Crank Position Sensor?

[His Royal Ghostliness]

All this talk about turd engines reminds me of prom 1987. My date's father had a brand new Buick Regal white with T-tops. He insisted we take it. Beautiful car with red interior. It was the slowest thing I ever drove in my entire life! Base engine V-6 put out an earth shaking 115hp. Big car with 4 people in it was bad. The dang thing took about 20sec. to get up to speed getting on the freeway. What a change since I drove a 1978 Nova with a hopped up 283 V-8 it was a little screamer.

Maybe that's exactly why he insisted in you driving it to the prom (other than it being brand new and nice looking and all), he knew that with it being so underpowered you can't do much of anything stupid unless you tried really really hard - whereas with your Nova being stupid and thus putting his daughter in danger would have been one throttle to the floor away.

Edit: Packman, velour interior is NOT perfect for dates, really anything that isn't leather that's easy to clean is not ideal for dates

[packman]

^^^^^double edged sword there. If that Regal was like my friend's, her father would have other things to worry about. Either way, he loses sleep. LOL^^^^^

[merc91]

8k was me being generous to you, i believe we're talking 5.8 trucks here that can 4x4 back to the well sites... not the big 12-15k tool bed 460 duallys which everyone would still be pro-no power (except the people that actually drive them) Which by the way I also drove everyday to do the work that the first daily checks warranted.

Should probly mention their are heads between e7 and afr225's for a 351. I keep forgetting that half the forum has the best heads ever made to get back and forth to the cubical being e6's which means defending gutless engines to the death here in the performance section. Thank god they didn't put an adequite gt40 (still 302 head) on said 5.8's or ya's woulda been roasting tires and kicking the back end out on the highway and running 9's in the work trucks at the track hitting 8000rpm through the traps... It's a miracle explorer soccer mom's could keep the front tires down with that power and all while not complaining about having the extra pep with a family camper towing up hills... because no mere human being could handle the whopping low end 300hp/400ftlbs in a 3/4 work truck with the same gas mileage that gt40 size heads and still torque cam would give, still choking the engine out by 4500rpm for those that say that feature is a must have in a vehicle.

Pretty wild "performance section" in the forums we have here 😉 We need an ultra-super performance section so that simply mentioning gt40 heads on a 5.8 in a mildly loaded up f-150/250 work truck is a fair "upgrade" for the CUSTOMER PAYING for the engine upgrade made available by ford, over middle of the road 302 heads (e7) that make the exact power as the 302 doesn't seem incredibly insane and spark a ridiculous off topic debate.

I'm not saying everyone needs 400hp, i simply said e7's are maxed on a 302 (don't link ho vs truck cams here in a comparison of heads) If the CUSTOMER WANTS the 5.8 upgrade that ford decided to go ahead and offer over the e7 5.0 for the more power that THEY REQUIRE, at the expense of purchase price and cruising mileage drop... Don't give them the exact same power as the 302 with the same cam. That is ripping the customer off.

[merc91]

If a customer comes to me with $1000 of his hard earned $$ to port his heads/intakes/cam swap for more power... and after it all he made the same power under the curve/track times... I wouldn't be able to take a penny never mind sleep at night. Nor would I tell him less is more and despite paying for more power that HE wanted, i know what's best and decided to not give him an increase. Nor would I tell someone who is happy with thier power, that they need more. The difference is in the customer that is PAYING FOR THE UPGRADE IN POWER and not getting it.

Why the 1 line comment simply mentioning this sparked any debate at all is beyond me.

[packman]

Edit: Packman, velour interior is NOT perfect for dates, really anything that isn't leather that's easy to clean is not ideal for dates

Leather/vinyl on a warm humid spring night or day? Yah you can clean that easier, but man that's uncomfortable on bare skin. That's why we have Resolve. ;-) Though, that was a long, long time ago; 1995 BC. Haven't worn shorts in public or in cars with leather or vinyl since high school; too much hair on me legs.

[packman]

Why the 1 line comment simply mentioning this sparked any debate at all is beyond me.

I apologized! Why U guys keep beating dead horses?

[knucklehead0202]

You guys are funny. Truck engines aren't designed for 3-8000 rpm so it's pretty much a silly argument. If you want mid-high rpm performance, you're looking at least at a head/cam/intake change, or at least any 2 of those. What it comes down to is that isn't what truck engines were designed for.

That said, I've driven fleet vehicles for approaching 20 years now, and I still don't know how I feel about the old vs. new. My first truck I used extensively was an '89 F-350 dually utility bed. It had an EFI 460 with a c6 and 4.10 gears. Thing was an absolute beast and would handle anything you threw at it. Loaded or unloaded, it got about 10mpg, uphill, downhill, didn't matter.

From there I went into a '99 F-350 single-wheel utility with a 6.8 triton. While I can't honestly call it gutless, it required a whole different driving style, and mileage was nothing like the 7.5. Loaded, 5-6 mpg. Unloaded on the freeway, 14 or so mpg. However, it didn't make power like a "traditional" truck engine. I've since been in multiple vans with the various 2v triton engines. Like ghosty said about some of the other stuff, they're "just good enough". I now have a newer e-250 that I think has the 6.2 in it, although I can't confirm this. It's much peppier than any of my previous vans that pretty much all had 5.4's.

I drove a '98 police interceptor for several years and it was a damn good car to me. I finally succumbed to my yearning for pushrod torque and bought my first box. Then I went and cocked it up by putting a completely inappropriate top end on it, essentially killing all my low-end torque. While very entertaining once into powerband, streetable power was a completely different story. My latest box that is bone stock with factory duals and k-axle would literally tow the other car down the street in a tug-of-war.

