4.7 v8 power?

4.6 v8 power?

I know you guys can do a lot to the 5.0 explorers to make them fast. What about the new 4.6 V8...... is there a lot of mods for them? I might get my dads in a year. Just wondering what is possible for it?

 

[Robb]

You mean 4.6L?

 

[SaleenEXP]

I'm guessing you meant 4.6, I don't know anybody that would want to swap in the "jeep" 4.7 ?

Heres a link on another thread on the new Explorers: http://explorerforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75608

And heres my reply from that thread: The Explorer 4.6 is an all aluminum engine based off the Romeo engines in Mustang GT's (windsor blocks stopped production a few years ago). The Explorer aluminum 4.6 is actually stronger then the blocks in the 96-01 GT's and Cobras (03' Cobras are iron with forged internals), a major difference is the thicker and stronger webbing on Explorer blocks that was sort of lacking on the 4.6 used in gt's/cobras. A lot of Mustang guys are snatching up 4.6 Explorer crate engines b/c of the stronger and more efficient design of the Explorer block. The engine itself can handle 800rwhp reliably, there are guys on the Mustang boards who have done it.

I'm pretty sure the Explorer crank is a 6 bolt and I've been told the heads are the same or very close to GT engines, a few people who have swapped blocks have said the cams are the same but I don't think so as I've spoken to SHM before when a friend was ordering Sean Hyland Motorsports parts for his 01' Cobra and they said the cams are not the same, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't stuff GT cams in their b/c the Explorer engine needs more low end being a heavy truck, plus I would think that if they used GT cams the rated power would be closer to a GT's as far as specs are concerned.

As for times, my neighbor's 02' 4.6 Explorer thats 2wd w/ 3.73 rear, ran the 1/4 at 15.7 at around 88mph completley stock. The 4.6 responds awsome to mods, he now has an intake and dual exhaust and now runs the quarter in the 15.4-15.5 range at 89-90mph or so, the 5 speed auto keeps the 4.6 in it's powerband the whole time, just stall the convertor and you'll be in the meat of the powerband on launch and when it shifts. Pulls friggen hard up in the revs, I was suprised at how high it was trapping with only 2 mods.

I'll attest to that as I've driven his at the track when he took his modded S4 there (R.I.P.). Also, I've ran 16.1 at 85-86mph stalling the convertor in our 00' 2wd 5.0 Mountaineer, and when I've raced him on the street, his Explorer beat me off the line and pulls right away, now he demolishes me with only an intake and exhaust.

Hehehe, wait untill he pulls next to me after this summer if I decide to go with a 4.6 Mountaineer and drop an 03' Cobra engine in, 03' engines are only going for about 7500 now compared to 12-14k before, maybe it'll drop a little more come summer. So far, it appears it'll be an easy swap with only a few changes on Mounting brakets and other things. The new 5 speed tranny is also rated to hold over 400hp and tq reliably but I think I'll have it shipped off to Lentech for them to strengthen. Also have to find out how much the IRS can handle on the Explorers as it's not a beefy setup like 03' Cobras, and I'm not sure how a live axle would be able to bolt up to the rear of an 03', thats the only thing I'm kinda worried about right now (blowing out the IRS).

EDIT - found a good link on the Explorer block, pretty much the same of what I was saying, but it shows the difference between the mustang/explorer blocks, you can see how the webbing and material is much stronger on Explorer engines like I was saying. Flip through the pics and you'll see how good of an block the 4.6 is, probably the best aluminum block today.
http://www.mustangweekly.com/2003/January/Block/block-1.asp

-Theirs a lot of potential in the 3rd gen's performance wise, just look at my sig Hell, the KenneBell Mountaineer (awd) w/ their twin screw charger, intake, and dual Magnaflow exhaust was good for high 13's in the 1/4 with an excellent launch thanks to awd, with no other mods, and that was the basic kit with a lot of room for more upgrading, modular engines produce an wicked torque curve w/ a twin-screw charger.

