why was 86 5.0 a bad year
06-11-2007, 05:51 PM
#13
6th Gear Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: earleville md
Posts: 10,357
RE: why was 86 5.0 a bad year
you say speed density like its a bad thing... sd is not as bad as almost everyone thinks.... trust me. im sure joel50 will back me up on this one, as the man knows his **** when it comes to fuel injection and comps and ****.
06-11-2007, 06:16 PM
#14
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location:
Posts: 551
RE: why was 86 5.0 a bad year
Sorry if I came across like speed density was a bad thing because I didn't mean it that way personally. I was just throwing the idea out there of why people might say the 86 was a bad year for the 5.0 as I am sure most people would say that MAF was a better system. Thats all.
06-11-2007, 06:56 PM
#15
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: west chester
Posts: 3,305
RE: why was 86 5.0 a bad year
no, ur right sd is a good thing when equipped with the right kind, the sd from the factory sucks.
oh and those are the reasons why 86 is harped on. flat pistons which means limited head and cam choice, sd limited cam choice, and thas about it.
onegood thing though is the light weight of those cars. they are lightest of the efi foxes.
oh and those are the reasons why 86 is harped on. flat pistons which means limited head and cam choice, sd limited cam choice, and thas about it.
onegood thing though is the light weight of those cars. they are lightest of the efi foxes.
ORIGINAL: dimebag
you say speed density like its a bad thing... sd is not as bad as almost everyone thinks.... trust me. im sure joel50 will back me up on this one, as the man knows his **** when it comes to fuel injection and comps and ****.
you say speed density like its a bad thing... sd is not as bad as almost everyone thinks.... trust me. im sure joel50 will back me up on this one, as the man knows his **** when it comes to fuel injection and comps and ****.
06-11-2007, 07:23 PM
#17
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 3,926
RE: why was 86 5.0 a bad year
[sm=icon_rofl.gif]I still wonder what is so bad about having a set of forged true flat top pistons.....oh yeah....
having to do some additional work to set things right......
.....
having to do some additional work to set things right...........
06-11-2007, 07:40 PM
#18
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 6,882
RE: why was 86 5.0 a bad year
ORIGINAL: dimebag
you say speed density like its a bad thing... sd is not as bad as almost everyone thinks.... trust me. im sure joel50 will back me up on this one, as the man knows his **** when it comes to fuel injection and comps and ****.
you say speed density like its a bad thing... sd is not as bad as almost everyone thinks.... trust me. im sure joel50 will back me up on this one, as the man knows his **** when it comes to fuel injection and comps and ****.
06-11-2007, 09:59 PM
#19
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Eloy, AZ
Posts: 938
RE: why was 86 5.0 a bad year
Little off subject but is related,
I traded a 73 302 short block for a complete 5.0 out of an 87 LTD to use the block for my new motor. While tearing it down I discovered it used the same piston and head combination as the 86 5.0. That didn't matter to me because I'm putting in .030 pistons and GT40P heads on the new motor. Just putting this here a reference for anyone who may be looking at this for a 5.0 swap later. So any one want some flat top pistons and E6 heads?
I traded a 73 302 short block for a complete 5.0 out of an 87 LTD to use the block for my new motor. While tearing it down I discovered it used the same piston and head combination as the 86 5.0. That didn't matter to me because I'm putting in .030 pistons and GT40P heads on the new motor. Just putting this here a reference for anyone who may be looking at this for a 5.0 swap later. So any one want some flat top pistons and E6 heads?