1989 crown Vick motor

[Cohammer]

Dumb question but I have access to a 1989 crown Vick with a 5.0 rebuilt runs great . Wouldn't this be a good swap with my 302 in my 74 .

 

[duffymahoney]

Yep! Shouldn't matter, is it an HO motor?

 

[edones06]

What i run in mine. Been a grate engine. The upper intake is turned to the driverside tho. Just makes it a tight fit against the master cyl but it all fits nicely.

 

[spap]

It s a lo po motor 150/160 hp speed density engine but it s torque is down low 270/280 lbs at 2000/2200 rpm, will pull a bronco fine

 

[Crawdad]

It's been coined as the Granny 5.0 as I bought one two years ago. It has the mustang upper intake, V-belts and the rest is crown Vic. The Speed Density isn't as high performance as the MAF but I don't care much for high speed, Donzi pulling bronco. But from what I have gathered you can put on a mustang/ explorer setup for better performance.

 

[Cohammer]

Sounds good , I am going to give it a good look Thursday and make sure it is in good condition .

 

[brianstrange]

Speed Density isn't as high performance as the MAF

MAF does not = Performance. The benefit to MAF is when you begin to heavily modify the motor. It offers more flexibility, that's all. Anyone with a near stock, or lightly modified motor can benefit by having fewer components, and cheaper donor part costs with a SD setup. I've run both, some have claimed the SD ECU's perform better. The lightning did pretty damn good on a Speed Density setup.

Also, that motor should be a roller block, but I'm pretty sure the heads on that are E6, has cast pistons, and the TB is very small. If it's a good running motor as is, I would use it, but if you plan on building it up, you would find better performance in a Explorer , Mustang, or mid 90's truck 5.0

 

[Timmy390]

MAF systems are much more flexible in their ability to compensate for engine changes since they actually measure airflow instead of computing it based on preprogrammed assumptions. They are self-compensating for most reasonable upgrades, as well as extremely accurate under low-speed, part-throttle operation.

SD was dropped for both performance and emissions reasons. The last part of the statement above is the most important. "They are self-compensating for most reasonable upgrades, as well as extremely accurate under low-speed, part-throttle operation." Translation, emissions.

My 96 van EFI donor was speed density because of a loop hole in the emissions law. Something about the GVW.

I upgraded to mass air taking the SD harness and adding a few wires and sensors. Not hard to do if you have the pin outs for the SD system and the MA you're wanting to run. Means I can take advantage of future upgrades.

Tim

 

[brianstrange]

SD was dropped for both performance and emissions reasons.

Mass air was initially added for emission reasons, but you're saying SD was dropped for performance reasons? That's the first I heard of that. I do know the highest rated stock 5.0 Mustang was 87 SD with 225 HP. Also, isn't the low\mid advantage based on mods that change vacuum readings (Heavy air flow and cam etc...) I see a lot of people jumping thru hoops adding mass air on a stock 5.0 or 5.8, while not using any emission devices. With a Mass air computer running $150, and the MAF, harness add on, adding VSS and FPM circuit and wires, and time to wire it, even if you get it from the junkyard, you're at $250 easy. Instead of mass air, buying a $300 tweecer is a bargain, and that's only when you begin to mod. I say just run whatever you have.

 

[Timmy390]

My 1990 Mustang GT was rated at 225HP if I remember correctly.

I guess I should clarify my performance statement. In stock form, overall engine performance was better as the ECM had control over fuel management for varying condition vs. a table that dumped X amount not matter the condition. SD did what the table told it to do. I also like the SEFI with MA vs. the bank fire of SD. No fuel setting on the hot valve waiting for it to open.

My SN95 ECM did cost me $125

Tim

 

[brianstrange]

My 1990 Mustang GT was rated at 225HP if I remember correctly.

I guess I should clarify my performance statement. In stock form, overall engine performance was better as the ECM had control over fuel management for varying condition vs. a table that dumped X amount not matter the condition. SD did what the table told it to do. I also like the SEFI with MA vs. the bank fire of SD. No fuel setting on the hot valve waiting for it to open.

My SN95 ECM did cost me $125

Tim

90 was at 220, 93 was at 205. The later crown Vic's and Tbirds have SD with SEFI, the trucks were bank fire.

 

[Timmy390]

Didn't know that about the Vic's and Birds but makes sense and clears up a few things I've read about converting them to MA.

As for my 90, all I know for sure is that car RIPPED and I wish I still had it.

Tim

 

[brianstrange]

Didn't know that about the Vic's and Birds but makes sense and clears up a few things I've read about converting them to MA.

As for my 90, all I know for sure is that car RIPPED and I wish I still had it.

Tim

My wife has an all original 94 5.0 GT Convert Saddle Leather \ Black. It's a dog, but 1000% original and in too good shape to let go. Unfortunately it's a SN95, and if it was a FOX, it would be worth triple.

As far as SD VS Mass, I used to run only Mass air, even though my engines are generally stock. I've never felt a real change in performance between the two, just did it on account of everyone saying so. A friend who drag races found that the MAF was a constriction, as the MAF accuracy drops when you get on it. Perhaps it's more complicated to tune in higher rpm ranges, I don't really know. He saw HP gains on the dyno using SD with an equal tune.

As far as installing SD, it's much easier. No VSS wires, no MAF, you can hang the filter off the TB and be done. It's also a lot cheaper to get parts. I got a Mustang SD computer for $20 last week. There are many to be had with everyone "swapping over"