1986 H.0. Speed Density motor swap?

[Hazegray]

Just got a line on a 86 H.O. mustang with 100,000 miles on the motor..supposedly runs good. Would this motor be an easy swap for EFI? I already have a new 20 Gal. tank with EFI ports & understand all the necessary plumbing but might have a hard time with the wiring... %)

 

[Mikey]

Not sure on a swap but thought I'd pass on a little info.

I have been driving my 86 Capri with a 5.0L HO since 1988 and have 240,000 miles on it with no end in sight!

The 86 5.0L HO is an odd bird. It's the quickest stock 5.0L HO you can have but it will not respond well to any add ons. If you plan on deviating from stock, pick any year after the 86 for this. If you want to stay stock, then, by all means, this is the best stock 5.0L HO. Here's why. In 86 Ford tried a different set of heads which create a swirl in the combustion chamber. It lowered overall horsepower but increased torque...which is good for the 0-60 times. The speed density is great for stock, as are these odd heads. But....if you decide to start bolting on things, you get into trouble. If you go with the GT-40 heads or a bigger cam, the valves will collide with the pistons as the 86 has flat tops with no valve reliefs cut in. The speed density will not allow the better breathing stuff to work...like heads, cams, exhaust, intakes, etc. Have to go with a mass flow conversion...pricey!

Soooo....stay stock and drop it in! You wanna play, go with the later model engine. I have more info if you like. I never deviated much from stock on my Capri, just plugs, plug wires, removing the air silencer, turbo mufflers and K&N filter.

This post is off the top of my head so bear with me! ;D

Good luck!
Mikey

 

[Mikey]

...by the way, if you do get the Mustang and do the swap...I might need some parts before you drag the Mustang off.
Let me know.
Thanks,
Mikey

 

[Hazegray]

Thanks for the info! I want to leave the motor stock with no add ons other than plugging into my dual exhaust system. Can anyone give me info on what's involved with the wiring?

The car is in running condition, but I just want the motor & associated wiring. Mikey, what kind of parts do you need? If I buy it, you are first on the list for the rest!

 

[Bronco Ben]

The 86 5.0L HO is an odd bird. It's the quickest stock 5.0L HO you can have but it will not respond well to any add ons.

I can not say I agree with this being the quickest. The 87-88 have better heads, better cam, and are quicker from the factory. The 86 heads are the worst heads of any year from 86-93..........just thought you'd like to know. I have info to back this up if you need it.
thanks
Ben

 

[Hazegray]

Okay, so this would be a baaadd thing to put this motor in my Bronco? I'm not into making major horsepower, just something that gets better gas mileage and able to run on angles. My @#$#$ edelbrock carb sucks!

 

[Mikey]

Hmmm.....Quoting from "Mustang 5.0 Technical Reference and Performance Handbook," Page 204:

"...the 1986 masked-valve castings produce approximately 10 less horsepower in their otherwise more capable fuel-injected application. However, their broader torque curve allowed the 1986 Mustang to record some of the Fox car's best-ever zero-to sixty clockings."

Now you can argue with the author rather than my memory.

Additionally, from the same book comparing time period publication results of 0-60 times, for 86 and 87, all 5-speeds, pp. 61 and 72

Year Source 0-60 Times

86 Car & Driver 7/86 6.2
86 Hot Rod 9/85 6.0
86 Hot Rod 3/86 6.0

87 Hot Rod 5/87 6.1
87 same 6.3
87 Motor Trend 8/87 6.54
87 Rod & Track 10/86 6.7


Flipping through book, the best times in 88 was 6.2; 89 was 6.2; 90 was 6.1; 90 was 6.26; 92 was 6.2. Nothing for 93, just quarter mile times. Just for fun, the 93 Cobra best was 5.6 and the Cobra R had one listing of 5.8.

Again, the 86 5.0L HO was the quickest stock Mustang short of the later Cobras.

Thanks for allowing me to dust off the Tech Reference book. Mine is an AOD and wouldn't touch those numbers, I tell ya! No doubt, the later Mustangs have tons more potential than the 86s for hot rodding! Their specs are much much better! That's why Ford went that way. I'm not favoring my daily driver Capri as I also have an 89 GT and a 68 Cougar. ...but, facts are facts!

