5.0 Basic Knowledge Check (Please View)
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 39
From: Florida
5.0 Basic Knowledge Check (Please View)
Alright so I have a 1998 Mustang V6 Manual that I'm swapping a 5.0 into this summer. I don't need anyone to comment on how a swap isn't "worth it," I'm dead set on getting the experience and having pride in basically building up my own car. That said, I would like some basic fact checking about the 5.0 if anyone would mind lending their knowledge.
1. The T50 Transmission bolts up to 5.0 with the correct bellhousing
2. 1994-5 5.0L hits 6k as redline, RPM limiter is set around 6500?
3. Speed governor at 110MPH? (If so, a tuner chip would delete it right?)
4. Stock motors can hit around 350-400 HP on stock internals (in reasonable condition)
5. These are known as relatively reliable engines
If anyone could go down the list and note whether these facts are true or false (please state correction) that would be extremely appreciated!
1. The T50 Transmission bolts up to 5.0 with the correct bellhousing
2. 1994-5 5.0L hits 6k as redline, RPM limiter is set around 6500?
3. Speed governor at 110MPH? (If so, a tuner chip would delete it right?)
4. Stock motors can hit around 350-400 HP on stock internals (in reasonable condition)
5. These are known as relatively reliable engines
If anyone could go down the list and note whether these facts are true or false (please state correction) that would be extremely appreciated!
5th Gear Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,628
From: ohio
1. Yes T5 using an SN95 5.0 bell housing ( it must be specifically for an SN95 a fox bell is too short. And it must be a 5.0 )
2. Not real sure on this one, I never paid attention to the RPMs limiting. I know around 6500 the valves will start to float. Ask me how I know. But a good cam and some decent valve springs will let you open it up a little more.
3. No no speed governors
4. The SN95 cars used cast internals. Your better off with a early model 5.0 89-93 use forged internals and can take a lot more. 350 is probly safe. But 400 is a crap shoot, it could go for years or it could explode in a few pulls.
5. They are pretty reliable. I never had any real major issues with mine. Again the later model sn95 engines were not as tough as the early years.
And here is another bit of usefull information. If you can get the ecu from 87-93 fox body and run the engine like it was in a fox it is much better. The way the 94-95 pull timing and fuel trim is kind of **** poor. They set it up like this because the pistons can be destroyed by to much advance timing. The fox engine made like 10 or 15 more horse power than the sn95 cars.
2. Not real sure on this one, I never paid attention to the RPMs limiting. I know around 6500 the valves will start to float. Ask me how I know. But a good cam and some decent valve springs will let you open it up a little more.
3. No no speed governors
4. The SN95 cars used cast internals. Your better off with a early model 5.0 89-93 use forged internals and can take a lot more. 350 is probly safe. But 400 is a crap shoot, it could go for years or it could explode in a few pulls.
5. They are pretty reliable. I never had any real major issues with mine. Again the later model sn95 engines were not as tough as the early years.
And here is another bit of usefull information. If you can get the ecu from 87-93 fox body and run the engine like it was in a fox it is much better. The way the 94-95 pull timing and fuel trim is kind of **** poor. They set it up like this because the pistons can be destroyed by to much advance timing. The fox engine made like 10 or 15 more horse power than the sn95 cars.
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 39
From: Florida
Fox Swap?
1. Yes T5 using an SN95 5.0 bell housing ( it must be specifically for an SN95 a fox bell is too short. And it must be a 5.0 )
2. Not real sure on this one, I never paid attention to the RPMs limiting. I know around 6500 the valves will start to float. Ask me how I know. But a good cam and some decent valve springs will let you open it up a little more.
3. No no speed governors
4. The SN95 cars used cast internals. Your better off with a early model 5.0 89-93 use forged internals and can take a lot more. 350 is probly safe. But 400 is a crap shoot, it could go for years or it could explode in a few pulls.
5. They are pretty reliable. I never had any real major issues with mine. Again the later model sn95 engines were not as tough as the early years.
And here is another bit of usefull information. If you can get the ecu from 87-93 fox body and run the engine like it was in a fox it is much better. The way the 94-95 pull timing and fuel trim is kind of **** poor. They set it up like this because the pistons can be destroyed by to much advance timing. The fox engine made like 10 or 15 more horse power than the sn95 cars.
2. Not real sure on this one, I never paid attention to the RPMs limiting. I know around 6500 the valves will start to float. Ask me how I know. But a good cam and some decent valve springs will let you open it up a little more.
3. No no speed governors
4. The SN95 cars used cast internals. Your better off with a early model 5.0 89-93 use forged internals and can take a lot more. 350 is probly safe. But 400 is a crap shoot, it could go for years or it could explode in a few pulls.
5. They are pretty reliable. I never had any real major issues with mine. Again the later model sn95 engines were not as tough as the early years.
And here is another bit of usefull information. If you can get the ecu from 87-93 fox body and run the engine like it was in a fox it is much better. The way the 94-95 pull timing and fuel trim is kind of **** poor. They set it up like this because the pistons can be destroyed by to much advance timing. The fox engine made like 10 or 15 more horse power than the sn95 cars.
Last edited by ForeverDrivin; Mar 31, 2019 at 05:27 PM.
5th Gear Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,628
From: ohio
So basically, a fox engine would be better for modifications? How much different would that be from installing the SN-95 5.0? I'm not too sure about foxbody engines, as I really like the direct injection approach rather than carbs, and I dont even know if the fox engine is carbed or not. Turbo or super charger setup will be waiting after swap, so I'm still trying to figure out what's best for my future plans.
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 39
From: Florida
The later fox body cars were all direct injection I think 86 and up were all direct injection, while the 85s still used the throttle body injection system. They use the same blocks as the SN95 cars other than the nickle content is a little different, the fox blocks are a little tougher and the pistons in the fox bodys were forged i believe up until 92 1/2. Hell I had a 95 V6 base model with a 1968 302. And the other guy is correct, if your going to be adding any big mods then you will need a tune any ways and it doesnt matter what ecu is used. But on a small build with bolt ons the fox ecu is the better choice. Just make sure you get one that is MAF. I think 87 was the first year that all mustangs went to mass air flow sensors. The installation is the exact same. Though you will need to get some v8 motor mounts.
3rd Gear Member
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 584
From: Tn
86-88 SD models can of course be converted to Mass Air easily.
3rd Gear Member
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 584
From: Tn
Here's a short article about the swap,but it might not answer your questions.
http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-t...v8-conversion/
http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-t...v8-conversion/
3rd Gear Member
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 584
From: Tn
The pulling of timing,up to 15° during/between shifts,was done primarily to prevent damage to the drivetrain,mainly the transmission.Alot of Foxbody transmissions had to be repaired under warranty so Ford decided to add timing retard to the 94-95 model ECU's to cut down on the damage.Foxbody owners were power shifting when RACING which means you keep the gas pedal to the floor during shifts.Adding the retard function put a stop to the transmission damage.
