well my good old bronco engine isnt going to last forever ( i wish) but i cant... i have no problem rebuilding but would rather have fuel injection in it..

i know that the main vehicle is a stang 5.0 but ive looked for 6 months and cant find anything that is wrecked or a beater car.. everone has a hella nice one and want too muchg money , b/c i just want the engine

so i was wondering what else had a fuel injected 5.0 in it ive heard that explorers have them?? anything else i can start to look for??

i just want the whole engine so i can rebuild it as fast as my bank account will let me so i guessing my motor only has about three more years on it

well thanks for the help people and if you have the motor and computer ill take it!! hahahahah but for a resonable price hahah

thanks

The expo 5.0s are rarer than the mustangs, but you can find them. Look for '95 and ups before all had 4.0L's, I cant recall what year they stopped using them, maybe 98 or so? All F150s and broncos were fuel injected '86 and up, and the '93? and ups were roller blocks as well. I heard a rumor that the late '96 and '97s were mass air instead of speed density like all the rest but I dont know that for a fact. The expos are mass air. The other thing you can do is just get a 302 long block and pick up the upper and lower intake and wiring and stuff on ebay or a junkyard and convert it.

Like the above stated the 86 on up f150s had the fulie 302 aswell as the 351w and 300/6 that were all fulie injection,So look for thouse.

Are you just wanting EFI or performance? Towncars, LTDs, Grand Marquis, Fseries, Broncos, E-Vans all got 200 horse or so torquey EFI 5.0's from 86-95 or so. If you want more power, Cougar XR7, Tbirds, Lincoln Mark 7, and Mustang GT/LX 5.0 all got the hotter 225-235hp variants. Main differences being intake manifolding, hotter roller cam and forged pistons. The HO motors (Except the 86 HO's) also got the better flowing E7 truck heads, as oposed to the other EFI 5.0's saddled with good milage but not performance oriented E6 heads. try Ebay parts cars listings as well and try corral.net mustang classifieds.

The best choice would be the explorer 5.0 (95-02?). It has gt40 heads and intake from the factory. Try to find a rolled explorer and take the engine.

Any v8 car 88 and on had fuelies. Same intake from then on etc. Only difference was cam and mass air meter and computer. Some had the intake turned drivers, some had passengers. ANY of these can easily be converted to Mass air. The truck stuff had different manifolds and other stuff. Mine came from a 88 t bird and is not Mass air but is real torquey.

Since you are in Dublin check out www.californiafords.com

Its a Norcal mustang site and there are usually a couple 5.0 engines's that pop up there for sale every month. That way you don't have to buy a whole car

Any v8 car 88 and on had fuelies. Same intake from then on etc. Only difference was cam and mass air meter and computer. Some had the intake turned drivers, some had passengers. ANY of these can easily be converted to Mass air. The truck stuff had different manifolds and other stuff. Mine came from a 88 t bird and is not Mass air but is real torquey.


:confused:

Lincoln Mark 8's had the same 5.0 HO as the Mustang along with some of the Crown Vic's. The Lincolns are usually the best bet as they have not seen the abuse that the Mustang and CV have seen.

go to pick and pull. pull a 5.0 from a stang. then peice your EFI together.

done

Lincoln Mark 8's had the same 5.0 HO as the Mustang along with some of the Crown Vic's. The Lincolns are usually the best bet as they have not seen the abuse that the Mustang and CV have seen.






mark 7's......the 8 has a dohc 4.6. its a fat bastard.

Excellent EFI site for info www.fordfuelinjection.com :smokin:

also the mark VII's never got mass air.

My 89' Mark VII was a strong running car, almost as quick as my 89' Mass air stang, esspecialy impressive when you figure in the 600LB or so weight difference.

A lot of the speed density stuff in big cars had nice torque cams. If you are never going to hop up the motor, they make great motors for crawlers as there is no mass air meter to have to find space for in tight quarters. Can be easily converted later.