Lost track of the point I was trying to make but have decided that my ideal panther engine would be a 408w with a mild cam and heads in the 185cc range, between 9.5 and 10-1 compression, and a decently-built AOD or TKO 5-speed. That would be a gem to drive, not as shitty on gas as you might think, and powerful enough to raise some eyebrows amongst the spoiled nerds in their overpowered "modern" cars that have no character.

Oh yeah, all that bullshit aside, what I appreciate about the torqueless-wonder modular engines is that the damn things just go and go and go, with minimal drama, repairs, or weird bullshit. I love my 5.0's but overall I've got to say I definitely had more mechanical maintenance to keep on that with the mod motors. I scarcely ever touched the 4.6 in my p71 and had very minimal issues, it never left me stranded.

[merc91]

True, I forgot common 302 gt40 heads on soccer mom explorers are 3-8000rpm heads. My bad. The distinction between heads, cams, and heads+cams needs to be something we understand atleast to some level.

A port can only move so much air, "to big" comes into play at much higher air speeds (air energy ie resistance at walking vs running speed is negligible until you hop on the harley) 2500rpm you could throw afr 165's on a lopo with no other changes and get zero tq drop but just extend the curve marginally further... so it happens that an e7 intake doesn't even supply enough to fill a 5.0 cylinder. That's perfectly fine if you are frightened by 4000rpm or 250hp. But why even put together a 5.8 package with the same bottleneck limit on flow. Remember a cylinder just provides a no pressure zone allowing atmostphere 14.7psi to push air into it. Air filter to intake valve is always being driven by the same 14.7psi into a no pressure cavity... No pressure is no pressure so a 100cc lawnmover cyl doesn't 'pull any harder' than a 1000cc cyl assuming similar compression ratios.

Ei, open a 3/8" ball valve for a 10sec event on the garden hose into a 2gal pale and you'll fill it with 1.5gal of water. Swap the 2gal pale for a 3gal pale and repeat... even though the 3 gal pale upgrade purchasers who paid this extra promised water they needed, will swear they have more water from the old wives tails they've heard, but they still filled it with 1.5gal of water.

The result is EXACT same hp+tq totals between the e7 5.0 and the e7 5.8 (look it up). Truck CAM vs Ho CAM swapped a mere 15hp for 15tq between the 2 with peak points tweaked accordingly.

All I'm saying to the guys ripped off with the advertized 3gal pale "upgrades" is, that sucks and you got ripped off, they shoulda thrown in a 7/16 ball valve with it because a few years later they handed out 7/16" ball valves even with the 2gal pale and it was the perfect fit for the 2gal of water you needed and didn't get despite paying for it.

[His Royal Ghostliness]

Aight, lemme ask you this then - why do truck 5.8s pull harder than truck 5.0s? Same heads, same comression ratio, same cams IIRC as well. Assume identical drivelines from the engine back (say wide-ratio ZF and 3.55 gears and 235/85-16 tires). Assume near identical engine condition as well.

[merc91]

Define pull harder in any measurable scenario between these hypothetical identical trans/rear geared/cammed 5.0 and 5.8 trucks and how much harder numerically the 5.8 pulls?

Just because a 5.8 chokes off sooner than a 5.0 doesn't mean it has more tq than the 5.0. Stats from ford themselves demonstrate this. Most will say a lopo 5.0 has the best low tq, and it seems that way seat of the pants because after 2500rpm it's athsma attack chokes it out. Most here also will say marginally bigger heads ie gt40 (still very very moddest) are high rpm screamers sacrificing low end tq, while they do peak tq higher in the revs, they are ALSO producing slightly more tq than the lopo at the lopo's peak aswell... They just seem to be lacking low end because of the extra 75ft/lbs added in further in the revs (3800rpm peak on untouched explorer heads intakes/tb...) I'm not guessing, I pulled out my old dyno graph of that motor. Does anyone have a lopo or stock e7's dyno chart? Mine goes down to 2500rpm making 240tq at the wheels (300fwtq). Better flow efficiency/similar size heads don't mean less low end tq.

Get 2 identical 5.0 trucks and only swap the 5.8 block itself over and have a tug-o-war and it's going to be even. Drop in exploder gt40 heads in the 5.0 and watch it drag the 5.8. Again numbers back this up. Pulling tq of a better efficiency flowing head out does a similar size shitty efficiency head (e7)

Worth remembering port length and cross section area does make a difference in the same design heads eg. afr 165 vs afr 185 same runner shape/design... for low end tq/high end hp power band location. But don't confuse that for FLOW EFFICIENCY which plays a far far higher roll when we're talking small cc e6's, e7's and small cc gt40's. Look at the similar or even e7 larger valve sizing and cross section cutaways of the heads to get an idea of the difference between bigger heads and better flow efficiency/same size heads. Say at 2000rpm a poorly shaped 140cc port has less velocity than a well shaped 150cc even with same/smaller valves as the 140cc.



So it's not the case that the worse flowing the head, the better the low end tq. E7's have no place on a 5.8 the way they struggle with poor port shape on the 5.0. Port shape and port size are very very different in their effects. I'll never tell you smaller SAME DESIGN ports won't do better at low revs. But I also can't tell you poor efficiency heads do better than marginally bigger much higher efficiency flowing heads at low revs.

[pantera77]

Just because a 5.8 chokes off sooner than a 5.0 doesn't mean it has more tq than the 5.0. Stats from ford themselves demonstrate this.

Your right. Clearly the Ford engineers were choochin' too hard when they stated the 351 put out 25 horses and 45 more foot pounds of torque over the 302.

http://i.imgur.com/5TXN6Qy.jpg