1988 5.0 SO camshaft profile.

Topic: 1988 5.0 SO camshaft profile. (Read 5116 times) previous topic - next topic

1988 5.0 SO camshaft profile.

April 14, 2015, 12:34:48 PM

I have not found any info on this cam profile. I used to have the profile in a 1999 FMS catalogue but I cannot find it. I'm assuming it must have been covered a billion times on the forum, but cannot find any posts.

1988 5.0 SO camshaft profile.

Reply #1 – April 14, 2015, 02:13:05 PM

Here ya go. It sucks vs the stock HO cam.

1988 5.0 SO camshaft profile.

Reply #2 – April 14, 2015, 05:51:54 PM

Quote from: thunderjet302;447095

Here ya go. It sucks vs the stock HO cam.

Awww you're being nice...

1988 5.0 SO camshaft profile.

Reply #3 – April 14, 2015, 06:27:08 PM

The SO cam was pretty much just a straight piece of pipe with a sprocket on the end wasn't it?

1988 5.0 SO camshaft profile.

Reply #4 – April 14, 2015, 10:24:27 PM

And some teeth to drive the distributor.

I think the 255" engine had a cam that was better. If I'm wrong, it can't be any worse. LOL

1988 5.0 SO camshaft profile.

Reply #5 – April 14, 2015, 11:22:09 PM

.379 lift with a 1.6 ratio rocker arm. Ballin.

1988 5.0 SO camshaft profile.

Reply #6 – April 14, 2015, 11:24:11 PM

Quote from: thunderjet302;447114

.379 lift with a 1.6 ratio rocker arm. Ballin.

Well the springs will never wear out...

1988 5.0 SO camshaft profile.

Reply #7 – April 14, 2015, 11:30:02 PM

Quote from: TurboCoupe50;447115

Well the springs will never wear out...

Hell mechanical pen springs could handle that cam profile.

1988 5.0 SO camshaft profile.

Reply #8 – April 19, 2015, 09:17:35 AM

I plan on using it in a high torque 351w truck project and I know it makes some grunt! Sounds like a set of 1.7 rockers and a set of gt40p heads are ideal for this combo. I wonder if retarding the cam would do anything beneficial. The 302 gave up at 4500 with this camshaft, a 351 should give up earlier like maybe 4000. I may gain that back by retarding the cam 2 degrees.

1988 5.0 SO camshaft profile.

Reply #9 – April 19, 2015, 11:03:51 AM

If you do it, tell us about the build and the results. Got me curious.

1988 5.0 SO camshaft profile.

Reply #10 – August 04, 2015, 11:14:10 PM

OK, I finally sat down, loaded desktop dyno on my PC and plugged in all of the numbers. It makes 400 ft/lbs or greater from 2000 all the way to camshaft deadline at 5000. That's not bad, but the combination that I have put together is even better than all this info. OK, I used 300-I6 64-68 connecting rods and 2.3 ford keith black hyper pistons with the newest thin rings 1.5mm/1.5mm/3mm and a 3.85" stroke crank. I sleeved the 351w block down to a 3.809" bore and used AFR 165 cylinder heads and a lightning lower intake and explorer upper. It makes 387 hp at 5000 rpm and a max of 437 ft/lbs of torque at 3000 rpm. it makes that 460 its replacing look like a turd and hopefully achieves a 23 mpg mark in a 1997 F250. It should be an awesome truck engine and tow like mad.

1988 5.0 SO camshaft profile.

Reply #11 – August 05, 2015, 05:30:36 AM

One of my favorite ever tow rigs at work was a f250 with a 351 and 5 spd, fuel injected. I occasionally would pull a 16k trailer (as you loaded the mini, it picked the back end of the truck off the ground with the trailer hitch) and was an excellent cruiser. I could do about 45mph up a long 6% grade up a canyon without issue. The only real problem was trying to stop that much weight, and everytime someone else drove it, they'd burn up the clutch.

I also had a 5.4 f250 hd. I loved that truck. In two years I nursed it to 380k miles hauling everything under the sun. When I quit, new guy blew it up 2 weeks later. Took out the oil pan and tried to drive it back to the shop.

The only way your gonna get it up above 20mpg is to keep your rpm's low freeway speeds. If it's a 5 SPD, its easy to down shift when hauling. If it's an auto, I've never blown one up, even towing stuff that out weighs the truck 2-3 times. Just be careful getting it moving with tall gears.

1988 5.0 SO camshaft profile.

Reply #12 – August 05, 2015, 05:31:58 PM

Personally I would use a stock HO cam and leave the bores at 4.00 inches or more. Otherwise why use 351W

1988 5.0 SO camshaft profile.

Reply #13 – August 05, 2015, 11:43:43 PM

thanks for the opinion but, I'm shooting for maximum torque at low RPM and MPG. If the 351 was good at either one it would have been used past 1997. I have spent 3 years working on this combo and feel that it is fairly refined. I could care less for HP numbers, tq is how much work the engine is capable of doing, hp is how much time it will take to do the work. I'm trying to balance it all with MPG. The stock 351, including the lightning, were impressive but look at what RPM the tq occurs. Who drives at 3600 RPM and expects MPG. At 2000 RPM it makes 400 ft/lbs and that happens all the way to 5000 rpm. Why do you think diesels are so good on fuel? its not just the 15% more energy contained within the fuel, it's also operating RPM and the low end tq its making. If this was a race truck....I would agree and would even say to take the bore out to 4.125 and use a Boss block or even use the 460 in the truck now. It sure sounds like a lot of work for a large gamble, but if it was not fun beating the odds with old clapped out stuff we would not be hot rodding.

1988 5.0 SO camshaft profile.

Reply #14 – August 06, 2015, 03:54:42 AM

Every 460 I've driven got between 6-8mpg, loaded or not.

For every 1000rpm's your engine speed goes up under load, you will use about 4x as much fuel.

By adding 28" tires to my cougar, i increased mileage by 10%. Effectively, i changed my od ratio to .62. With the 2;73 rear, i can get 29mph at 60mph and 27mpg at 70mph. However, there is still something not quite right with the way it runs.

How much weight are you looking to haul?