Brainstorming boost for V8 95-01's

I'm going to finally start on my project for fitting a KB 2200 blower to the V8 of my Mountaineer. I've revised details in my head about many things, but it's time to put some in print. I made this below while thinking of others' 302 based Explorers here.

Everyone will do things a little differently, and I'm not making plans to produce any parts beyond what I'll have to for my truck. I have four projects planned, and only this one will have boost. The others are my Lincoln, 99 Limited Explorer, and my old 72 Ranchero Sport.




The exhaust for the V8's is a must scrap and do over project. The manifolds have to be made bigger, and a simple short log manifold will be far better than anything attempted so far(short of the 1.75" long tubes that didn't quite get finished by Todd).

I have the KB 2200, it looks like the right size for the 500hp+ level. If the exhaust is done well enough, and an IC is big enough, then the boost can be in the teens and stay reliable.

I have a TFS R lower to build onto, but the going prices for a solid Windsor head are very close to $2000. I don't want to go that high for an inferior design. Any Cleveland head gets you above most aftermarket Windsor heads, even a stock 2V version. So if I have to spend that kind of money for heads, then the CHI 3V that I'm looking at for my Ranchero would also be close to that, and they are much better heads. Those will make 500hp+ in a NA SBF easily. So that leaves the intake required for those heads, they only come as a tall open four barrel style(with EFI bungs). I think the height is 6 3/8", and can be cut down to 5.5" at most. I'm not sure what that'd leave above it for an IC, that detail has to be sorted before committing to those heads and intake.

The Cleveland heads have better exhaust port spacing(bolt pattern), but come out at a different angle(downward more). The Windsor heads all come out kind of horizontal to ground. Cleveland heads are dead square in profile, so the ports are 90* from the block surface, so 45* from horizontal.

If all of that worked out, a Dart 332/347/363 of any kind with the good 10-15psi of boost should see 500hp easily, and the limit would be the rest of the drive train, and you pushing(risking) more boost(blower speed).

Feel free to chime and and discuss anything related to forcing air into a 302 based Explorer or a 351W if you have the extra time and skills. I don't think a 351W is needed for what the stroker 302's can do, and the chassis limits. I think 600rwhp is too high for me and my needs, safety etc.

 

[2000StreetRod]

351W would be a tight fit

Sounds like you're starting a very interesting project Don. I think stuffing a 351W into your AWD Mounty would be quite a challenge requiring lots of cutting to achieve a high flow exhaust system. Even decent headers on a SBF will be difficult. That was one reason I abandoned my idea of installing a 5.0L in my Sport which is just RWD. A 347 with internal improvements should be plenty fun to drive.

 

[CDW6212R]

Yes, the 302 based engines are the best fit besides the space for headers. For the engine itself the heads are a huge factor.

The stock Windsor heads are small in terms of performance(airflow). Lots of other heads can flow near 40% more air than the GT40 stuff, and those are the place to start to produce a lot of horsepower.

The Cleveland heads are just the best heads if you can make them work for the application. The high cost of Windsor heads may force me to use the 3V heads I've been eyeing.

 

[boominXplorer]

There are only a few challenges of a 351w swap. I had a friend that went from a 5.0 to the 5.8 in his ranger. I thought about it a few times but never went through with it.

The oil pan is different around the front and rear main bearings, swapping to a different pan or cut/weld 2 pans into one is your options.

The crank pulley balance is different most of the time, simple Re-balance of the stock 5.0 pulley and problem solved.

The CPS sensor length is different. I'm pretty sure my buddy used a 3.8 mustang drive and cut/welded the shaft. He said one slipped over the other and it made it easy getting it straight.

Headers- I'm pretty sure you have this covered

Lower intake- I'm pretty sure you have this covered but this would be a tough one. The best flowing lower is the gt40 lighting one. If you port n polish it outflows all aftermarket fuel injected 351 intakes out there. Only problem is they are getting hard to find under $500. Watch out when buying 2nd hand as they had a cast iron version for boats that is waaay heavier.

 

[CDW6212R]

I'm settled on a 302 block, the Dart 302 or a similar version. One turned up last month for $1500 or so plus shipping, but I'm not quite ready to begin that yet.



I am planning to build a 351 shortblock for my Ranchero though, including the DIS parts to keep it EFI using the Explorer PCM and accessories. That will be a stock roller 351 block, and the 3V Cleveland heads I mentioned.

 

[Dono]

I'm extremely interested in what you come up for with the heads.

I'm sure part of my issue has been the gt40p's. No one can understand why I was running in to detonation with the timing I was running in the first place. I'll have some time to re-think what I'm going to do, so I'll sit back, relax, and watch this thread.

 

[CDW6212R]

There are tons of heads to choose from, so it comes down to your price range. You used to be able to somewhat often find used TFS TW heads for the $750 range, depending on condition etc. I was hunting those for a 306 project for my 99 Limited, but I missed on two, and found a GT40X copycat head for a good deal.

Price the Twisted Wedge heads, not from venders like Summit, but builders like FordStrokers. Those should be available with premium parts and matched(cam designer chosen) valve springs, or be available with them. Venders like Summit will not vary anything, and often the parts are a little better from the specialty head builders.

So I may be wrong(I hope I am) about the pricing of the latest popular TFS heads. If those can still be had for the $1500 or so range, that will work for me. For boost you don't have to go nuts on heads, the flow/size and highest end stuff. Don't go small, but boost will improve the usefulness any head.



That's where the idea of the 3V head came from. Those come from Australia at around a $2500 retail(US price is better), but might be price comparable if the TFS head is running near $2k. The 3V heads all start at near 300cfm, 290ish for the smallest 185cc version, and at similar pricing the 208cc, 225cc etc, are good choices given the right engine size and rpm. I couldn't consider those for my Mark VII, the required special headers and carb style intake wouldn't do for my Lincoln. But my Mountaineer project is going to include custom exhaust manifolds in any case. The intake can be anything too since the intercooler mounts directly above it, with a fabricated mount. So the labor would be similar for most head choices for me.

 

[CDW6212R]

Here's a picture of the only example that gives a rough idea of my Mountaineer engine project;

The KB is mounted near where it normally would be placed over the driver's VC. But the KB plenum is not used to attach it to a GT40 lower. Instead, any intake can be used(better than the small GT40), and I make a plenum to attach the IC to the intake, and a plenum from that over to the blower. That means that the plenums have to be made carefully to fit the engine bay. The blower will need some more support, so I'm expecting to include a steel plate at the back of the KB, that bolts to the back of the head.

Space at the firewall for the plenum to go around will be tight, that will be the trickiest thing to build. If that does go well, I'll have it end near where the stock elbow ends, facing forward. That gets the horrible 90* turn out of the system, and that's a big thing too.

 

[Dono]

I wonder what a welder could do with a gt40 lower that has been cut right back so you could have the right angles to the block/heads and just build on the base?
Im not even sure if this would be a big deal for you though. I'm not a great fabricator.

 

[2000StreetRod]

inverted blower?

On the KB 2200 the inlet is at the rear (Cobra application shown).

And the outlet is at the bottom near the front.

It looks like you plan to mount the unit inverted and then channel the output sideways to the top of the intercooler and then down into the head ports. If so, that's a clever way to reduce the height. However, it means the blower has to be pulled to remove the valve cover on that side. But at least the hood can be closed without modifying it.

 

[CDW6212R]

That's how all of the KB kits mount those blowers on the SBF's, the outlet is at the top and the plenum runs it over to the GT40 intake. The blowers have four oil fill holes, to mount them four different ways.

Here's a picture of the SN95 KB kit in an Explorer, a member here sold the kit this past Spring.

 

[CDW6212R]

The GT40 intakes have small ports, low airflow, and not great for big power. Pictured below is the one I'm planning to use, the TFS R lower, it's made for high rpm on a 302, with the biggest long runner ports. Intakes made for carb's can get bigger still, but those are just different to work with(the square inlet area).

 

[CDW6212R]

Here's a TFS R lower in a turbo Mustang, showing the adapter they used between it and an intercooler.

 

[2000StreetRod]

intake runner length

With a positive displacement blower short intake runner length shouldn't decrease performance significantly. I suspect decreasing high IATs with an intercooler is more important.

 

[CDW6212R]

I chose the TFS R intake because it has the straightest, and largest ports of the "long runner" intakes. It's also one of the very shortest. I also have an Edelbrock Victor 5.0 lower that I got before seeing the TFS intake. The Victor 5.0 is much taller(the upper intake has more runner length in the TFS unit).

All I cared about was the lower intake, as you can see pictured above, the ports are short and straight at the head ports.

Below is a 302 with the 3V 185cc heads and matching intake. That carb opening would be harder to fit a good sized intercooler onto. I'd prefer to use the TFS intake with the ports in a line, and lower down.