Engine compatibilty?

[SoNic67]

I have a 2001 Explorer with 5.0L V8 and AWD (4R70W transmission, 4404 Borg-Warner transfer case/diff).

Are there any mods possible to swap the engine with the newer 5.4L V8 (2 valve) from Excursion? I saw that engine and it looks smaller in size than the 5.0L. Or a Lincoln Navigator DOHC 5.4L V8 (4 valve)?
Heck, even the 4.6L DOHC from Mercury Marauder or Lincoln Aviator would be nice to have.

 

[Dan Whitaker]

The 4.6 is wider than a 5.0 and the 5.4 is even wider than the 4.6. You might as well put a 460 in it as it wouldn't be any less work.

 

[SoNic67]

Well, they fit the 4.6L in an Explorer bay already, I don't think is a problem.
And looking at the new Expedition engine bay (non-EL), seems that is the same as the Ex and it has a 5.4L with lots of space around it.

 

[Dan Whitaker]

The third gens have a totally different frame than the second gen. The expedition has a wider frame than an Explorer.

A 4.6 might fit but try and fit exhaust manifolds and see how well you fare.

 

[CDW6212R]

The pre-2002 Explorers are way too narrow for anything but a smallblock V8. The mod engines are much wider, they are wider than almost all bigblocks.

The lack of space around the steering shaft, frame, and AC unit make anything but a 302 engine not good. You can do it, but the AC has to go and the fabrication of the other custom parts surrounding the engine is massive.

Instead of that massive headache, spend more time researching how much can be done with a 302 based engine. The exhaust is the biggest hurdle, if you will commit to whatever it costs to have decent 1.75" headers made for it, then the power limit will just depend on the engine budget. You can make 500HP+ with a smallblock, the parts are available readily.

The cost of either a radical engine swap or a high end 302 may be similar, but one is far more complicated than the other, including the loss of AC.

 

[GuardianSport]

351C swap is the way to go, with EFI and a 4R70W transmission. Heed my words.

 

[SoNic67]

351C with EFI?

 

[CDW6212R]

351C swap is the way to go, with EFI and a 4R70W transmission. Heed my words.

The Cleveland heads are also much bigger than 302 parts, ports and all. The deck height(9.2") is also too much, giving the owner the same problem as swapping to a 4.6 or 5.4, too much trouble.

I love Clevelands, but for the tiny Explorer engine bay, only the 302 deck height(8.2") makes sense.

For a 302 block, everything is a bolt on except for the possible custom header if you chose to make big power. All other engines require custom work for everything, and likely for headers too.

 

[GuardianSport]

Err...

Not only did Ford built a 2nd gen Ford Explorer with a 4.6, but the guys on Trucks! did the same with a Mazda B2500.

The 351C would be less cumbersome than the 4.6.

 

[Dan Whitaker]

Err...

Not only did Ford built a 2nd gen Ford Explorer with a 4.6, but the guys on Trucks! did the same with a Mazda B2500.

The 351C would be less cumbersome than the 4.6.

And look at all the modifications the did to get it to fit/work. I would like to see this 4.6 powered 2nd gen you speak of.

 

[CDW6212R]

I saw about half of that episode, it was okay but that was back in the late 90's. They did have to fabricate a lot, and you know how the TV shows make everything seem simple and easy. Here you can find examples of real people and the actual labor and costs involved with those kind of swaps.

The parts availability for the 302 has grown even more since the 90's. Back then a stroker 302 would be an easy $5k, just due to the expense of crank/rods/pistons and support parts. Now you can get a stroker shortblock for under $2500, and get heads/cam/intake parts which are much better than what was available back then(for a feasible price).

Back then a budget engine swap with basically stock parts was feasible compared to high cost 302 parts. Now one way costs about the same, but the 302 parts are nearly half of what they were.

Unless some nut decides to fabricate swap parts for 4.6/5.4/351's into these Explorers, and produces them to sell, it's not the best plan. Of course that isn't going to happen, so if you want one of those engines, you will have to be the fabricator and do it yourself.

 

[GuardianSport]

And look at all the modifications the did to get it to fit/work. I would like to see this 4.6 powered 2nd gen you speak of.

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=755

Points for not keeping up with the forum.

 

[DieselHilux]

I am working on putting a 4.6 in a 99 ranger, it is not as involved as it has been said, you do have to delete the AC and possibly mod the steering shaft but it can and has been done in rangers, and the exploder has the same engine compartment.

