87-93 Mustang 5.0 Intake

[JCase]

Has anyone put a mustang intake on a 5.0 Explorer?

What was the improvement? HP, Torque or MPG? Seat-of-the-Pants noticeable?

Is there any installation problems swapping mustang "High Output" parts with Explorer parts?

I've searched and can't find anything on this topic.

Thanks guys.

 

[Dan Whitaker]

The stock intake on Explorers/Mountaineers is a Cobra intake so that Mustang intake would loose you torque.

Your first seat of the pants mod needs to be a set of Torque Monster Headers. The stock exhaust manifolds suck at best.

You must not be searching right because there is tons of info about the differences between Mustang 5.0 and Explorer 5.0.

 

[shadowless127]

Has anyone put a mustang intake on a 5.0 Explorer?

What was the improvement? HP, Torque or MPG? Seat-of-the-Pants noticeable?

Is there any installation problems swapping mustang "High Output" parts with Explorer parts?

I've searched and can't find anything on this topic.

Thanks guys.

Differences between fox 302 and explorer 302 off the top of my head:

intake
heads
harmonic balancer
exhaust manifolds

In fact, a lot of mustang people will swap in 302's from 97.5+ explorers because they are just better.

You want performance? Free flowing exhaust from the heads back, tune from James @ Henson Performance, and basic maintenance.

 

[JCase]

The stock intake on Explorers/Mountaineers is a Cobra intake so that Mustang intake would loose you torque.

Your first seat of the pants mod needs to be a set of Torque Monster Headers. The stock exhaust manifolds suck at best.

You must not be searching right because there is tons of info about the differences between Mustang 5.0 and Explorer 5.0.

Thanks Dan!

How much torque would I lose? would I lose HP too?

 

[JCase]

Differences between fox 302 and explorer 302 off the top of my head:

intake
heads
harmonic balancer
exhaust manifolds

In fact, a lot of mustang people will swap in 302's from 97.5+ explorers because they are just better.

You want performance? Free flowing exhaust from the heads back, tune from James @ Henson Performance, and basic maintenance.

Thanks shadowless for your experience!

From what I read, the mustangs and explorer are both 50. balanced. What is the difference between a mustang 5.0 50. balance and an explorer 50. balance? Are they interchangeable?

How much HP will I get from an exhaust and a "tune" from James @ Henson Performance? How much will that cost?

Thanks Guys. I just don't understand the lingo or exactly what is being said all the time in the posts.

 

[snoranger]

Yes, they are both 50 oz. balancers and could be used on either engine with the right timing cover. The Explorer balancer has a reluctor wheel for the crank sensor, the pulley cast as part of it, and is shorter.

 

[vroomzoomboom]

Differences between fox 302 and explorer 302 off the top of my head:

intake
heads
harmonic balancer
exhaust manifolds

add cams to that list

 

[MercuryMullet]

I have 2 97 gt40p motors. One mountaineer and one explorer.The mountaineer has a cam, headers, K&N and exhaust (two back cats removed) with 33s and 4:56s. The explorer is stock with 265 16s and 3:55s. The difference is like driving 4.6 supercrew to a superduty diesel. So i'll confirm--headers, cam and exhaust make a huge difference.

 

[JCase]

I have 2 97 gt40p motors. One mountaineer and one explorer.The mountaineer has a cam, headers, K&N and exhaust (two back cats removed) with 33s and 4:56s. The explorer is stock with 265 16s and 3:55s. The difference is like driving 4.6 supercrew to a superduty diesel. So i'll confirm--headers, cam and exhaust make a huge difference.

What cam do you have?

 

[JCase]

The stock intake on Explorers/Mountaineers is a Cobra intake so that Mustang intake would loose you torque.

Your first seat of the pants mod needs to be a set of Torque Monster Headers. The stock exhaust manifolds suck at best.

You must not be searching right because there is tons of info about the differences between Mustang 5.0 and Explorer 5.0.

From my searches, the mustang HO intake would add torque.

???

 

[shadowless127]

From my searches, the mustang HO intake would add torque.

???

negative.

The Explorer v8 has more torque then the mustang. 275lb-ft for the mustang and 288lb-ft for the GT-40p Explorer. GT-40p Explorer also has 10hp more.

 

[JCase]

negative.

The Explorer v8 has more torque then the mustang. 275lb-ft for the mustang and 288lb-ft for the GT-40p Explorer. GT-40p Explorer also has 10hp more.

OK.

How much of that is dicated by camshaft and intake design? And what RPM? What is the curve difference (overall power made though the target rpm range)?

 

[MercuryMullet]

What cam do you have?

Would have to talk to my buddy for the exact specs, but its a stage 1 mustang cam. Its mellow until about 3200 then comes alive.

 

[MercuryMullet]

Jcase, if you happen to live in san diego you can swing by and ride in them both.

 

[MercuryMullet]

Found out its a stock cam from an 89 & up HO mustang

 

[JCase]

I'm nowhere close to SD, but I appreciate the offer.

I thought the mustang (stage 1, what is that?) cam wouldn't be good in an Explorer with its weight and gear ratio.

Shadowless, I'm still wondering about "How much of that is dictated by camshaft and intake design? And what RPM? What is the curve difference (overall power made though the target rpm range)?

 

[snoranger]

When Ford went to the Cobra / GT40 intake on the '93-95 Cobras they actually sacrificed low end torque for high end HP. The 93-95 Cobra got a "special" cam that was designed to gain back some of the low end torque that was lost.

If you want to make more torque with Ford parts, go find a 93-95 Cobra cam and try that. (also used in the '93 T-bird 5.0l.)

 

[JCase]

I remember someone telling me awhile back that they put s truck cam in those cobras, but with 1.7 rockers.

 

[snoranger]

I remember someone telling me awhile back that they put s truck cam in those cobras, but with 1.7 rockers.

Whoever said that was wrong. Yes they use 1.7 rockers, but not a truck cam.
(this is saying they lost torque from the higher flowing heads.)

Cylinder heads:

GT-40 heads previously sold by Ford Motorsports SVO with 1.84 intake and 1.54 exhaust valves. Heads were milled from 64cc down to 62.5 cc to raise the compression ratio a bit although the official compression ratio is 9.0:1 and were topped off with a set of Crane 1.7 ratio full roller rockers. Heads used a pedestal type of mounting system for the rockers. Part number for the cylinder heads is F3ZZ-6049-B up till 04/13/93 and F4ZZ-6049-B after date 04/13/93



Camshaft:

Ford designed a new camshaft grind to bring back some of the low end torque that was now lost using these higher flowing cylinder heads. Part number for the cam is F3ZE-6250-CA. Specs are as follows:

Intake/Exhaust duration in degrees of crankshaft rotation: 270/270 and at 0.050 lift 209/209

Intake/Exhaust lift at valve with 1.7 rocker ratio: 0.479/0.479"

Lobe separation is 118.3 degrees with 115 intake lobe center and a 121.5 exhaust lobe center.

Timing events at 0.050 lift are:

Intake: (BTDC):-10.5 / (ABDC): 39.5

Exhaust: (BBDC): 46.0 / (ATDC): -17.0

 

[JCase]

Whoever said that was wrong. Yes they use 1.7 rockers, but not a truck cam.
(this is saying they lost torque from the higher flowing heads.)

That what was wrong?

Yeah, I read the same thing you just quoted doing a 5 second google search...


I just said, I heard (some time ago) it was a truck cam, your saying (proving your statement with a quick google search) it's special.

Is that the point your making?