What do you find confusing about my previous reply BobbyWalter?? Did I miss something?? I might have took for granted that he would have known the difference in the later 4.6 V8 since we were talking 5.0's.

What do you find confusing about my previous reply BobbyWalter?? Did I miss something?? I might have took for granted that he would have known the difference in the later 4.6 V8 since we were talking 5.0's.


well at first read i thought is was a lil vague, and i figured it was a quick response so i did not want to dickhead nit pick. but since you asked and didnt clarify.



Any v8 car 88 and on had fuelies. Same intake from then on etc.

true, but not true. efi/cfi was on in @80 in lincolns and shit. wider in 83 up. 86 started layover plenums in stangs. and those layover plenums are not exactly the "same intake"....but compared to cfi...


Only difference was cam and mass air meter and computer. .

pistons and heads were the big difference between the regular turds and the ho turds.. you take a "low end hightorque cam" say an 88 non ho wheezer from a run of the mill crown vic, and bring it up to "ho" specs with say the truck heads and drop in a 303 cam for kicks, your gonna do some valve smashin....for sure if you run rockers. if you just run a "ho" cam or equivilant you can get away with it...and for 75 more horse its a worthwhile upgrade i agree.


Some had the intake turned drivers, some had passengers


this is true. but to say they are the same is not. the lower intakes are all identical, but the uppers are not. 4 vehicles came with the passenger side inlet. last year+ of lincoln rear drive contis, tbird/cougar, mark7, and stang.

the mark 7 and stang had an "ho" upper. it is a slightly different cast and is only a matter of a few hp with a bigger tb/egr setup. the inlet of the ho is 67 mm and the non ho is @ 55 mm but i can remember for sure, it may be 60.

measely, but not all the same.




ANY of these can easily be converted to Mass air.


not necessarily true 100% of the time either if your talking just bolting on stock parts.. the 150 hp wheezers will need smaller injectors and no bigger then a 60 mm tb depending on actual pcm and harness running the show. i have had problems in the past because of that and seen and heard it countless times.


theres all kinds of shit, but when your running close to stock its not really worth nitpickin anyway.

I have a bunch of ford EFI crap I need to get rid of. I even have a turbo kit I built for a 5.0 if you want to get radical.

I run a 5.0 from a 89 towncar, its speed denstiy has plenty of power, the only issue you may run into is that the intake is turned to the driverside instead of the passenger side like on the h.o.'s, if you have power brakes or a big master cylinder you may have some clearance issues with your aircleaner setup.

This is interesting info :)

well at first read i thought is was a lil vague, and i figured it was a quick response so i did not want to dickhead nit pick. but since you asked and didnt clarify.





true, but not true. efi/cfi was on in @80 in lincolns and shit. wider in 83 up. 86 started layover plenums in stangs. and those layover plenums are not exactly the "same intake"....but compared to cfi...




pistons and heads were the big difference between the regular turds and the ho turds.. you take a "low end hightorque cam" say an 88 non ho wheezer from a run of the mill crown vic, and bring it up to "ho" specs with say the truck heads and drop in a 303 cam for kicks, your gonna do some valve smashin....for sure if you run rockers. if you just run a "ho" cam or equivilant you can get away with it...and for 75 more horse its a worthwhile upgrade i agree.





this is true. but to say they are the same is not. the lower intakes are all identical, but the uppers are not. 4 vehicles came with the passenger side inlet. last year+ of lincoln rear drive contis, tbird/cougar, mark7, and stang.

the mark 7 and stang had an "ho" upper. it is a slightly different cast and is only a matter of a few hp with a bigger tb/egr setup. the inlet of the ho is 67 mm and the non ho is @ 55 mm but i can remember for sure, it may be 60.

measely, but not all the same.







not necessarily true 100% of the time either if your talking just bolting on stock parts.. the 150 hp wheezers will need smaller injectors and no bigger then a 60 mm tb depending on actual pcm and harness running the show. i have had problems in the past because of that and seen and heard it countless times.


theres all kinds of shit, but when your running close to stock its not really worth nitpickin anyway.

