Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Performance Upgrades - Maintenance - Modifications - Problem Solving - Off-Road - Street Trucks. Covering the Explorer, ST, Sport, Lincoln Aviator, Sport Trac, Mercury Mountaineer, Mazda Navajo, Ford Ranger, Mazda Pickups, and the Aerostar. Featuring H.I. - Human Intelligence.
I ceratinly wouldn't spend 10k on a 4.0. If you are going to spend that kind of cash it'd be on a 347. After you get the motor all set up those twin turbos are going to roast your tranny. Then you'll be looking at losing OD, or spending the $$$on a 700r4. Klowns did put on a turbo. Then he smoked the motor right away. Turbo'ing an Explorer is a big job. Very little room. For most people a charger is a easier, cheaper, safer route. You get more power from a turbo because they aren't as parasitic as a charger.
Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year. Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,. Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!.
Nitrous oxide is the cheapest horsepower booster. If you change the power output of a stock explorer without changing the weak links in the driveline, it is simply a matter of time before something breaks. How fast do you want to go or how much money do you have to spend?
One major downside of a Turbo charged explorer is likely hood of burning your truck to the ground. The engine bay of the explorer is already tight with the 5.0L. Now, add to it more hot exhaust piping and one or two turbos? Yikes, it is going to be a cooker. I have heard of one Turbo Explorer V8, which burned to the ground on its maiden trip - supposedly a brake line was leaking and hit the exhaust, but it was only a matter of time. The V6 will afford some extra room, but not an appreciable amount. Be careful.
Also, I don't buy the turbo being more durable than a supercharger system. More top end power I agree. Long term duability - I 'll take a positive displacement S/C anyday. This is speaking from experinece of owning both turbo and S/C vehicles.
i have a turbo 4.0 .... no turbo lag ... you cannot run over 10 psi before you blow the headgaskets .... the turbo is from a buick grand national ... bought it on e-bay already rebuilt for less then 300.00 shipped ... at 10 psi it it runs corrected 13.70@104, no intercooler but i did have water injection ... 291 hp and 345 lb torque@3500 rpms with 15psi and intercooled..... i had 5psi at 2800rpms and 15psi@3800 rpms .... with 12 wide slicks it breaks the tires loose at the top of first starting from a roll at idle .... no turbo lag ..... i still have no tuning as of yet ... after you get the block o-ringed the weak link is the crank ... if i would to do it again i would run about 8 psi safely with a stock engine with bolt-ons and water injection .... if a 4.0 puts out 160hp with bolt-ons... if you want 50% more hp you would need 7.3 psi, you can run about 5-6psi with no water injection and no tuning .... the supercharger companies run this psi with no chips ..... 5 psi still will give you a 30% in power to give you a total of 208 .... a blower takes about 10-15%hp just to turn it
i have a turbo 4.0 .... no turbo lag ... you cannot run over 10 psi before you blow the headgaskets .... the turbo is from a buick grand national ... bought it on e-bay already rebuilt for less then 300.00 shipped ... at 10 psi it it runs corrected 13.70@104, no intercooler but i did have water injection ... 291 hp and 345 lb torque@3500 rpms with 15psi and intercooled..... i had 5psi at 2800rpms and 15psi@3800 rpms .... with 12 wide slicks it breaks the tires loose at the top of first starting from a roll at idle .... no turbo lag ..... i still have no tuning as of yet ... after you get the block o-ringed the weak link is the crank ... if i would to do it again i would run about 8 psi safely with a stock engine with bolt-ons and water injection .... if a 4.0 puts out 160hp with bolt-ons... if you want 50% more hp you would need 7.3 psi, you can run about 5-6psi with no water injection and no tuning .... the supercharger companies run this psi with no chips ..... 5 psi still will give you a 30% in power to give you a total of 208 .... a blower takes about 10-15%hp just to turn it
here is another site ....http://www.imagestation.com/member/?name=racebronco2 ..... a similar set-up can be made for a ranger or explorer but the exhaust will be more difficult because of the battery, windshield washer, and stock air box, the exhaust up to the turbo will be the same, but the down pipe will have to be 2 1/2 downpipe ....
so why the tempo front end .... tempo was the only front end that would fit with only minor mods, originally wanted to put a taurus front end on but to much work ..... i wanted an aero front end, the stock front end, and rear was about as aero as a school bus .... and when you are doing 140 the stock front end has no down force ... and i also lost about 50lbs ... there is very little whine, there is a whoosh when in boost and i let off the gas ... even with a flow thru muffler it is quietier than the 3 chamber flowmaster ... as for the intake ... it is a stock intake with the tb mounted on the side, i had a shop weld up the front .... the tb is 70mm .... the tb and throttle cable/bracket is from a supercoupe ....
Ah I see now how the intake manifold was modified. How do you have the idle air control passages set up? It looks like the area where the TB is mounted was fabricated instead of using the old mount that you must have cut off.....how did you do that part?
Ah I see now how the intake manifold was modified. How do you have the idle air control passages set up? It looks like the area where the TB is mounted was fabricated instead of using the old mount that you must have cut off.....how did you do that part
if you use the supercoupe/mustang(don't remember which year mustangs but i think the last years of the 5.0) tb it has the isc on the throttlebody. the tb and the tps sensors use the stock truck connectors. the tb mount is cut of off a supercoupe inlet manifold, 70mm is the inside diameter of the mount so there is really no use going bigger .... that is probably why bbk only makes the tb 66mm for the 4.0, the inlet to the intake is 66mm ......
i was not able to get ahold or Mr Flemming. I do see him from time to time however, so I will keep my eyes peeled
I vote Supercharger for an OHV 4.0L, turbo your import
if you use the supercoupe/mustang(don't remember which year mustangs but i think the last years of the 5.0) tb it has the isc on the throttlebody. the tb and the tps sensors use the stock truck connectors. the tb mount is cut of off a supercoupe inlet manifold, 70mm is the inside diameter of the mount so there is really no use going bigger .... that is probably why bbk only makes the tb 66mm for the 4.0, the inlet to the intake is 66mm ......[/QUOTE]
Cool....that clears things up....one more question though if you don't mind Ok, this pretty much shows how little I know about airflow physics and how it applies with engines but.....
Because of the way the inlet is placed....won't the middle two cylinders get more of the air charge than the other 4 cylinders to the front and rear? A lot of mustang intakes I've seen have the inlet port on the same side of the manifold as the runner ports....like this:
so the air charge comes in from the passenger side....I am imagining it spreading out when it hits the drivers's side of the manifold, and then being pulled into whatever intake runner port has an open valve down in it.
Maybe this design is supposed to increase the effective length of the runners?
Maybe whatever side the TB inlet is on doesn't matter because air is only going to be pulled down a runner when the valve in that runner is open?
the design does increase the runner length, they (engineers) design a manifold for a specific torque rpm .... the long runners act like a ram manifold, increasing torque and horsepower in the lower rpms, at a cost of higher rpms horsepower loss, but the trade off is usually worth the loss of hp because the amount of increased torque and hp in a more usable range is better than a few horsepower only at the top end .... the reason i made my intake on the side is for three reasons ... easier to plumb the turbo to intake ... the less turns you have the more flow you will have ..... since it was going to be blown the turbo will pressurize the intake so all cylinders will run about the same a/f ratio .... depending how the ecu adjust the a/f the end cylinders will not have the same a/f as the center cylinders once you are at a steady speed
After playing with turbos on my diesel powered Jeep, I am totally sold on them over superchargers. If I were planning to keep my Ex, I'd be planning a turbo install. My recently acquired F150 IS going to get a turbo (maybe 2) in the near future. With a properly sized unit, you will have ZERO lag. You only need a big turbo if you want to make some insane HP for racing. But, since you can safely make 1.5hp per cube on pump gas without spinning the engine very fast (5000 rpm max) with a small turbo, there is no need to go big. I really don't care if the turbo is limiting me to 5k rpm if I'm able to pull 450+ft/lbs of torque from 2000-4000+ rpm out of my 5.0. One of the turbo gurus over on the F150 boards is getting 478 HP and 543 FT/LBS at the wheels out of his 4.6.
One major downside of a Turbo charged explorer is likely hood of burning your truck to the ground. The engine bay of the explorer is already tight with the 5.0L. Now, add to it more hot exhaust piping and one or two turbos? Yikes, it is going to be a cooker. I have heard of one Turbo Explorer V8, which burned to the ground on its maiden trip - supposedly a brake line was leaking and hit the exhaust, but it was only a matter of time.
in my b2 i have the exhaust heat-wrapped except for the turbo .... the under hood heat is greatly reduced except for the guard around the turbo .... so heat is not a problem that can be handled ...
