1998 Explorer 5.0 engine upgrade

[CDW6212R]

Hmm, the Galaxie was a full frame car. If the wheelbase is close and the rear suspension could fit(the car is lower than a typical old Ford truck that people already drop onto the 96-01 chassis), it might work. The late Crown Vic would be a better platform for that chassis swap though.

 

[Gormanjames21]

Hi Jim and welcome to the Explorer forum. The 302 in EFI form is very good as an all around engine for a heavy car, the 302 Explorers are 4500lbs. The carb and Performer will hurt the bottom end, keeping the EFI would gain more down low than any cam or other possible changes. But if you have to do the carb for simplicity, it'll be fine.

You are old enough to see what a lot of things cost these days. Keep reading and figure out what kind of costs you can handle, much of your issues will be the labor, finding decent reliable people or shops.

The stock cam is good for any basic street uses, only if you upgrade the heads, intake, and cam/valvetrain could it help to go to roller rockers or bigger upgrades. The 1.7's for example only gain lift by 1.7/1.6 math, the stock .444 lift is gross, not cam lobe. So 1.7's might gain .47" more lift. That's plenty for any stock cam and not having PTV issues. But the power gains would not be felt, and definitely not gain any real rpm, so the rpm shift point would still be near 5k. The stock rockers will be virtually silent, roller rockers are fairly loud, even when adjusted properly.

I have a pair of new Flotek 58cc heads I got after someone else had them ported. They are new with upgraded custom cam springs, I'd take $1100 for them even since the cost increases. Those are very good for mild builds, a street 302 is the right application for them. Those more expensive heads you see that are $1800ish and more, those are all great heads and more for much more powerful levels.

I have a best friend who has his dad's Galaxie that he never got to restore. He'd like to fix it, but I doubt he will, it's rough but more or less intact. I don't know what parts are available from the aftermarket, lots of old parts like trim and interior etc, those make a restoration a huge challenge. Good luck with the project Jim, I hope it works out and is lots of fun.

Thanks for the reply, I really thought with 410/430 gears and a 4 speed toploader & the mild build roller 5.0 would get the heavy Galaxie to move off of the line good enough to feel some power. Let me ask you this, without going to a big block to achieve the torque which is much needed and critical in the 4,000lb Galaxie, This coming Thursday I can purchase a 351 Windsor non Stroker a nice stout build, aluminum heads, stout cam, etc, 420 horse / 420 torque, 10:5:1 compression, I can pick it up for $2400 dollars. Engine is built right, even though it’s still a small block and a non Stroker, what’s your thoughts on that with a 4 speed or 5 speed and let’s say some 389 gears to boot. Even though I’m stripping down the car a bit to lighten it up it’s a nice car, its in the shop getting painted, I had my doubts about the body for the paint was all weathered and faded and cracked, believe it or not it was stripped down to bare metal and there was zero 0 rust on the car, zero. It’s has a tubular front end and disc brakes on the front. So honest opinion on the 351, I can get it this Thursday and sell the 5.0 someone will definitely buy the 5.0 and can prob get close to what I’m paying for the 351 which I believe is a steel, forgot to mention the 351 has a roller cam. Jim.

 

[CDW6212R]

That 351 is a good thought, but it should also depend on what the heads are etc. The roller cam is kind of a requirement, it's much harder to do well with a flat tappet cam. Plus converting a non roller block engine, will add well over $1200 to upgrade to a roller. If that 351 has many of the main ingredients you need, then the price might not be too bad. Everything is crazy high now, machine work for an engine has pushed a build cost to at least $2k depending on the parts used.

If you haven't had a ride in a stock 302 Explorer(all have 3.73 gears and a 2.84:1 1st gear in the trans), it could help to try it. The launch is very good for a 4500lbs vehicle, far better than older Fords before EFI. But the power after the launch will leave you wanting, and the gears alone won't really impress people. That's the key with hot rodding, everybody is trying to make more power. Now the new production cars are so fast that a POS V6 car will beat most old muscle cars. So you live with it or think harder on how to improve what you have.

 

[Turdle]

For more later, can't beat the displacement.

I'd bet 351 headers are more easily acquired also.

IMO 351 for your goals.

 

[Gormanjames21]

For more later, can't beat the displacement.

I'd bet 351 headers are more easily acquired also.

IMO 351 for your goals.

Thanks Guy, the Windsor I can buy is putting out roughly 420-450 ft lbs of torque, that should get the job done I would think, the 390 fe puts out roughly 420 ft lbs if I’m correct, but the Windsor is a far lighter engine especially with the aluminum heads that are on it. I didn’t realize that the 302 would disappoint so much. I’m 69 years old and back in the early 70s a big Impala 1962-1966 with a 283 4 speed with 411s would get down pretty good and lay some decent rubber, the Impala is a heavy car also, thought the 5.0 would do the same. Jim.