OK, First go back and read my post again, I SAID 88 and on !!! Never did I mention any of the CFI SHIT!! NOT 83, or even 86!! ANY 88 on was same!! Except for the HO cams and mass air stuff. You need to dig a little deeper. Yes with an 86 when you try to convert to HO you can smash valves. That is an why I said 88!! Other than the 93 Cobra, Ford only made one throttle body for stock fuel injection 88 and on..... I will double check my data on teh intake tb's as I could be wrong and admit that. But in 10 years or better of playing with 5.0's I have never ran across this.

Some body seems as if they want to split hairs. Broncoman speaks in simple terms not to be confused with his lack of knowlege. I have seen him have very good sucess w/ batchfire type motors.:shaking:
I agree w/ 88 and on being a good foundation for someone not nessecarily looking for the bling/price/availability of the mass air stuff.

woe.

you need to reread my post there too bud, i didnt say 88 on was dead wrong, but you said fuelies...fuelies i took as fuel injected engines. even so 87 on in your context is dead on since it had the same layout as 88 on. i gueass fuelie officially means 88 on. i have noted that. regardless, 86 was the mass sefi starting point with the oddball tb connections and shit..those cars were in the dealers late summer 85. and i can see where 88 on is a definite safe answer.

problem is, i have seen "flat" flattops in 91 vics and 90 and 89.(granted, probably a late build motor in the 91), every one i have had the heads off of from 91 actually were flat as a board... i went bigger then stock roller in one with some rockers, this was back in the early 90's, and found out the hard way the book i had was incorrect.. and that was with heads off of a 90 truck. these mentioned vic engines were also roller too but the cam was different then the ho cams i had(besides the obvious).. and the tb was 55mm. now 88 on t birds are a different story. i know they had some room with the pistons and have built a few of those too. but they also have the smaller tb till they got thier own ho in i think 91. the regular lincolns i am not too sure about as i too also assumed all the bottoms were the same 88 on till i popped the heads on a few different vehicles, it was in one of my motor sport books back then..regardless there too...the regular lincolns had the choked intake and smaller tb.


i agree, batch fire systems on these engines run good. and if you deal with those alot then you know why i agree though i never even mentioned anything about it, but sefi speed sensity complete from an ho, or complete maf from a ho can get problematic on a vic motor. and i have been dicking around with them since the 80's like you have myself.

if you have a way to tune, its a non issue, but when assembling junkyard treasures it is a problem if your selection is not careful. since they are not all the same. especially the upper intake and throttle body size. get your tape out if you dont believe me.


labeling it all the same is what causes guys to put setups together and try to get help online cause its fawked up and then give up and get a carb...that still runs like ass cause its usually a 650 4bbl.

ive read and re-read this post and gotten quite a bit of useful (i think) info from it.. but i have a question specific to what i am putting together right now... what are the main differences in the 88-93 mustang h.o. engines and the 94-95 mustang h.o. engines? i have an engine from a 94 stang, but a wiring harness, ecu, and mass air from an 88-93 setup... anyone forsee any problems using this setup? any sensors that won't be plug and play that you know of? i havent started the install yet, just gathering parts...

Your 94 Stang motor will happily run with the 88-93 setup, but there are a few different harness differences in the 88-93 harness too. There is a speed denisty, Mass air, and mass air/airbag harness inside those years for 5.0 equipped cars. Make sure you know what you have, as some wire coding is different. The 94-95 Throttle body and thermactor/smog setup is different from the early years, but most everything should plug up. The intake packaging, and hyperetuic instead of forged pistons (only 5.0's with forged pistons are 85 5 speed, 86-92 HO 5.0's) are the only real difference, plus I beleive ford played with the cam profile a bit for a fatter torque curve in the heavier car. Good thing you don't have the 94-95 ECU/harness, they are driveability nightmares when you get beyond stock in a stock car.

