5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang Technical discussions on 5.0 Liter Mustangs within. This does not include the 5.0 from the 2011 Mustang GT. That information is in the 2005-1011 section.

Cam size Versus Engine size: large CI = smoother?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-22-2008, 11:14 AM
  #11  
Hamutoff
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
Hamutoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 614
Default RE: Cam size Versus Engine size: large CI = smoother?

Thanks all for the great ideas and real-world examples.
Jasperstang308 did you change out your combo in its entire, or did you ever bolt up larger heads (And notice a difference)

Joel5.0 sadly my original 289 block had a hard life, the original owner claimed to have put 400,000 on it, just before he sold it to me a bud "rebuilt" the engine by way of replacing bearings and rings ONLY, the pistons rocked so much in the bore that they are severly scratched, the bores are scored, the engine had loud piston slap, I drove it for perhaps 80 miles (he had put on about 200) before I had to park the car (I installed a 1970 complete engine later) My bad, I didnt store the engine properly and now (14 years later) there is rust in a few bores but the pistons came out OK but It wont be cheap to re-use that block (and the pistons are junk)

SO no not using that engine. For reasons of economy and to experiment I am using a 5.0 from a 1989 H.O Mustang. I am re-using the block and forged pistons. The bore looks wonderful but am taking it today to taylorengine.com today along with the 289 crank and rods from my 67 mustang's engine. I also have a new cast flywheel
Hamutoff is offline  
Old 04-22-2008, 01:35 PM
  #12  
w8less
6th Gear Member
 
w8less's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KY
Posts: 13,396
Default RE: Cam size Versus Engine size: large CI = smoother?

ORIGINAL: Hamutoff

Thanks all for the great ideas and real-world examples.
Jasperstang308 did you change out your combo in its entire, or did you ever bolt up larger heads (And notice a difference)

Joel5.0 sadly my original 289 block had a hard life, the original owner claimed to have put 400,000 on it, just before he sold it to me a bud "rebuilt" the engine by way of replacing bearings and rings ONLY, the pistons rocked so much in the bore that they are severly scratched, the bores are scored, the engine had loud piston slap, I drove it for perhaps 80 miles (he had put on about 200) before I had to park the car (I installed a 1970 complete engine later) My bad, I didnt store the engine properly and now (14 years later) there is rust in a few bores but the pistons came out OK but It wont be cheap to re-use that block (and the pistons are junk)

SO no not using that engine. For reasons of economy and to experiment I am using a 5.0 from a 1989 H.O Mustang. I am re-using the block and forged pistons. The bore looks wonderful but am taking it today to taylorengine.com today along with the 289 crank and rods from my 67 mustang's engine. I also have a new cast flywheel
no had an accident and sold everything. look up my vid on you tube or it may be still in my profile still. you can hear how radical it was. i bet with larger heads it definitely wouldnt have sounded the same
w8less is offline  
Old 04-22-2008, 03:27 PM
  #13  
immr.mustang
2nd Gear Member
 
immr.mustang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location:
Posts: 186
Default RE: Cam size Versus Engine size: large CI = smoother?

nx282hr cam in my 383w sounds like stock!!!!!! just brought her home today.
immr.mustang is offline  
Old 04-22-2008, 05:11 PM
  #14  
Hamutoff
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
Hamutoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 614
Default RE: Cam size Versus Engine size: large CI = smoother?

ORIGINAL: immr.mustang
nx282hr cam in my 383w sounds like stock!!!!!! just brought her home today.



Jasperstang308 veruss immr

560/576 300/310 (adv) 110 jaspers stroker Lunati 51018LUN restrictive heads very 'rowdy'
565/580 282/294 (adv) 114 immr.mustang's stroker nx282hr non-res heads, very smooth
Hamutoff is offline  
Old 04-23-2008, 01:25 AM
  #15  
w8less
6th Gear Member
 
w8less's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KY
Posts: 13,396
Default RE: Cam size Versus Engine size: large CI = smoother?

560/576 300/310 (adv) 110 Lunati 51018LUN




w8less is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
NorthAmericanTuning
Vendor For Sale / Group Buy Classifieds
5
11-09-2016 11:45 AM
NorthAmericanTuning
Vendor For Sale / Group Buy Classifieds
3
11-09-2016 11:44 AM
NorthAmericanTuning
S550 2015-2023 Mustang
3
03-18-2016 11:21 AM
2003 4.75l
4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang
14
08-29-2015 02:58 AM
mustangsrforever!!!
Pennsylvania (Philly/Tristate) Regional Chapter
0
08-06-2015 12:04 PM



Quick Reply: Cam size Versus Engine size: large CI = smoother?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:58 AM.