Does anyone have a pic of where you relocated the fuel filter for a single to dual exhaust mod? I had read at one time that someone moved the filter to the other side of the frame rail. It appears the only space on the other side is forward of where the filter currently resides and there doesn't appear to be much slack in the fuel lines to get there.
Yeah, I think there's clearly some lack of understanding that there's HP/torque differences between the Tbird 5.0 and that of the Mustang. It's obvious that Scott, Mason, and Chance have at least HO engines with upgrades in their project cars, so throwing disinformation around is, well, unwarranted.
I thought a lot about that comment and decided to take the high road.
This is my other "302" on the dyno at Medina Mountain Motors. Despite being clueless about 5.0's, I made 360 HP@ 6,000 RPM with a tiny hydraulic roller cam, 9.5:1 compression an early set of AFR 165 heads, a dual plane intake, a stock water pump, an alternator, a Summit 600 CFM carb and a set of very restrictive(small port) dyno headers that had to be used to clear the cradle. I left 10-15 more HP on the table that I could have picked up with timing and carb jetting, but dyno time is expensive. Those headers likely cost me another 10 HP. I happen to have a TFS 190 TW 11R headed 349 8.2 deck stroker going together in my shop. I threw in a pic of the heads sitting on my kitchen counter to show you I'm not blowing smoke.
I've owned and driven more 302's, including a 70 Boss 302 Mustang, than I care to think about in my 61 years standing upright (Ok, I might not have been upright that first year). I know why some ran OK as well as why some didn't. The light weight of the fox mustangs combined with the better cam and E7 heads on the HO made the car feel torquey, especially with a stick, but in fact, the engine was lucky to produce 320 LB/ft. That's not a torque monster. Decent, but not exceptional. My 306 Maverick produces over 380 Lb/Ft at the flywheel and I still don't consider that exceptional in any regard.
Lastly, don't confuse my dissatisfaction with my 86 Elan's 5.0/AOD's poochiness as a blanket condemnation of all SBF's. I understand 150 HP with maybe 110 at the rear wheels is not going to impress. It doesn't mean that I can't have a bit of fun saying so or that I don't understand how to make it far quicker.
Actually, the HO is decent on torque, for the time and the technology of the day ('87-95), it's the rear gear and the transmission and it's less than stellar torque convertor that made stock AOD Stangs gutless pigs. Get one with a T5 and there was a good bt more "git up n' go".
My stock 5.0/AOD's "git up and go" got up and went.
That PP intake you are running is a knock off of the Edelbrock Performer RPM intake I have. You're really going to want at least 3.73 gears with it, especially with an AOD. With 3.73s and a non-lockup torque converter the engine in my car spins 2300rpm at 70 mph. With a lockup converter engine rpm at 70 mph will probably be a hundred or so rpm less.
You make an excellent point regarding a car with overdrive. The SBF 5.0 is no torque monster in stock form. Typical modifications often shift both HP and torque higher up in the RPM range. Insufficient gearing can cause hunting between gears even at the hint of a grade or hill.
Ford did not seem to understand this back in the 80's & 90's or else they were trying to squeeze the last bit of MPG out of the fleet to meet government standards. I owned a 95 F150 5.0 4x4 EFI that was an absolute pig in OD with the stock (3.34 or close) rear end ratio. It would hunt between overdrive and third gear if the wind shifted. The truck needed 3.73's or 4.11's to drive properly. The fuel mileage was bad and on par with my 8.1L/Allison BBC in my 2500HD.
I've got 98 Mustang GT springs in the front of my car. Dropped the nose about an inch. Still aligned in spec without caster/camber plates.
Good to know. I spent a lot of $$ on all of those front end parts and have to get ready for my HO conversion. I'm really not disappointed, as 140K was around the time most 80's Fords needed serious front end work. Actually, the Taurus's needed it a lot sooner on the average.
I suppose I should have expected it. Had the front wheel off experimenting with various spacers and felt some play in the steering. Sure enough, inner tie rod ends are shot. I decided to take the opportunity and change the ratio with a turbo coupe rack & pinion vs. just changing the inner tie rods. The 140K rack also seeps fluid so it makes $$ sense to change it all out, including the outer tie rod ends. My new SN95 struts and springs are in my shop also, so it looks like a new front end if I throw in the lower ball joints on top of it all.
Will I need the MM adjustable camber plates with the SN95 springs??
Actually option 3: stick the 19lb injectors back in and run a stock 89-93 Mustang MAF. Then after you either get a tuner (harder option) or calibrated MAF (easier option) put the 24lb injectors back in.
You must have been reading my mind. Used MAF sensors can often be found on craigslist when people upgrade to turbo's or blowers.