5Z, 8.8" rear; '10 Cayman S; '15 Fit
Michael Yount is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-15-2011, 05:32 PM   #33
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: south carolina
Posts: 414

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Yount View Post
Actually - I think Trey pointed that the truck intake for the 302 used to be the schnizzle for an upgrade. I was trying to remind Trey that it didn't matter as the OP had a 351, not the 302.

"Does your dog bite?" ........ "That's not my dog."
But the man has a 351 AND the 351 truck intake SUCKS. That is what I was pointing out.

tim
TS 95Cobra is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-15-2011, 05:47 PM   #34
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 488

Quote:
Originally Posted by TS 95Cobra View Post
But the man has a 351 AND the 351 truck intake SUCKS. That is what I was pointing out.

tim
Yes it does, but short of making modifications to the structure of the vehicle to install something else it's going to stay there, warts and all. Really, I drive this thing easy, I only want a bit more power to get up to speed on the highway, climb hills easier, and improve MPGs. Hell if these mods work as well as I hope I may look into updating to an overdrive auto trans in place of the C6 it has now.
I have looked in to this already and it is do able.
__________________
"Drag racing is for those people who don't know how to down shift and brake at the same time. "
DD '12 VW Jetta TDI, Race car '87 ITA 16V Scriocco
Cars owned: '86 Mustang GT, '92 Mustang LX, '93 Mustang Cobra "R" #58
Jim Brozynski is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-22-2011, 05:37 PM   #35
Registered User
 
Nitrous SSC's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (7)
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Layton, UT
Posts: 6,709

The AWD system SUCKS. Ditch it if you can and put in a real t-case. I hated the AWD in my 5.0 X.
__________________
Matt, 90' GT 347, 6037 heads, V1 Si-trim, 11psi, B31 Cam, T56, SV Intake, BE/Tweecer Tuned. 550rwhp 513tq
Bonneville 130 club member. (139.993) 11.48@123 in the 1/4.
04' Marauder 268rwhp/295tq.
03' Sonic Blue Cobra 497rwhp 481tq
Nitrous SSC is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:55 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
© 2010-2011 Corral.net

Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.