A guy on a ranger forum put a DOHC 4.6 in a ranger and another member put a SOHC in one.

Mine is a SOHC and should fit without modding the steering shaft but that is yet to be seen..

As for moddng a 302, I have one thing to say to that, you can only polish a turd so much and it will always be a turd.........

I personally rebuilt the 4.6 going in my ranger and have rebuilt many 302's. The differences in the two are amazing, the 4.6 is a much MUCH better engine, it is not only more technically advanced design but does more with less and alot of parts (aftermarket) are available for them.

The 302 is a dinosaur, the 4.6/5.4 is a modern design that ford engineered using all they knew about the older engines and improved upon them.

 

[GuardianSport]

302 isn't necessarily a dinosaur, that Ford Racing revamped the design with the 363 stroker is proof enough that the powerplant is as solid today as it was years ago.

I can't fault you for anything else you've said. The 302 represents the budget and simplicity minded individual. It is not a "turd" as the base metaphor suggests, but at the same time the 4.6 family of engines is the future of small V8s going into these vehicles, potentially saving them as gas prices never cease to rise.

Also, I believe the Tremor has air-conditioning. I would personally be dumbfounded if not, there is no mention. Clearly the stock set up has to go, but that doesn't negate the possibility.

Anyways, DH, I would absolutely be honored if you were to do a full build thread, write-up with pics on your 4.6 swap. We really need to break the concept that the 4.6 in our Explorers is a no-go situation.

Now, if you cast out the idea on the "dinosaur" engine (ie. anything older than 15 years), what are your thoughts on the dreamed-of 351 Cleveland EFI swap?

 

[DieselHilux]

The 351C is still a dinosaur, albeit a more powerful one.

Any old pushrod, non-deep skirted block V8 is (in my mind anyway)

In is not just the over head cam that makes the 4.6 a more modern engine, it is the block, head design, oil pump and system, intake system, cooling system, heck even the gasket tech is light years ahead of the old 302's

The 4.6 makes more power stock then the 302 which out-displaces it and does it more efficiently.

A side note to add, the 4.6 is MUCH easier to work on, the plugs are up top, no ignition wires to worry about, they use silicon seals on everything (leak free), the water pump is sealed with a o-ring and VERY easy to change, no POS timing cover to leak, ect......

I daily drive a mountaineer with a 302 in it and I speak from experience.

 

[DieselHilux]

And yes I will put a build up on here when I am done with my ranger

 

[SoNic67]

Great answers. I am looking into replacing my aging 302 if doesn't take too many fabrications. I have a 4 valve DOHC in my Sable and that engine never give me problems, that's why I was looking into a 3-4 valve 4.6L DOHC. I would love to keep the AC.

The 5 valve variable intake Tremor concept is very nice, but with the new PCM might end up too expensive.

 

[GuardianSport]

That concept isn't going beyond concept - it's from 1998...



Doesn't mean we can't make our own, damnit!

 

[CDW6212R]

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=755

Points for not keeping up with the forum.

What is the second SUV pictured here? I like that one, and I have not liked any Explorer since 2001.

The 4.6 mod engine sucked when it was first built, and it has been embarrassing for about 15 years in terms of power. Any OHC engine should have a benchmark to hit of close to 1hp per liter. If you cannot reach anywhere near that, then the engine sucks IMO. Now the pushrod engines take a lot more to reach that, but they have always been able to do it.

The 4.6 new generation of engines in the last five years have finally begun to make the kind of power that they should have in the early 90's. Ford is extremely well known for under achieving, and the 4.6 is no exception. I would never choose to install a huge engine that has less potential than a much smaller engine.

The new 4.6's have great potential, and all of it is in the heads, intake, PCM control etc. The short block was never a major issue, the lack of high airflow heads always has been until the last few years.

I can see and support installing a current 4.6 engine etc, they have great potential and can justify the difficulty. But no one is really going to do that, the swaps have all been the older 4.6, not worth the effort IMO.

Feel free to go ahead and do it, all I'm asking is that you don't confuse novices with the idea that the old 4.6 is better than the 302, it isn't. You spend similar money on either engine, and the 302 will match the 4.6(similar money). Don't compare apples and oranges, you can't spend $5k on your 4.6 swap and say it's not fair to spend $5k on a 302. I think the costs will be much higher though, I wouldn't install a used engine and most people know how expensive a stock 4.6 build is. You spend $10k on your swap, I want $10k in my engine too.

 

[GuardianSport]

10k in a 302? Damn, what a powerplant that would be.