1999 Explorer into 1950 F1

[Rick50]

New member. Using my 99 Explorer as a donor car for my 1950 Ford F1. Currently have rear axle mounted with torsion bar and framed c-notched. Just putting the motor in. Going to try using wiring harness. Any help/tips would be appreciated.

 

[imp]

New member. Using my 99 Explorer as a donor car for my 1950 Ford F1. Currently have rear axle mounted with torsion bar and framed c-notched. Just putting the motor in. Going to try using wiring harness. Any help/tips would be appreciated.

View attachment 326834

Great idea! Can't tell, EFI? See no manifold yet. Looks like a small block V-8. Please ask more detailed questions; "tips" might not apply.

 

[CDW6212R]

There have been a couple or more other Ford 50's trucks built around a full 96-01 Explorer chassis. You will likely do best to maintain the entire engine package with EFI, minus the exhaust manifolds. Replace those if you can, any other header will be far better than the 96-01 POS things.

You will need a 302 computer from a late 97 302 Explorer, and the engine/trans wiring harness for it, plus a return fuel system. That means changing a few parts taken from any 96-98 Explorer 302, and the PCM/wiring from the late 97 model. That one computer is the best for typical EFI SBF swaps. It does not require the ABS module like the 98-01 PCM does, it doesn't have PATS, and it does have the better EGR system(external with DPFE and the pipe to the manifold).

Find the other swap threads about old F100's, or any other threads for non Explorer swaps. Those should all detail more, these items I briefly covered here.

 

[Rick50]

Great idea! Can't tell, EFI? See no manifold yet. Looks like a small block V-8. Please ask more detailed questions; "tips" might not apply.

EFI. I took the manifold off to make it easier to install. Three questions I have now is 1) are there any restrictions for headers on the '99 302? The passenger side has a PCV pipe with a couple vacuum lines. 2) I am going to use the wiring harness out of the Explorer including the computer. It will have many wires not needed (door locks, electric mirrors, rear window defrost, etc., etc.). Can I just truncate them without any problems? 3) Is there a way to eliminate the O2 sensors? Any input is appreciated.

 

[donalds]

 

[CDW6212R]

You need the O2 sensors, the front two, the rear two are not critical. The engine and trans harness are one main unit, that will cover everything you need except the small AC and battery wiring harness.

Those 302 heads are GT40P, all 302 manifolds or headers will bolt to them, but the spark plugs come out at a different angle. So some regular headers may have their pipes too close at the plugs to allow plug wires to attach without touching too much. It's not easy to say which will work, some people post that what they used worked for GT40P heads, many don't. That's a tough question, I'd day look carefully at the plug angle of your heads, and then the primaries of any header you look at. You need the pipes to come out as straight as possible, not towards where the GT40P plug wires would have to go.

You cannot use the 1999-2001 Explorer computer to run that engine in the old Ford. It would have to have with it, the ABS module or aftermarket device to simulate the speed signal that in those models, comes from the ABS module. The best answer is to find the easy to buy late 97 PCM, and the return style fuel rails, injectors etc.

 

[imp]

EFI. I took the manifold off to make it easier to install. Three questions I have now is 1) are there any restrictions for headers on the '99 302? The passenger side has a PCV pipe with a couple vacuum lines. 2) I am going to use the wiring harness out of the Explorer including the computer. It will have many wires not needed (door locks, electric mirrors, rear window defrost, etc., etc.). Can I just truncate them without any problems? 3) Is there a way to eliminate the O2 sensors? Any input is appreciated.

For above: 1) follow advice of @CDW6212R for header info. I'm "way earlier" in that respect. 2) Beware that certain functions you do not need are tied into the PCM for safety considerations. If you expect to utilize full EFI operation, and wind up with ABS requirement, that function is capable of "shutting you down" under certain circumstances. Two specific codes do it: "Forced Engine Idle", and "Forced Engine Shutdown". This happened to me, took LOTS of perseverance to sort it out.

The two main Ford EFI schemes are EEC-IV, used until 1995, EEC-V used thereafter. IV is MUCH more agreeable to modifications without dire things resulting. I used it exclusively in converting carburreted engines to EFI, with good results. I recommend strongly you get a copy of Charles Probst's book, "Ford Electronic Fuel Injection". It got me through many headaches.