 

[blk mk8]

that post is wrong but the info there is mainly irelivent any ways.

 

[SaleenEXP]

Originally posted by blk mk8
that post is wrong but the info there is mainly irelivent any ways.

where was I wrong? I thought everything from the crank to the block was right from what I've said? I've been trying to learn the differences from the Explorer block and Mustang block, and thats from Mustang owners and reviews on the engine, and checking my neighbors Explorer.

That would suck if all the info I was trying to find out on the differences between the two blocks wasn't correct. But I would trust you and your shop more lol.

It was kinda irelivent though, I had stuff written for mods, but for some reason pasted that post over it

 

[Jason_25]

Originally posted by blk mk8
that post is wrong but the info there is mainly irelivent any ways.

Maybe you can enlighten us with your wisdom and actually post some information as to how saleen is wrong? All I ever see you do is post and brag about your truck

 

[murdach]

4.6 strength

I have a 2002 4.6 Xlt and it ran 15.59 on a
really humid day at Houston.
I work in Ford parts and compared a lot between
the Mustang and Explorer. The block is the same
as the Cobra it is stronger and the share a
crap load of parts.
The 4.6 is nothing to laugh at and I own
a 351C Mustang and am working on a
5.0 Ranger project.

 

[Robb]

Quoted by murdach:

"I have a 2002 4.6 Xlt and it ran 15.59 on a
really humid day at Houston."

From another post:

"Well my lease ran up and decided to buy a 2002
Xlt 4.6. I work at the dealer in parts so I ordered
it the way I wanted it. With out the bull that I
did'nt wanna pay for. No 3rd row seat ,class 2 towing,
gray cloth interior and such, w/ 3.55 gears.
In July 2002 I went back to the track. It ran a 13.01!! No mods at all."

So, is your stock Explorer a mid 15 sec. truck or a 13 sec. truck?


EDITED BY ALEC: I'm sorry, this member can't read

 

[Alec]

Can no one read? In that other post he said that track was 1000 ft, not 1330.

Please read posts fully before attacking someone.

 

[Robb]

Um yea, sorry about that. I misunderstood your first post. I can only wish I was more perfect like Alec and free of mistakes. And maybe someone can help me figure out the difference between asking a question and "attacking" someone. I would think that editing someone's post and making reference to them being illiterate is more af an attack than asking a question. But what do I know.........................

Once again, sorry I misunderstood there murdach!

 

[IAmTodd]

I'm sensing some tension between you 2?

Please disregard this post as it is irelivent to this entire message board

 

[murdach]

15's 1/4

No prob. guys I'm new here.
The Centerville,Ar track is 1000 ft
Houston (Baytown) is 1/4 mi.
The 29 th I'll be back at Centerville.
Got an intake spacer on the way, gonna see
how much it helps.

 

[Majisto]

Wait, whoa Saleen. You mean the Modular motor uses the 5R55E? Gosh, I hope not. I didn't know Ford had a 5-speed auto for the V-8s. I thought they still used the AOD-E based 4R70W *Confused*

 

[SaleenEXP]

Originally posted by Majisto
Wait, whoa Saleen. You mean the Modular motor uses the 5R55E? Gosh, I hope not. I didn't know Ford had a 5-speed auto for the V-8s. I thought they still used the AOD-E based 4R70W *Confused*

I said it was a 5R55E? I must have made a mistake somewhere, the tranny the 02's+ use is an 5R55W5, it's a wide ratio tranny. The 5R55W5 behind the 4.6 V8 is stronger then the one behind the sohc V6, Ford rated the 4.6 tranny to hold over 400hp and 450tq which KB and Performance West etc have easily achieved with no problems Not sure about the specs on the V6 one, I'm sure it's only a little less as they said the V8 tranny is beefed up a little more over the V6 one.

I think somebody just posted on the board the other day on their 02' V6 tanny failing, thats the 1st one I've heard of failing. Their very strong transmissions, our dealership hasn't had any tranny failures at all with the new 5 speeds.

