View Single Post
  #12  
Old 11-17-2010, 12:06 AM
Wolfe1013's Avatar
Wolfe1013 Wolfe1013 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: West Tennessee
Posts: 376
Default

Thanks, guys. The thing with Chilton and Haynes, they show both HO and non-HO for the 1982 5.0L motor. I don't have that '82 shop manual, will have to look for it. I have one for the 351W HO Vic I've got, so I know their value.

With the engine work that's been done to my car, would it not run rough if it were wired incorrectly? I've driven it several times. I'm going to be changing out the battery cables and need to get the new belt on, so I haven't cranked it yet after the tune-up. I know it works with the non-HO firing order, so with no replies while I was under the hood, I wired it back up that way. Haven't got a chance to touch it since.

I guess my question is this: what reason would there be to have wired the motor up with the non-HO firing order. What would have been changed in the motor to require that, or is it just an oversight or confusion?

Thanks.
__________________
1982 CHP Mustang Coupe, Unit # E870567 **SOLD to chp1982**
1988 Mustang 5.0 LX, Unit # HP 43 (Wyoming Highway Patrol)
1991 Ford Crown Victoria S (Brentwood, CA Police Dept/Cinema Vehicle Svcs)
1992 Chevrolet Camaro RS B4C, Unit # 360 (Colorado State Patrol) **SOLD BACK TO CSP**
1996 Bronco XL 5.8L (California Highway Patrol)
Reply With Quote