I'll give you a good deal on a Warm 306, 393 HP........If ya got a few bucks to play with. Just an option.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v26/buzziscrazy2/9939cddf.jpg


Buzz :jester:

the connectors are a lil different too on the tb and stuff iirc, and i think the act is in the intake tube instead of on the manifold. it has a lil different manifold and is a bit more restrictive like the bird setup(but not a problem) so hooking a stang harness up with the curved intake may require some wire work to fit good. if you use a 88-93 intake and stuff its a plug and play.


buzz that green looks good.

here ya go. 28 pages of 5.0 crap. youll be an expert like these guys when ya get done.

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45309

here ya go. 28 pages of 5.0 crap. youll be an expert like these guys when ya get done.

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45309

Good thread - thanks... ...but eeehhhh, it originated in a eeeeeewwwww... Jeep form pewww yeck - spit spit spit... :barf: :barf: :barf: sorry just had to do that. :)

Good thread - thanks... ...but eeehhhh, it originated in a eeeeeewwwww... Jeep form pewww yeck - spit spit spit... :barf: :barf: :barf: sorry just had to do that. :)


X1...........:D

:jester:

X1...........:D

:jester:
if he dont want it send me a price on it. I'll take care of shipping and shit:smokin:

ok so i gathered all this info and started looking. i found an 88 stang . ho california automatic but a 5.0 so i called some efi places and one guy kinda freake3d me out.. mass-floefi.com is a no no .. he was hella rude and stuck up if you ask me.. so he told me that i can buy the whole system from him for 3 grand!!!!!:flipoff2: sorry i have a truck .. that means im poor hahahaha anyways he told me that its a waste of time and its gunna cost me just as much to piece it al together and all i would get out of the car was the harness and thats about it


so is it him or can i use all the goodies still.... cleaning it all and getting new injecter and sensors??/

and why is it that i have to get a new distributer B/C of points??? mines gone so will mine work???

Why not rebuild your motor then?
Put a cam in it to change the firing order (if you want)
then buy all the other stuff off e-bay.

and why is it that i have to get a new distributer B/C of points??? mines gone so will mine work???


you need a new dizzy because yours is points, the EFI needs the TFI style dizzy so the computer knows where piston #1 is and fires them in the correct order. them meaning the injectors.

Here's a question for ya - how do the later model Explorer 5.0L motors only make 215HP with GT40P heads, GT40 intake and a 65MM throttle body when a Mustang 5.0L HO with weak heads, intake and throttle body makes 225HP? The cam in the Explorer is slightly weaker but still a roller. If you put the GT40 heads and intake on a stock Mustang 5.0L you will end up between 275-285HP with no other changes. Does the Explorer have a less aggressive spark curve and extremely restrictive exhaust?

very restrictive exaust and very very very obd2 programming.


not to mention the gayest valve springs ever. damn things want to float before you need a rev limiter.


the cam i can not stand. its supposed to be so great low end but isnt any better then the 303 in my experience and sure as hell dont allow no revving by comparison, but with the springs it comes with its not a problem i guess.


i tried it out for the "low end pull" and couldnt be more pissed off.

very restrictive exaust and very very very obd2 programming.


not to mention the gayest valve springs ever. damn things want to float before you need a rev limiter.


the cam i can not stand. its supposed to be so great low end but isnt any better then the 303 in my experience and sure as hell dont allow no revving by comparison, but with the springs it comes with its not a problem i guess.


i tried it out for the "low end pull" and couldnt be more pissed off.

It sounds like the exploder 5.0 may be a pretty good choice with just a few changes. Or am I missing something?

Your missing the fact that you can upgrade to a 351 and find all you need from a later model bronco or truck - engine, computer, harness, etc. Probably easier to find than a stang 5.0, torquey, and maybe less expensive.

Hows about a bling bling 347 stroker? I gots one with new harness, roush heads, GT40 lower and kenne bell blower. I only want $5,000.

What kind of numbers will it make?

I only want $5,000.

Not bad at all really. That with a programmed ECM?

