5.0L factory fuel rails

[jfl1960]

just wondering if anyone knows what the ford factory fuel rails would support HP wise for the 86 to 93 version that came on the crown vic 5.0 and 5.8?? And what advantage would I have running an adjustable regulator vs the vacuum unit, new to fuel injection and trying to learn as much as I can, thanks.

 

[shane96ranger]

just wondering if anyone knows what the ford factory fuel rails would support HP wise for the 86 to 93 version that came on the crown vic 5.0 and 5.8?? And what advantage would I have running an adjustable regulator vs the vacuum unit, new to fuel injection and trying to learn as much as I can, thanks.

Somewhere in the 350hp range is where you will want to start looking for higher flowing rails. And an adjustable regulator still uses vacuum. The only advantage is you can dial it to an exact pressure (at base). Other than that, it operates the same way. Unless you are getting a lot more HP (supercharger, nitrous, etc.), the factory unit will suffice.

 

[shane96ranger]

Maybe a better question would be: what are your plans?

 

[jfl1960]

Maybe a better question would be: what are your plans?

Thanks for the quick reply Shane, as far as plans well stuffing a 5.0 into my Ranger, a narrowed 9" with 411 gears and an AOD in between, want it to run good for this summer while I tweak the suspension and get body painted, then maybe next winter increase horsepower, right now anything over 200 hp would be great so these rails are keepers.

I have a 1992 5.0 out of a F150 that I set aside for rebuilding, knocking on bottom end, the motor I am dropping on is from a 1986 Crown Vic with the crap heads and no valve reliefs in pistons but it is a solid motor with no issues. I will probably try some mods over the summer on the CV motor but from what I have heard not much can be done since they limit valve movement, gonna play with what I have for now.

 

[superds]

I don't know if you have your heart set on a narrowed 9" rear or if you maybe already own it but I would consider an 8.8" from an Explorer. 95+ had disc brakes and many had limited slips factory installed but can still be swapped out for an open diff or locker if you so choose. Also, no need to narrow it since it's already the correct width. Strength comparable to most stock 9" rears also.

But, like I said, if you already own the narrowed 9" that would probably be more economical.

 

[jfl1960]

I don't know if you have your heart set on a narrowed 9" rear or if you maybe already own it but I would consider an 8.8" from an Explorer. 95+ had disc brakes and many had limited slips factory installed but can still be swapped out for an open diff or locker if you so choose. Also, no need to narrow it since it's already the correct width. Strength comparable to most stock 9" rears also.

But, like I said, if you already own the narrowed 9" that would probably be more economical.

Yep already had one, with posi and 410 setup, turning Ranger into Pro-street truck with tilt front end, already relocated leafs under frame rails and custom brackets and bracing done in back.

 

[shane96ranger]

The E6's really aren't that bad in a truck. My 86 GT had them too, and it delivered it's share of whoopin's on opposing vehicles.


EDIT: I've even seen where E7's won't fit on the 86 block's.

 

[jfl1960]

The E6's really aren't that bad in a truck. My 86 GT had them too, and it delivered it's share of whoopin's on opposing vehicles.


EDIT: I've even seen where E7's won't fit on the 86 block's.

We're getting off topic a bit, but yeah it's a crapshoot from what I have been told, it's the missing valve reliefs in the piston that's the problem when pairing an E7 head to an 86 Crown Vic motor, although there are some that say they have done it, I think I will try other options on the 86 and keep the e7's on the 92.

 

[shane96ranger]

We're getting off topic a bit

Isn't this the TRS motto?

 

[shane96ranger]

If you want to familiarize yourself a bit more with Ford's EFI, this webpage is very useful.

http://oldfuelinjection.com/

 

[Mac]

Also, no need to narrow it since it's already the correct width. Strength comparable to most stock 9" rears also.

They are not the same width, the Explorer is 3" wider than his.
I myself, with out any first hand experience, believe the stock rails will be good. Quite a few run a 255L/hr fuel pump that will support 720 NA hp. with the stock rails.That's only 1.2 gpm. Besides the link Shane gave you, you can get the FRPP caatalog for only $5, got lots of hints and guide lines on fuel systems, ignition. They used to have them in PDF format. I've got last years I could send but it's a big file. Motor and heads will work for the time being, you are aware of the problems. Good intake, heads and cam ought get you moving pretty good!
Dave

 

[superds]

They are not the same width, the Explorer is 3" wider than his.

I consider 1.5" wider than stock on each side to be correct width for first gen Rangers. I think they're a little narrow to start with and this gives you a better track width than stock without being over wide.

 

[jfl1960]

They are not the same width, the Explorer is 3" wider than his.
I myself, with out any first hand experience, believe the stock rails will be good. Quite a few run a 255L/hr fuel pump that will support 720 NA hp. with the stock rails.That's only 1.2 gpm. Besides the link Shane gave you, you can get the FRPP caatalog for only $5, got lots of hints and guide lines on fuel systems, ignition. They used to have them in PDF format. I've got last years I could send but it's a big file. Motor and heads will work for the time being, you are aware of the problems. Good intake, heads and cam ought get you moving pretty good!
Dave

That is just the type of info I was looking for, yeah I have done quite a but of research but just couldn't find the info regarding fuel rails, think I will try cam, and a better intake (maybe port the one I have) after I get this unit running and see what happens, I don't expect huge gains but all I needed to know is that my mods will not be held back by the fuel rail capability, thanks again I will check out the sites and info you posted, every day is a learning experience for me.

 

[shane96ranger]

Just as with a change of heads, you have to be careful with a cam change on your 86 motor. They don't give much room at all.

An excellent and cheap upgrade for an intake would be off of a 96-01 Explorer with the 5.0,obviously. It has flow numbers on par with the GT40 and Cobra intakes. The injectors off the 98 and newer Explorer are also an upgrade over the 86 pieces (some require a connector change - but no big deal). The 86 throttle bodies are around 52mm, while the Explorer has a 65mm - so a decent upgrade as well. They require a little modification, but it works great. I've had one for 4 years on my Mustang.

Sent from a Commodore 64 using a 300 baud modem