EEC-IV uses one 02 sensor per bank of cylinders, making for good operation. The EGR function is easily blocked off without dire results. IV used a smog pump, easily deleted. Both kinds of air volume measurement were used: Speed Density, and Mass Air. Speed Density estimates the air volume entering the engine, based on it's size and speed (and relative humidity, barometric pressure, etc.); far better is Mass Air, which actually measures the amount of air flowing. Speed Density is very fussy about engine modifications; Mass Air allows even supercharging, it will handle it. Both were used, from late '80s on. Mustangs got Mass Air in 1989, but certain other applications, notably F-Series trucks, continued with Speed Density. Consult with Probst for details.

EEC-V brought in OBD-II, On Board Diagnostics II in 1996, which complicated matters. Many will argue with me on this. Which way you go will be your call.

 

[CDW6212R]

I saw OBDII as an improvement in PCM ability, speed and adaptability for changes of all kinds. I would prefer a later computer yet for some things, like supercharging, but that gets harder to adapt due to more OEM complications, GEM's and CANBus etc.

That's what makes the 97.5 computer the middle ground best, IMO. The wiring harness and required things outside the engine, are as minimal as any older EFI, and is a good step up in computer power over EECIV or TBI stuff.

 

[imp]

I saw OBDII as an improvement in PCM ability, speed and adaptability for changes of all kinds. I would prefer a later computer yet for some things, like supercharging, but that gets harder to adapt due to more OEM complications, GEM's and CANBus etc.

That's what makes the 97.5 computer the middle ground best, IMO. The wiring harness and required things outside the engine, are as minimal as any older EFI, and is a good step up in computer power over EECIV or TBI stuff.

I must reluctantly agree with you, BUT: the latest technology gives up far too much control over the vehicle to the PCM to suit me. Much of it was aimed, to be sure, at avoiding very costly occurrences of warranty failure. For example, an overheat may shut down the engine, or low oil pressure. Questionable Throttle Position Sensor inputs shut mine off. The codes are n ot "cut and dried" verbatim. Mine was "Throttle Plate Stuck Open", and "throttle Plate Stuck Closed", two conditions obviously impossible to be seen.

So, where possible, I stick with the older EFI protocol.

 

[CDW6212R]

I agree, I don't like any of the newer vehicles combining functions into one module, or linking them and making it extremely difficult to work on etc.

The engine codes have always been very poor, I think because the early stuff had limited sensors to be able to pinpoint a problem. They should have created new codes each time they expanded the PCM power and sensors etc.

I considered for a short while, making my Ranchero EECIV speed density, or forcing the OBDII to run without a MAF. I don't want to use a MAF and intake hose for that vehicle, I would much prefer to have a 4-hole TB under a stock air cleaner. But it looks like the engine would not run nearly as well as with mass air, so I'll stick with the 97.5 PCM. I'll live with the MAF and inlet piping, I'll mount the old OEM air cleaner on top of the elbow at the intake, and run the intake pipe under the short snorkel piece.

 

[allmyEXes]

I have seen Ford trucks from 1948 to 1955 installed on Gen 2 chassis' and the fit is real good.
I'll be following along...
ADDED: My bad. That kind of looks like a stock pickup truck frame.

 

[Gary Crist]

How about treating it like an over grown Mustang!

Painless 1986-1995 Ford 5.0L Harness Standard Length

Ford 1986 - 1995 5.0L Fuel Injection Wiring Harness - 60510

www.eastwood.com

Lots of off the shelf stuff!

 

[allmyEXes]

Treat it like a modern day hotrod and use this...
Holley Teminator X

 

[boominXplorer]

In your situation I'd run a carb manifold with any of the newer fuel injection setups bolted on top. Then get a controller for the 4r70 to shift the transmission.

 

[Chris_A.]

Had a question about the speed sensor/ABS. I was under the impression that the signal could be injected on the engine side of the speed signal wire, gy/bk. The ABS, from the Ford schematics, is the supplier for it in stock trim.
The biggest part is how much the stock PCM and ABS can crosstalk on the bus? The shutdown thay you mentioned above I had found no reference to. If this is discussed elsewhere, please, add a pointer.

Another input to the above is that many EECV systems do not have a BAR/MAP sensor because it is calculated. Regressing the system may require a reprogrammed PCM. I have found no in-depth discussions on when Ford forces you to delete the anti-theft. (I want because I like my vehicle.)

I am working on a wiring schematic to assist my swap. Will share when done.

 

[CDW6212R]

Had a question about the speed sensor/ABS. I was under the impression that the signal could be injected on the engine side of the speed signal wire, gy/bk. The ABS, from the Ford schematics, is the supplier for it in stock trim.
The biggest part is how much the stock PCM and ABS can crosstalk on the bus? The shutdown thay you mentioned above I had found no reference to. If this is discussed elsewhere, please, add a pointer.
...