Why do you want a 5.0 anyways? To me its a no-brainer to go with a 351w. More cubes, longer stroke, and only slightly larger than the 5.0 block. What really boggles my mind is why people spend big dollars to build a 347, when they could have built a 351w up for much less, and still have more cubes. Plus, you gotta love the capability of punching it out to 427ci...

ppl build 302 based strokers because they usually have all the bolt-ons known to man for the 302, going to windsor means hood clearance issues, new dizzy, headers, oil pan, (lower) intake, and flywheel for the late model 302 guys. I personally don't see it, the 351w has far more potential and even the weakest thinwall 80's blocks can safely handle 650+ hp while it takes a minimum boss block or trussed mexican block to do that.

I picked up a 93 t-bird with HO 5.0 for 300 bucks. Cars looks like crap but drives fine. :D Plan to swap out the drivetrain to a '80 F-250:cool2:

Okay-lets see if I was paying attention.After reading all 30 some pages on this site,and any others I could find this is what Ive come up with--
I have a 72 bronco with a 302-If Iwere to get an efi setup off a 89-93 mustang 5.0 ho I will need to change the cam to one with a 351 firing order-If I find a 90ish to 93ish 5.0 liter non-ho from a crown vic Iwont have to change the firing order? I think thats what Ive figured out here.And for the computer- I want a computer from an auto preferibly? Obviosly I will get the harness to go with whichever particular set up I go with,Thanks -M

if your engine in the bronco is stock and 200 hp or less the best bet is a vic type setup with 14# injectors. if your happy with the way it runs then i think you will like this.



bank fire f150 systems work well too.


if your solidly over 200 hp then the ho maf is the way to go. i dont know what heads cam and intake your running, or your compression ratio so i can not know whats best. but most stock sub 9 to 1 302 will run best with a 150 or vic type setup unless the cam has a lot of overlap.

Okay-lets see if I was paying attention.After reading all 30 some pages on this site,and any others I could find this is what Ive come up with--
I have a 72 bronco with a 302-If Iwere to get an efi setup off a 89-93 mustang 5.0 ho I will need to change the cam to one with a 351 firing order-If I find a 90ish to 93ish 5.0 liter non-ho from a crown vic Iwont have to change the firing order? I think thats what Ive figured out here.And for the computer- I want a computer from an auto preferibly? Obviosly I will get the harness to go with whichever particular set up I go with,Thanks -M


HO 5.0's run the 351W firing order (1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8). Non-HO's run the standard (1-5-4-2-6-3-7-8) FO so yes you would have to either change cams or look for a different computer.


Seriously, everyone knows about the 5.0L HO now so they are becoming slightly harder to get. Really there isn't that much advantage to the roller system IMO. Yeah it's lower friction, but the only real advantage you achieve is is higher lift with shorter duration. Truth be told a non roller can make just as much HP as the roller with very similar running characteristics.

If you still have a hard-on for the roller system grab a 94 or later 351W as they are roller cams and will out perform a 5.0 any day of the week. That or you can just man up and stroke the Windsor so then you can bust 9" axle shafts in 2WD instead of 4LOW.

Thanks I guess I will go parts hunting once I get my taxes back-M:smokin:

For local info, join the Yahoo bronco group it's mostly bay area guys. Talk to a guy Jim G in San Jose, he does a lot of explorer motors, parts them out. Also usually has a few mustang harnesses laying around.

I am looking to sell my engine if you are interested.
69 351W, converted to roller with comp lifters and Motorsports cam.
World Products heads, all comp valve train
Balanced, .040 over
KB Pistons
Explorer 5.0 serp setup
Motorsports intake with Explorer/GT-40 uppper
93 Mustang harness
93 Cobra computer
Has about 40Hrs on build, in my bronco and I don't drive it on the street so ? miles.

If you still have a hard-on for the roller system grab a 94 or later 351W as they are roller cams and will out perform a 5.0 any day of the week.

