20G TSi

Basically, there's no need to reprogram any chip, as the most they can do for performance is increase timing. So, instead of a chip, you just advance the timing by turning the distributer (free). Some people burn the chips though to adjust the response to Mass Air Flow signals, generally to put in larger injectors w/o having to change anything with the MAF sensor. The quickest easiest way to raise the rev limit and adjust a/f tables is through the use of whats called an "extender" (sold through SVO). I know some people who spin their stock bottom-end motors to 7500rpm, but they've got money in their heads to support it (valve springs, solid rollers, attempts at lightening the valve train, etc). Most people will never slide a solid roller in a stock bottom ended motor, so they're stuck with the 6250 rev limiter (or atleast 6500 if they've got an extender, after that, its valve float heaven). In this case, I almost would suggest sticking with the stock cam and just adding a set of 1.7rollers to add a little lift, to take advantage of the mild port. Chevy guys have no idea how bad stock ford heads suck ass. The exhaust ports on 350 heads are easily twice the size (volume) as that on the ford head. Going with a solid roller and correct valve springs/lifters would be a total waste (even with HUGE exh duration and lift, to help make up for the shitty exh ports), since even with the best porter doing the work, you're likely to not make much more power at 7000rpm than at 6000. The stock intake isnt that great either. The runners are 15-18" long, which is great for velocity, but shit for overall airflow. Tuning/Knock Sensor: 5.0's dont have one Most ford guys couldnt tell you whether .98v was lean or rich. You tune the motor by going out and beating on it, listening for knock Ofcourse by the time you hear it, you've had massive amounts of non-audible knock counts. [ 20 December 2002, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

Either way, It changed in 1993, which was the first year of the cobra tongue.gif

ok, so we got conflicting information..... either way, going by that we're both wrong... You said they never changed for HO motors, and I said they changed in '93. I'm piss drunk tonight and i'm not odin any more research. blah. [ 19 December 2002, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

kenny: you've been slackin here lately. Where's all the NEW OW3N3D pics?

edit: too much to drink this fine eve. [ 19 December 2002, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

5.0L HO 85-88 E5ZE-6250-AA Hydraulic Roller .444 .444 266 266 115 5.0L HO 89-92 E8ZE-CA,F1ZE-AA,F4ZE-DA Hydraulic Roller .444 .444 266 276 115.5 5.0L HO 93-95 F3ZE-6250-CA Hydraulic Roller .479 .479 270 270 209 209 118 ok, so you had wrong info. you can be wrong too [ 19 December 2002, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

yup, those are service replacement cams. many applauds for the effort! [ 19 December 2002, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

beat her with an otherwise useless stock cam? [ 18 December 2002, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

after you add all that crap to the fuel, or run straight race gas, be prepared to buy a new o2 sensor.

the 302HO cams changed in 1993 for sure, they reduced the lift to quiet the lifters (slower ramp speed) and to help with emissions. I think they may have been different in the 86-87 speed density cars as well, but I'm not 100% sure of that one. BC: You think the stock cam is soo good because you obviously still have the E7 heads. In that case, I'd agree with you, its the best cam for stock heads. Do some work to the heads or swap on any other type of head with different flow characteristics and the stock cam SUX. We can debate this till next year, but OneBadBlowDryer knows what he's talkin about and I havent been running 11's (10's now) for 6 years because I'm FORD ignorant. Dont want to listen to us, go to Stangnet.com and say E7's rock and aftermarket heads are a waste. [ 18 December 2002, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

we're going further and further OT with this thread, but wtf, I'll entertain your suggestion. OK, so a lightly modded (exhaust, timing, etc)5.0 'stang makes ~180hp at the wheels. The el' cheapo supercharger you're suggesting might add 40% at 6psi, that brings us to 252 rwhp. Not too impressive. What next? You've hit a brick wall in performance until you upgrade heads and can flow more air. You might be happy with 252hp for about a week before you want more.... Relate this to stereo equipment. You can buy a set of 15" subs, but w/o a nice amp you'll never get the full potential of the subs. Sure you can use that 75 watt pos you have in the closet, but it wont sound worth a shit. About the magazine.... It wasnt intended as a flame. I'm talking from experience here (and quite a bit of wasted money). If you're intention is to make HP, heads is where its at. Its my theory that you cant have too big of a head in an EFI Ford application (aside from all out 350+cfm pure race heads). The greater cfm capability of the head, the greater potential the motor has. [ 17 December 2002, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

aftermarket heads are stupid.