 

[IAmTodd]

I thought the new 4.6's used the 5R55E? I could've sworn they did! Well then, I might not be so conservitive when I drive the '02 is ya know wat I mean!!

 

[murdach]

5R55E

Okay guys here it is. the 5R55E is only
behind the Rangers and Sport/ Trac Explorer 4.0's
It shares parts w/ the A4Ld P.O.S.
The 2002 has a new breed 5 speed
5R55w and 5R55S one goes behind the
4.6 the other the 4.0 both share a lot
of parts the torque converter is probably
the main diff. So far it's been a good trans.
Only seen 2 come thru for warranty work
since they came out. Can't say the same for
the 5R55E or 4R70W.

 

[Majisto]

Dude, the 4R70W is a great transmission. The 4R is based off the AOD-E which is in turn a built C4. The 5R55E---A4LD---C3 is a POS French built transmission.

So the 5R55W is NOT related at all to the 5R55E? Because the 5R55E is rated for 550 lbs/tq. If you read the "55" in the name, multiply it by 10 and you have the maximum torque, so the 5R44E has 440 lbs/ft torque maximum.

Something doesn't quite add up here. I wouldn't want ANY C3 based transmissions bolted up to the torque modular motor.

 

[The Cheat]

OK, someone break it down spread sheet style for me...all of this 5R55ESS7AOD-R5LNINNER crap is driving me nuts. I've had this X for 3 weeks now and I know I got the poo poo tranny, but what can I do about it? I've got the '01 Sport X 4.0 like BlackMagic's. I need the tranny cliffs notes so my noobie ass can get caught up with you guys...

 

[murdach]

5R55W

Okay my trans guy got one tore down
for the first time in 2 years.
Only a fwe hard parts were very simaller.
The cluthes are a breed of its own
friction on one side steel on the other.
This trans is 5 times tougher than the 5R55E.
And more confusion the 5R55N comes in the
LS and T-bird.

 

[Majisto]

Ok, it's time to end this confusion and explain why I don't think the 5R55W is behind the 4.6 Modular Explorers. All of the new Ford transmissions use this special numbering system. 5R55W does mean something I will use the 5R55W as an example. Here is how it goes :

The first number is how many forward speeds the truck has. On this transmission, it happens to have 5 forward speeds. It accomplishes this with only 3 "gears" because it kicks in the overdrive clutch band in 1st and 2nd gear to give you 5 speeds. It looks like this; 1lo,1hi,2lo,2hi,3rd. The "his" are when the OD kicks in. True Overdrive would be the 3rd gear, and the 6th shift you feel would be the torque converter locking up.

The next character is a letter, in this case it is "R" for rear-wheel drive. This is self-explanitory.

The next few numbers, in this case "55", stand for the maximum torque rating the transmission is built to handle. Add a "0" or mulitply by 10, and you get the real number. In this transmission it can handle 550 lbs/ft (55 X 10 = 550). The torque converter multiples torque by 2, so the SOHC 4.0, which puts out a maximum of 250 lbs/ft of torque, would actually exert 500 lbs/ft torque to the transmission (250 X 2 = 550). This is within the limits of the transmission. The Torqshift on the new turbo-diesels is 5R110W. Yes, that's right, 1,100 maximum torque rating

The last character can be a multitude of things, but on the 5R55W, it means "Wide Ratio". The "E" stands for electronic shift as opposed to vaccum or throttlve valve cable. S stands for synchronous shift; N stands for non-synchronous.

Phew, that was long. What I am trying to say is that the 5R55W that you say is behind the V-8s can not be a good idea at all since the V-8 puts out around 280 lbs/ft torque which would mean (280 X 2 = 560) that the max torque rating on the tranny is not only met, but exceeded. I still believe the V-8 tranny is the 4R70W since it can handle 700 maximum lbs/ft torque. I know the new F-150 still uses some sort of C4 (AOD-E which became the 4R70W) based transmission, and it uses the modular motors as well.