You must be referring to modified engines because a stock 5.0L HO will run circles around a stock 5.8L roller truck engine. Judging by your sig you should know a fair bit about 351 engines but your statement above is just nuts.:shaking:

Not bad at all really. That with a programmed ECM?

TwEECer tuned.:smokin:

Speaking of Tweecer type things. I have used an anderson PMS for my turbo mustang and it is soooooo easy.



PS it's for sale now along with all my other turbo stuff. If you want to make 600RWHP for your truck 302 shoot me a PM.

Why do you want a 5.0 anyways? To me its a no-brainer to go with a 351w. More cubes, longer stroke, and only slightly larger than the 5.0 block. What really boggles my mind is why people spend big dollars to build a 347, when they could have built a 351w up for much less, and still have more cubes. Plus, you gotta love the capability of punching it out to 427ci...

boggles my mind why spend all the big dollars on a small block and still get little torque, build a big block:D

Buzz :jester:

Big blocks have thier place, a light weight crawling rig is not one of them IMO. I absolutely love the big block in my F-250 and wouldn't trade it for any engine (SBF, Diesel, etc). For my rock rig, power to weight ratio is key, and a 351w fits the bill better than a big block, plain and simple.

boggles my mind why spend all the big dollars on a small block and still get little torque, build a big block:D

Buzz :jester:

Hmmmmm......:shaking: It's all what you like and opinion, my preference - 347 with a blower puts out more torque than a 460 and weighs much less. Plus I get the gas mileage unless i am puttin' my foot in it all the time.:smokin: I enjoyed the build as much as driving it.

A 347 with a postive displacement blower will feel like a 460. With a centrifugal it would be much less.

Hmmmmm......:shaking: - 347 with a blower puts out more torque than a 460 and weighs much less.

"More torque".........:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Buzz :jester:

"More torque".........:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Buzz :jester:

Hey man, it's possible.

HO 5.0's run the 351W firing order (1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8). Non-HO's run the standard (1-5-4-2-6-3-7-8) FO so yes you would have to either change cams or look for a different computer.


OK, time for a stupid newbe question. On a 5.0, why can't the HO computer be used on a non HO engine (1-5-4-2-6-3-7-8 FO) by swapping the injector wiring (from injector 3 to injector 5, 7 to 4, 6 to 2, 2 to 6, 5 to 3, and 4 to 7) to get the injectors firing in the non HO order of 1-5-4-2-6-3-7-8? And wiring the dist for the correct FO for the non HO engine?

It can be! You can use a speed density computer and plug them in the way they are because it's a batch fire system. Guys use mustang computers to convert non HOs to mass air so it can be done. A little wire splicing here and there and you'd be golden.

speed density car is not batch fire, it is sefi. only trucks are batch fire.


but you can still swap the injectors, the fuel ramping can be thrown off since the 54 and 37 change the order of left to right with the o2 sensors expected reactions. under normal operating conditions i have not noticed a big problem, besides some warm idle oddities here and there, but a cylinder balance test fawks things up. it wont like that on some models.


but an a9m i used on one conversion never complained a bit.

or rather the speed density 5.0 cars are not batch fire.

"More torque".........:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Buzz :jester:


....Yes more torque than a stock 460......STOCK beyotch!:D

And to be usefull (mentioned here previously but a great resource and parts too):

http://www.Fordfuelinjection.com

Whatever motor you go with be sure and get the motor, computer and wireing harness from the same donor cause they did change things a lot in the early 90's just because it plugs in doesn't mean it will work.

so i decided to go with a new 4 barrel and intake... holly truck advenger!!!!!!!!! WOOOO

If you spend a little time and money you'd be happier in the long run putting on the fuel injection. I was once at the same exact position and worked through the EFI and man am I glad when my buddies rigs are spittin and sputteren.

If anybody needs 5.0 EFI stuff PM me. I have a mass air and speed density computer. I also have a speed density 351w harness.

....Yes more torque than a stock 460......STOCK [/url]
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
Break you crackpipe boy:flipoff2:

:jester: