They may have not MADE the engines in those paticular later years, but not all 5.0's are roller after 85 as in the year of the car. Maybe the Mustang ones were, but they weren't in the Tbird (They started putting them in the Mark VII though).
How can your carbed 85 have a full flat top if it has reliefs?? The 86 has a FULL flat top - flat, nothing else....
Look you peter princess. What should of been done and what was done is just the way it is. Ford did strange things yes that's why I said the 87 truck was not roller you said ALL well your wrong.I know how to read dates on casting number. Also the truck was also 50 oz balance.yes the 86 was a full flat top piston. And the HO motors had 4 valve reliefs and a small dish and the Non HO motors have a larger dish and reliefs. Now I do have a carbed 85 motor factory HO motor that has 4 reliefs and is a full flat top. I have also had a 87 up Crown Vick apart that also had E7s on it not the E6. for your thoughts maybe Ford screwed up again and maybe some one put them on some time in its life but sure seemed to be factory to me. I wont continue arguing with you, You started this by saying there was wrong info being handed out but in turn it was you handing it out come correct before you accuse others.If I can get my F-ing software to run I will up load you the photos of the pistons for you and if you need I also have some 86 heads for a photo if you need.
Thumbnail Image
Thumbnail Image
Thumbnail Image
All i could do was chuckle while i read your response, because you seem to take this personally.
All of my information is according to ford documention. These cars are too old to be saying "well i pulled apart a truck engine and yadda yadda yadda", i can garentee you that at least 50% of the cars that were built in the 80's, that drive around have been torn apart.
As far as you saying HO's have a dish, and valve reliefs, ive never seen a single one in person with the dish. I do know that the early, non-HO's had valve reliefs, maybe that dish's were for those non-HO's.
As far as the SO's having valve reliefs, thats BS, because if they had valve reliefs, i wouldnt be trying to find a cam that wont cause piston-to-valve clearance. I know for a fact that the 86+ SO's that came in the fox tbird/cougars had a dish and no valve reliefs. The SO i have is from an 88 Cougar, its a roller block, and it has a dish and no valve reliefs. I guess im wrong, since the SO has valve reliefs according to you.
Ive been around the fox tbird/cougar scene alone for about 5 years now, and ive never seen one 86+ with valve reliefs, E7's, or anything else like youre saying. Most of these cars are mostly original, 150+ thousand mile cars, so you must be getting your hands on some un-orginal cars.
As for the whole "this year/that year" BS we're spouting, look at the casting numbers on the parts. In 85, the block was supposed to be revised to roller. In 87, the block was changed once again. You could have yourself an 89 Crown Vic, with an 83 mustang engine for all you know, and you wouldnt know untill you have casting numbers.
There are alot of diff combos that Ford put together during the 80's. The thing is all 5.0 engines after 82 or 83 were of the 50 oz imbalance not the old 28 oz imbalance. The E5TE heads have a small combustion chamber that has a slight heart shape to promote swirl but the shrouded the valves and hurt the breathing of the heads. The E6TE heads had a similar problem and were not as efficient. The E7TE truck heads found their way onto the 5.0 HO in 87 along with forged pistons. Most of the blocks from 85 and up had the provision to have roller lifters but they were equiped with the old flat hydraulic set up. If you use a crown vic engine be sure you have E7TE heads and you best use the HO roller cam as it is hotter than a Crown vic cam and has the good 351 firing order. You also will find others here to be correct about the pistons of certain model years having or not having valve reliefs. This limmits cam usage if you have a plain flat top. Why not refresh the HO engine as it would have the forged pistons and with low tension rings more than likely only need to be honed and reringed because of little cylinder wall wear?
Tbird All i could do was chuckle while i read your response, because you seem to take this personally. LOL you started with the name crap first any how What ever ,I have been in the 5.0 craze since day one and have been working on cars for 17 years and I have been wrong before and if I am this time so be it but I stand on what I say this time I know what I have seen and worked on. Any how I got a race car to work on and someone to help work on his race car.Its been grand. maybe a new discussion with you some time. later John
< Message edited by uedlose -- 2/26/2006 3:06:45 PM >
It is rather interesting, how we are tied into the same scene, yet both have much different experiences.
Yeah, i started it, but im a dick, what can i say? I guess its what brings all the boys to the yard.
Theres way too many "should be/should haves" in the ford world. I guess its rather stupid to argue over what the car "should" have, and just deal with each case.
hi guys great argument, i am first timer here, building a plainjane V8 w/fat 4BBL intake setup using a truck 5.0 that i just changed over to roller cam with nothing more than a tap and die. like this project so far?? have installed an e303 cam in block roller lifters in there now too, going with 4degrees advance cam timing. calling the project- "perfect thusfar" have E6TE-Roo* heads in pretty good shape, question i doen know is if the flat tappet stock springs are ok for a crazy roller cam of nearly .500 lift..... have deal on E- S or 5 -E heads just re done, but not ported. so iam going to do my freebie burk a weekend porting on the e7s if i buy them... or the e6 Truck heads.. how do i know the diference of the springs?? lost in NJ ( I JUST HAD to HAVER 4in. bore by 3in. stroke for this one!!!!!!) -bill
the h.o. uses the 351 cam. i have one in my 81 f250 that came out of an 88 mustang. using the factory intake that came on the truck. that should drive someone nuts if i ever take it to a shop for a tune up.
Printable Version
RE: 302 and 302 H.O - 
you started with the name crap first any how What ever ,I have been in the 5.0 craze since day one and have been working on cars for 17 years and I have been wrong before and if I am this time so be it but I stand on what I say this time I know what I have seen and worked on. Any how I got a race car to work on and someone to help work on his race car.Its been grand. maybe a new discussion with you some time.
later John