The ABS signal from the rear ABS sensor is not the VSS speed signal. As stated it is sent to the ABS module. It is conditioned inside the 98-01 ABS modules, it doesn't just "pass through." That why those 98-01 computers require the ABS module, or the VSS output from a rear output shaft of the trans, or transfer case. The 98-01 ABS module creates the needed VSS signal. It has been discussed before about how to otherwise create the VSS signal without the ABS module. So far nobody has found a good way to do it, besides the trans/TC output shaft. The later 4R trans, 2002+ish, those have an additional speed sensor at the middle of the case, but that also isn't the right VSS signal needed.

The transmission should be the place to acquire the VSS signal for many engine swaps., Ford removed it from the output shaft of various models, differing between 1998 and 2003ish. I read lately that the VSS is still in a 2002 F150 truck, and I think the Mustangs had it until the 2005 models.

 

[Chris_A.]

I agree on the requirement for the old VSS. What I have read indicates that this signal can be injected onto 679, the gy/bk wire at C115. Still trying to find if it makes a difference to attach the ground side to 57 or to 570.
The Ford schematics show that it should be possible to cut out the 4WABS wiring. My question is does the 4WABS-BCM bus (70) care if the 4WABS com does not function? The 4WABS does its own diagnostic. Outputs to dash.
Normally, 4WABS failure mode is power brakes.
I would just add the 4WABS for simplicity; but, the unit was designed for a vehicle that has a GCWR that is half of mine.

 

[CDW6212R]

The Fords older than about 2005 didn't have many required modules that caused problems when one is removed etc. That CanBus system and similar are when the big issues started when altering things.

For this 2nd gen PCM system, this ABS issue is the worst you could have with them, and it's only about that VSS signal. As long as the PCM receives the proper VSS signal where it expects it(that circuit coming from the ABS module), you don't have to have the ABS module at all.

Those trucks also have a G-force sensor, rarely mentioned. I have forgotten what that feeds into, or how critical it is, others have gotten around it, with and without using one. You'll have to search more for those details, but I would not call that a #1 priority, but way down the list.

 

[Chris_A.]

The Fords older than about 2005 didn't have many required modules that caused problems when one is removed etc. That CanBus system and similar are when the big issues started when altering things.

For this 2nd gen PCM system, this ABS issue is the worst you could have with them, and it's only about that VSS signal. As long as the PCM receives the proper VSS signal where it expects it(that circuit coming from the ABS module), you don't have to have the ABS module at all.

Those trucks also have a G-force sensor, rarely mentioned. I have forgotten what that feeds into, or how critical it is, others have gotten around it, with and without using one. You'll have to search more for those details, but I would not call that a #1 priority, but way down the list.

Schematics indicate that the G-force Sensor only connects to the 4WABS module.

-4WABS monitors the electromechanical components of the system.

-Malfunction in 4WABS will cause the module to shut off or inhibit the system. However, normal power-assisted braking remains.

-Malfunctions are indicated by the ABS indicator in instrument cluster.

-Ignition switch in RUN, 4WABS carries out self-check on the anti-lock electrical system indicated by a 3 sec illumin of the ABS indicator in instrument cluster.

-The G-switch is used on 4x4 vehicles only. When driven in the 4-wheel drive mode, all 4 wheels are mechanically linked and a situation could arise where one wheel locks up and causes all 4 wheels to lock up and skid. The speed sensors would indicate the vehicle speed as zero. Without the G-switch, 4WABS would have no data to compare and would react as if the vehicle were stopped when in fact it is moving.

This was what the Ford manuals claim. Their accuracy might be questionable. ??? I have been looking really close at the schematics and have been unimpressed with their quality.

 

[CDW6212R]

...

-The G-switch is used on 4x4 vehicles only. When driven in the 4-wheel drive mode, all 4 wheels are mechanically linked and a situation could arise where one wheel locks up and causes all 4 wheels to lock up and skid. The speed sensors would indicate the vehicle speed as zero. Without the G-switch, 4WABS would have no data to compare and would react as if the vehicle were stopped when in fact it is moving.
...

That one paragraph there is simplistic and unrealistic for real physics. So take it all with a skepticism, the four wheels are not ever linked in a great degree which could stop each other. Only the brakes could stop all four wheels at the same time. Thanks for the actual manual descriptions and looking at schematics. Those are great references and can help a lot, but they should be a secondary to confirm what is really found in examples, in real world actions.

I think the best threads that mentioned the G-force sensor are here, and aimed at Sport Trac 302 swaps.