Getting A Surprisingly Good Baseline For The Retro 5.0 Small-Block Ford

Project Retro 5.0 is our modern take on the awesome time in the 1980s and ‘90s where the Fox Body Mustang was the king of the streets. We’ve made a few concessions to the modern era right out of the gate, and a few improvements over stock parts, so we need a baseline to start testing with. #dyno #enginebuild #ford
Full Article: www.enginelabs...
View more at: www.EngineLabs.com
*************
Subscribe to Our KZbin channel: / @enginelabs

[@panzer5033]

This would be a great concept to continue. See what the truck 351W and 460s from the 80s and 90s can really do

[@johngregory4801]

The only thing missing from the retro look you were going for in this video is Miracle Max leaning out his door and saying, "Good luck storming the castle, boys!" just before the dyno runs

[@PowerPerformanceYouTube]

Great video and project. Keep it up!

[@markweber7275]

Been looking forward to the dyno results for baseline. Please list parts in your stock build for those of us on a budget. Impressive!!

[@EngineLabs]

The only non-stock (or stock replacement) parts are a set of flat top pistons and a main girdle. A Mahle gasket kit, Melling stock replacement rocker arms, valve springs, and lifters and then the Icon forged IC719KTD.STD pistons with a stock pin-bore and compression height. It's got a Melling standard volume oil pump, a Milodon stock replacement pan, and a 50-ounce Fluidampr. There's a comprehensive look at all the parts we used here: www.enginelabs.com/project/project-engine-retro-5-0/

[@yonson_racing]

Nice work Donut!!!

[@EngineLabs]

Thank you, Sir!

[@chestrockwell8328]

Could be an interesting build series. You're not up 60 hp, the 93' 5.0 mustangs were rated at 225 and the testing conditions were different than what you did; you're likely "up" 15-20 at best.

[@EngineLabs]

It's not a Mustang engine, though. It is a T-bird engine with the smaller cam, which was rated at 200 horsepower in 1993.

[@tedgay8427]

In the configuration you ran the tests, the small cam Thunderbird engines test out around 240-245, while the HO cam Mustang engines test at 260-265.

[@EngineLabs]

Would you happen to have any sources for those numbers? They seem a little "sus" as the kids say.

[@hotrodray6802]

​​​@@EngineLabsreports from many accepted Dyno team sources hover around 255-257 for the 90 HO with the usual accoutrements. Might be some header variations, etc.. Manufacturing and assembly variances considered for a few +-. We've found variations of 1-2* on cam lobes, .oo5 on lifts, honing textures, ring grade and type, and some variations in ECM programming. I'll stick with the 255 number as a good running production average.

[@passinggear]

Awesome production.

[@EngineLabs]

Thanks!

[@arkhsm]

@@EngineLabs Did you guys know about the late '01 early '02 AUSSIE FORD FALCON AU2 and AU3 XR8s ? I happen to have one of these last ever 302w engine cars ! To keep up with the new 300hp all alloy LS1 engine Holden Commodore SS's, before Ford introduced the Boss 260 (basically a hopped up Lincoln Navigator quad cam 5.4 modular), Ford did this to the little ole 5.0 pushrod Windsor ..... GT40p heads, with larger 1.94/1.54 valves, mild port matching, skimmed cyl. head to bump up compression, Yella Terra roller rockers, hotter cam, 70mm throttle body, higher pressure fuel regulator, tubular headers into a full twin exhaust, then hot run tested. Each engine was hand built by one of 20 guys, taking him a full day to assemble. The rocker cover has a "Hand Built with Pride by..." plaque on it, and all this cost Ford an extra $2,000 PER CAR ! All this equaled 295hp and 320lb/ft, easily making it The Most Powerful Ford Factory 5.0L pushrod engine ever ! It didn't end there either, as the Super Special Tickford T Series version in '02 got this engine with a 3.4" stroker crank, taking it to 342 cubes, and it had it's own specially cast intake manifold = 335hp and 370lb/ft !!

[@95Sn95]

Sorry It's not a factory freak That 260 is pretty much spot on for a stock 5.0HO on the dyno, that's right around what Richard holdner got from a stocker. 93 are rated at 205hp "net" but there the same as the 92 5.0 that was rated 225hp but the new 94s were rated at 215hp so ford de rated the 93 so the new sn95 seemed like an improvement, anyway that HP is "net" that's as it is in the vehical eith all the crap on it, the stock intake Assembly, all the accessories and emissions, AC, alternator, smog pump all the power zapping crap, the terrible factory shorty headers/manifolds and full factory 2.25" exhaust including FOUR catalytic converters and 2 restrictive mufflers... Remove all that and have a 25 to 45hp jump very plausible. It just shows there a pretty spunky engine if it's not completely saddled with piles of power robbing junk, but 260hp on the Dyno is..... Drum roll.... A regular old perfectly healthy stock 5.0ho. regardless I'm looking forward to the concept of the build, I like to see builds done like they would be in real working joe life like Dyno just a good intake then a cam then heads n so on.

[@EngineLabs]

Actually, Holdener made 252 with an aftermarket carb and intake, with an electric water pump, no accessories at all, long-tubes, and bigger stock Mustang cam.

[@jdrods1519]

Awesome!!!! 🇺🇸💪🏼

[@cgip1220]

Thanks for reply. What was manufacture of the pistons.

[@EngineLabs]

They are Icon by UEM.

[@vinperillo]

Stock engine in 1993 was 225hp and 300 torque.

[@EngineLabs]

Not in a Thunderbird.

[@MoctezumasRevenge1]

Top end kit and a 150 shot enough to take down stock 392s?

[@EngineLabs]

In a Fox with a halfway decent suspension, yeah. Pretty easily, I think.

[@ryandoyle4344]

10:1 flat top?

[@EngineLabs]

Flat tops with 5cc valve reliefs.

[@lorinmueller4102]

Greg!

[@EngineLabs]

Lorin! When this series is done and the engine is in my car, you wanna come take it around the cones? Maybe wait until the third installment to say yes... LOL!

[@lorinmueller4102]

@@EngineLabs Sounds like a good time to me. I've got enough faith in your to say yes early. ;)

[@1988hudd]

There was no comparison in regards to 5.0 vs Turbo Buicks.... not even close! I had both and still own 2 Turbo Buicks.

[@EngineLabs]

I think we might need to do a turbo 3800 build...

[@joshteel3226]

Turbo a fox body and see what happens easy 10’s in quarter mile

[@joshteel3226]

Or Harrop tvs blower

[@PeeterPuncher]

apples to oranges.....put a turbo or 2 on a 5.0 and a turbo Buick doesn't even compare.

[@1988hudd]

Turbo Regals came stock with turbos and with race fuel or meth injection ...boost turned up is nothing but the truth!!! Nevertheless, 5.0's are funny cars but they are no match stock vs stock to a turbo Buick. @@joshteel3226