 

[CDW6212R]

Check on the heads of that 351. If they are nothing special such as a GT40 like head, which is no high airflow, then the value isn't that much. I've got a used 351 with OEM level heads that were mildly ported and comparable to many low end heads of today. I don't consider my 351W valuable, it's basically a core to build something better, maybe worth 3-$400.

The machine work and engine assembly is valuable too though, if that one you can get is well put together, then it can be upgraded easily later. But my point was the heads, if they are worth over $1k alone, then that adds that to the engine value. If they are not worth that much, then you'll be shopping for something better later. Ask about the heads, what model were they new, and what has been done to them.

 

[Gormanjames21]

Check on the heads of that 351. If they are nothing special such as a GT40 like head, which is no high airflow, then the value isn't that much. I've got a used 351 with OEM level heads that were mildly ported and comparable to many low end heads of today. I don't consider my 351W valuable, it's basically a core to build something better, maybe worth 3-$400.

The machine work and engine assembly is valuable too though, if that one you can get is well put together, then it can be upgraded easily later. But my point was the heads, if they are worth over $1k alone, then that adds that to the engine value. If they are not worth that much, then you'll be shopping for something better later. Ask about the heads, what model were they new, and what has been done to them.

Heads are BluePrint, engine is 10:5:1 with flat tops, aluminum intake and a 650 Holley, stout cam, etc. Engine is in a 53 Ford pickup and the fellow wants to put in something more driveable, more of a cruiser type engine that he can enjoy, he’s in his 70s and I can see his point. Engine is a honest 420 hp/420 torque. I can get it this Thursday and am thinking 2400 dollars is a pretty good deal, im thinking that will push the Galaxie the way I want it to. Jim.

 

[CDW6212R]

The Blueprint heads are typically about 230-240cfm heads, so those should be a decent building point. It sounds good for what's mentioned, probably a good buy. Look over the valvetrain closely before installing the engine. Replace the front main seal, and the rear too if it leaks much.

 

[410Fortune]

The gt40 302 is anything but disappointing
The stock explorer exhaust manifolds are choking the power it can make

But if you give this forum the option of 302 stockish or a 351 that is already mildly built… and then mention its going into an old galaxy

The forum will choose the 351 everytime
So would I!
No replacement for displacement

 

[Gormanjames21]

The Blueprint heads are typically about 230-240cfm heads, so those should be a decent building point. It sounds good for what's mentioned, probably a good buy. Look over the valvetrain closely before installing the engine. Replace the front main seal, and the rear too if it leaks much.

Thank you Sir for your reply, I will do exactly what you suggested. Jim.

 

[Gormanjames21]

The gt40 302 is anything but disappointing
The stock explorer exhaust manifolds are choking the power it can make

But if you give this forum the option of 302 stockish or a 351 that is already mildly built… and then mention its going into an old galaxy

The forum will choose the 351 everytime
So would I!
No replacement for displacement

Jim here, I totally agree 100%. Thanks, Jim.

 

[gktbay]

Hello everyone, Jim here. I have a stock 1998 5.0 Explorer engine that I’m converting to a carb setup and installing in my 1964 Galaxie, I will be running an electric fuel pump to simplify things. The engine is all stock with the stock pistons still in place. I have purchased a set of 1.7 pedestal mount rocker arms to give the stock cam a little more lift, im leaving in the stock cam and dont plan on changing it. I also purchased the valve spring improvement kit to upgrade the stock valve springs. I know that the rocker arm and valve spring upgrades have been done numerous times by you guys, my question is : will I have piston to valve contact by doing these 2 improvements? Most people I have talked to say absolutely no interference with pistons hitting the valves install and don’t look back, a few others say to clay the top of the piston to make sure, I really don’t want to tear into the engine and open up a can of worms for im not a engine builder/mechanic so the cost is out of pocket and it will tie up the engine from being installed for a very long time. Your thoughts and honest advice from you guys that have done these two improvements on your stock engine for a little more performance. Thanks, Jim.

Good Morning, Gregory (Stangitman) here from Tampa Bay area in Florida. My sons and I have often used the 1.72's with absolutely no valve to piston issues on several 5.0 motors in our earlier years of many Mustang Foxbody projects. It was determined this mod yielded approximately .030" more valve lift. Have at it ...

 

[gktbay]

Just for fun ... we do have a 1970 Thunder Jet 429 motor packed away - nostalgic consideration, just sayin'.

 

[Gormanjames21]

Good Morning, Gregory (Stangitman) here from Tampa Bay area in Florida. My sons and I have often used the 1.72's with absolutely no valve to piston issues on several 5.0 motors in our earlier years of many Mustang Foxbody projects. It was determined this mod yielded approximately .030" more valve lift. Have at it ...

Thanks for the encouraging info sir, much appreciated. Jim.