Sir, put the magazine down, and back away. [ 17 December 2002, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

i'm with ya OneBadBlowDryer... I'm amazed at the wealth of mis-information and advice given on this site. Who in their right mind would say aftermarket heads are a waste of money????? yeah, they're a waste if you're not TRYING TO MAKE HORSEPOWER! :sarcasm: I guess I should have went with another supercharger instead of going naturally aspirated. I'm kicking myself now for buying aftermarket heads and not sticking with a set of stockers. 600 naturally aspirated horsepower is a waste of money too, god knows I could have made atleast 900 if I had kept the stock heads. Everyone knows naturally aspirated HP is harder on an engine than a power adder. :/end sarcasm:

Yeah, aftermarket heads are just a ploy to get you to waste your money. CFM what? [ 17 December 2002, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

sounds like you already have your mind made up on the heads (hey, we tried ) You could at least find a set of 1969-1974 heads for him to port... You should be able to find a set for very cheap OR for free (if you lived down here, I'd give you a set!!). This way, the stang would have no down time. OR find a set of GT-40P's at a junkyard for 50-100 bucks, Here's a page that has all kinda info on the GT-40P. http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Pit/5755/gt40p.html Personally, if I were on a budget, I'd either find a set of C90E (1969 351w castings) or GT40-P's and let him port'em. On the cam, I agree, the E cam is probably going to be your best choice. I used an E on my 'stang when it was supercharged and ran 11.60@118. You can use 1.7 roller rockers to increase lift w/ plenty of valve clearance. [ 16 December 2002, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

Unless your friend has a flow bench, or extensive experience on flowing his finished product, he's not going to make much of a difference, ESPECIALLY on the intake side (any moron can pick up a die-grinder and carbide cutter on the exh side and make improvements). If he does ANY bowl work, you'll undoubtedly need a valve job as well, so that adds to the total cost. Spend the money and get a good set of heads. Your motor can only make as much power as your heads can flow, so why not do it right the first time? [ 16 December 2002, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

or jack a set of GT-40P heads off of a totalled Explorer

IMO, I wouldnt waste any money on the stock heads. For a few hundred more you can get a set of twisted wedge heads completely assembled. Putting a cam on a motor with stock heads is almost a complete waste (hey, it DOES sound cool ). Even ported and polished stock E7 heads arent going to flow greater than 200cfm (on average, some have done better than 200cfm int., but exh still sux). I think you'd be better off spending the money set aside for the cam on upgrading the heads to a good set of high flowing aluminums (like the TW). You'd make more power with the stock cam/aluminum heads than with a B,E,F cam and stock ported/polished heads. JMO though....

very good write up. I suggest that: a) if you wrote this, go back and fix the spelling mistakes and use of paragraphs. b) if you didnt write this but copied it from somewhere (most likely), fix the paragraphs/spacing. Its content is very good, but I have a headache from reading it! The mods should make it a sticky (once its fixed).

"I find using a 10g wire from the back of the head unit to the firewall kills it almost every time." Not the cig lighter if that doesnt work, get a filter.... OR just set it on fire. graemlins/gives.gif [ 10 December 2002, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]

and what he said

ok, thats a hard one. Here's my guess: The engine is missing ONLY when a load is placed on it at lower rpms. Check the basic tune-up stuff, but I would also check the motor and tranny mounts. I say ONLY with a load on it, since 2nd and 3rd gears accelerate in RPM quickly (but not as quick as 1st, where it probably goes past the rpm where the vibration is prevailant, so it goes un-noticed). 4th and 5th, you may be going too fast (causing road/tire vibration) which drowns out the vibration. I have a seriously hard time believing its anything inside of the tranny, since its basically just gears/shafts in there, what could have come un-balanced to the point you would be able to notice a vibration, ya know? T-5's usually break gears/input shafts, strip synchros, break shift forks (ok, maybe I'm the only one who breaks shift forks) smile.gif

bingo. try the free (or at least cheap) stuff first!

I might use 0W30. Mitsubishi/Chrystler released a tsb saying that in climates with extremely low temperatures, 0w30 should be used as a replacement oil for 10w30. [ 06 December 2002, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Jasons TSi ]