Anyway, email me direct if you get the 'Stang and I'll think of some items I could use. mijewell@mindspring.com

Thanks!
Mikey

 

[Bronco Ben]

hummm interesting

according to my tech book 1979-1993 V-8 Mustang Specifications Guide
the 1986 cylinder heads had 62.9-65.9 cc combustion chambers compaired to the 1987 and 1988 cylinder heads being 60.6-63.6 cc's.

with the horsepower rating for the 1986 model rated at 200@4000 rpm and 285 ft lbs of torque @ 3000 rpm compaired to
the horsepower rating for the 1987 thru 1992 being 225@4200 rpm and 300 @3200 rpm

and all 1985 thru 1987 having the same cam part number E5ZE-6250-AA
lobe/valve lift .278-in./.444-in. intake and .278-in./.444-in. exhaust on a 36 degree overlap.

Now I'm no genius but with more compression and shown more horse power then only reason I can figure the 86 would be quicker is because of the rear ring gear and possibly weight of the car being different. Horse power ratings and torque ratings were both posted as same on both Automatic and 5 speed models.
this book was put out by a historical and technical handbook of significant facts and figures by AL kirschenbaum

Ben

 

[Mikey]

Ha! Same author!

Don't know. Something to do with the broader torque curve, I guess. The 86s had flat tops to compensate for the combustion chamber differences , so that's not it. Also, it's only the 0-60s. I bet if we looked at the quarter times and speeds, it would be different.

Never tested the results personally.

Of course, it's a quibble over a tenth of a second. I for one wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Anyway, Hazegray is looking for a recommendation. If he stays stock and can get a good price, I think his find would be worth getting. It would make for a good torquey and reliable engine....but if he gets the bug, then it will cost a bunch to get going with a hop up. Kinda locks him in like my Capri did me! Now I spend money on the other vehicles.

 

[Hazegray]

Wow! Great book quotes.. ;D I was hoping for more recommendations regarding the wiring dilema vice horsepower, but something is better than nothing!

Shifting gears (Horsepower issues aside), what costs can be assumed with the swap. I might have a hard time convincing the "significant other"....

Mikey, if I get the "no-go", you interested in the whole car? I'd hate to pass over a good deal, but wouldn't mind helping another Bronco owner out..

 

[Mikey]

....only if I wanted a divorce!

You see my signature block list of toys. It doesn't include the 79 Ford van and the 91 Honda. Six cars already! Only my wife and I for drivers!

....er...how much?

 

[Delta4WheelDrive]

Wow! Great book quotes.. ;D I was hoping for more recommendations regarding the wiring dilema vice horsepower, but something is better than nothing!

Shifting gears (Horsepower issues aside), what costs can be assumed with the swap. I might have a hard time convincing the "significant other"....

Mikey, if I get the "no-go", you interested in the whole car? I'd hate to pass over a good deal, but wouldn't mind helping another Bronco owner out..

When I did my EFI swap...I figured If I was to put all the effort and cash into the work I would want something that would be reliable for one, powerful for second, and look awesome for three. I did all of the research that you are doing. I spent time at all of the ford EEC-IV web sites that I could find. Just say no to the speed density motor. There are too many mass air model donors out there too pick from....for cheap!! There are mustang only wreckers on the web that will ship exactly what you want directly to your door.

Anyway...mass air is what you want. However, stay away from 1994 and 1995 mustang 5.0s, stay away from thunderbird 5.0s. Lot lower torque and HP ratings. Get your self a 1986-87 (california) or Federal 1988-93 mustang donor. Or better yet, go the way I did and get the Ford Explorer GT-40P motor and serpantine setup. This is more powerful (needs a new cam and headers) than any mustang motor besides the cobra (it's close though!!!) The GT-40P heads are awesome!. This is a true cobra motor, less the roller rockers and cam. (and maybe other crap). I got mine for $1100 delivered to my door with 28K miles on it. It has the best power steering pump that ford ever built on it. Turns my 40's like I had ram assist....never heats up either. It also has the 130 amp alternator stock. 65mm Throttle body stock. 2 inch shallower water pump and belt assembly. This makes it much easier to mount the fan, whether it be electrically, or mechanically driven.

Here's what I did. Money was an option, but I spent a lot!! (was single then ;D )

1. 1998 GT-40P complete motor from Ebay
2. Crane cam and lifters 1200-4500 RPM advanced 8 deg on top of the 4 deg already in cam for low end umpf! Torquey bastard
3. Scraped the EECV computer and all ignition components, and the 19lb inj
4. Bought EEC-IV X3Z cobra puter, 24 lb inj. and mass air meter from Pro-M, Mustang coil and distributor, egr eliminator kit, all new sensors including 02's
5. Expensive, but custom made for the EB, wiring harnass from www.ronmorrisperformance.com (a local guy in Central Cali) A true plug and play system. I'm a wiring moron. I good buy for me!!
6. New radiator, flywheel and clutch, etc...
7. BBK intank fuel pump, ford fuel filter, hard plastic fuel line and fittings from Ron Morris., throttle cable and pedal, VSS for t case (unhooked it later),
the list goes on and on.
NOTE. I would not use the X3Z (93 Cobra) computer and 24lb. injectors. Use 19 lb. and the A9L mustang 5 sp. puter

I hooked all of this up...and it fired on the first try. The only issues were cam choices. Took me a few tries to get the best torque. I would run this motor against my buddies TBI 351 windsor any day!!

Anyway, you are on the right track. You don't have to hit the same route that I did, but I have seen EFI swaps that look like a rat's nest. Do it right. You don't want to be stranded out in the boonies with a motor that you cannot work on controlled by a system that is a complete mess!! Just because it runs doesn't mean that it is right!

Hope this mini novel helps. Have fun!

 

[Bronco Ben]

yea If it were me I'd say any 5.0 roller motor would be good, especially since there are only minor differences over the years. Anything with EFI IMHO would be better than nothing at all. EFI is more forgiving on hills/and or angles, and I believe it would get better gasmilege.
good luck with which ever you decide.



now on the pistons my info source says: ;D

1986 has a note that it was flat top pistons, part number #E6ZE-6110-BA
were as the 1987-1992 were listed at part number #E7ZA-6110-CA both listed as forged aluminum with the 1993 year being the first year for Cast hypereutectic aluminum.
however in 1986 the spark plugs were motorcraft Part number # AWSF-44 with the gap being .050-in. were the ones on 1987-1993 were listed as motorcraft part number #ASF-42 and gapped at .044-in., and it has always be a popular belief in hotrodding that a little wider gap will produce more horsepower, however according to the numbers from ford that wasnt true in this case. ;D

I wish i had the time to type in all the info from this book. I havent been able to even find this book online or anywhere in a long time. I've even searched for it (lost it once and almost cryed).Lots of good info here. If you like info that is!
Ben

 

[Socal Tom]

I've heard from several sources that the SD motors made more horsepower in stock trim than the MAF engines did. I realize the ratings say different, but you can't really trust the factory numbers.

If you want a steady but powerful engine, the 5.0HO speed density motor would be a good one. It would also be an easier install. For help on the wiring, see www.fordfuelinjection.com or my site. www.teamslick.net and look under bronco tech.
Tom

 

[Rod]

all good points

I have a few things to point out from my past 16 years experance with EEC 4 from a performance point and working with it in the dealership.
* As for engine years 86-93 will all be fine for your application, just look for the best $ to mileage deal. Even though the 86 suffers from an slightly smaller intake and cylinder head port design, they do make good torque really the differance in these two different designs I just wouldn't sacrifice a good deal for the difference in this application.
*Speed density vs. Mass air. Mass air cost a few dollars more but is a little more efficiant, but due to the smaller size of the mass air meter it restricted horespower to the tune of about 5-8 hp.Speed density is again cheaper to do and works fine untill you start changing cams, heads, intakes, compression ratios because it is designed to run efficiantlly with the stock set up and it does not have the ability to compensate for the changes listed above.

To summerize these are all good choices just make sure when you get any of these parts match and use the same calibration that is on the door jamb of a possible donor vehicle. And remember the slight horsepower differance we are talking about is not enough to worry about in this application.

Just my 2cents but hope it help if you need any further help let me know.

 

[Hazegray]

Now that's what I'm talking about! My wife just gave me the THUMBS UP to purchase the Mustang! ;D

Mikey, I sent a PM to ya.

 

[Hazegray]

Okay..so I just spent the last 4 hours reading up on everything for the swap. What concerns me is that the mustang is a manual transmission. I have an AOD...would this be a problem for the computer??

 

[Socal Tom]

Nah,
I'm running a manual computer and a C4.
Tom

 

[Hazegray]

Last question...I promise! Will I have to swap my old oil pan to the newer 86 motor and convert to rear sump? Will it fit anyways? I have a 3 1/2" suspension lift if that makes a difference.

 

[yellowbronco]

Last question...I promise! Will I have to swap my old oil pan to the newer 86 motor and convert to rear sump? Will it fit anyways? I have a 3 1/2" suspension lift if that makes a difference.

I have an 87' sd, it provides plenty of power for me, I like the reliability and not coughing at angles for sure ;D I have a 5.5 lift and had no clearance issues with the oil pan. Good luck with your swap.