My 97 SOHC 5 speed swapped sport street/drag build

[4pointslow]

Mustangs

I want to swap out my pistons for something a bit more boost friendly and upgrade the bottom end a little while I'm in there. There are 3 different turbo'd SOHC mustangs all running 20+ psi turbo set up's off stock long blocks with no issues. 2 of them are into the 11's with 5 speeds and dyno just shy of 500rwhp.

Are they local to you or on the internet? Any links to their pictures,websites etc. ?
I am always looking into the mustang stuff since there are not so many Explorer racers.

 

[Twisted1]

Are they local to you or on the internet? Any links to their pictures,websites etc. ?
I am always looking into the mustang stuff since there are not so many Explorer racers.

I can't remember what forum I found the build specs on off hand (1000 Google search's ago. Haha) But if you search YouTube for Bob's turbo mustang or something along those lines. As far as I know he is the fastest right now and pushing the most power.

 

[Twisted1]

Here one video of the turbo sohc running 11's

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-7eutLcSgf4

 

[2000StreetRod]

centrifugal superchargers

. . . There are 3 different turbo'd SOHC mustangs all running 20+ psi turbo set up's off stock long blocks with no issues. 2 of them are into the 11's with 5 speeds and dyno just shy of 500rwhp.

I suspect that centrifugal (turbo, Vortech, etc.) superchargers have an advantage over Roots type (Eaton) because of lower IATs allowing more spark advance. I've never compared the power consumed to drive a turbo vs a Roots type. It would be interesting to compare the dyno curves of a turbo vs an Eaton with equal max boost. I know for street driving I prefer the low end torque boost from my M90 on the Sport over the high end boost on my turbo wagon.

 

[Twisted1]

This is another one of the 3 I've been paying attention to. He has some good progression videos along the way. Calls the car "The bad wolf"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fvH4ZbjcvF8

 

[Twisted1]

And this is the third of the mustangs I've been reading up on. This one is between the other 2 on numbers and I believe has hit 11's now also. This guy runs 17psi and hits over 400rwhp, "Bob's mustang" is running 21+psi and dyno's close to 500rwhp. If I remember right the "Bad wolf" mustang is lower teens on boost psi and last I knew was at 378rwhp

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cfB2u9b96v0

 

[Twisted1]

I suspect that centrifugal (turbo, Vortech, etc.) superchargers have an advantage over Roots type (Eaton) because of lower IATs allowing more spark advance. I've never compared the power consumed to drive a turbo vs a Roots type. It would be interesting to compare the dyno curves of a turbo vs an Eaton with equal max boost. I know for street driving I prefer the low end torque boost from my M90 on the Sport over the high end boost on my turbo wagon.

I was looking to keep mine a daily summer ride but things change and I'm removing a lot of the comfort in favor of performance. It will stay street drivable but will be more race car than explorer as far as function. The last video is one of the dyno runs, you may be able to pause it and read the numbers. There are a bunch of other video's of those 3 along with several supercharged dyno runs whicj I have been comparing for a while now. The turbo's seem to be much better suited for this engine, at least from a drag racing perspective

 

[Twisted1]

Here's a real good dyno video of the Bad wolf stang. 13psi peaks at 384rwhp on a bone stock SOHC. He has his mod list s rolling through the begining

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dzhrliTaqes

 

[Twisted1]

Here's another i just found dynoing at 434rwhp and 516rwtq
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0HWYq-WAGPU

It is very achievable and has been done many times on true street cars with full interior and AC. There is no reason these explorer's shouldn't be hitting the same #'s. Weight is just about identical (at least on mine) to a mustang, aerodynamics shouldn't play a major part in ET until your breaking into 120+ mph. And to rub salt in the wounds...look at how many rangers are out there running sub 12 second 1/4 miles. They certainly have no aerodynamic advantage over us. They way I see it I'm building a sleeper mustang with a goofy body on top. Lol

 

[4pointslow]

Video's

Wow nice video's. Good for inspiration!
I like that last one with the dyno results, good torque and HP graph.

 

[4pointslow]

weight

What was the weight on your Explorer?
Mine was about 4450 when I last checked. I have the 4wd though.

As far as aerodynamics I always figured the Explorer to be like a brick wall.

 

[Twisted1]

I have done my homework! Like I said, there is no reason we shouldn't be hitting similar times/ hp #'s ect.. in our explorers. It's just a mustangs fatter sister. Lol

 

[4pointslow]

quote

It's just a mustangs fatter sister.

Now that is funny! lol.

 

[Twisted1]

What was the weight on your Explorer?
Mine was about 4450 when I last checked. I have the 4wd though.

As far as aerodynamics I always figured the Explorer to be like a brick wall.

I'll actually have mine on my buddies circle track scales before my dyno trip so I'll have exact corner and front/rear weight. Mine should be 3,400-3,500lbs as it sits now though which is no more than a mustang. And not to make a point with a TV show example but look at "The Sonoma" from street outlaws. The bodies aren't much different and that has to be an 8-9 second truck

 

[Twisted1]

Weight reduction

This truck weighed 2,460lbs and was near perfectly balanced with a 300/6 under the hood and 4x4 with a sterling 10.25" rear axle. It would lift the front tire on pavement launches. If I could get that one that light I'm hopeful I can work some magic on this and at least get it closer to 3,200lbs. Weight loss is the solution for lack of displacement! I could just go on a diet but I like food so I'll strip the truck out a little instead.

 

[Twisted1]

Injectors look like my issue

:thumbdwn: I did some more homework and test hits with the truck again this afternoon and I keep coming up with the same numbers. At exactly 915 MAF count it cuts out and wont regain full power until I let off and re accelerate. I had thought it was the MAF because of the CEL that appears every time it cuts out. I'm now starting to think it may be an injector issue also because based on the chart above even my 24lb injectors should be maxed at 920ish MAF count. This is assuming they are functioning flawlessly and are all dead on 24lbs (which is very unlikely) So my options are to step up to either 36 or 42lb injectors now before having it dyno'd and then buy 60+lb injectors in a couple months once the turbo goes on it (which doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense financially) or the other obvious option is to slightly detune the engine and avoid the 6,000 rpm shifts. I did some researching and found out the reason the 99+ use 19lb injectors is because they increased the FPR from a 40lb to a 60lb regulator to account for the smaller injectors. Here's where my mind got thinking... is there any reason I couldn't swap in either a 99+ FPR or an adjustable aftermarket to bump up my line pressure? In theory wouldn't that basically be like running a 29lb injector without actually swapping out my injectors? That's assuming the 19lb injectors flow the same in the 99+ with the 60lb FPR as the 24lb's do in mine with the 40lb FPR. This is all assuming that both set up's provide the same amount of fuel using different methods, volume in mine and higher pressure in the newer. Or am I looking way to far into finding an easy out here???:scratch:

 

[2000StreetRod]

increasing fuel pressure

Increasing fuel pressure by changing the FPR used to be a common method to gain fuel flow into the engine. I suspect that Ford upgraded the fuel pump and the fuel hoses in 1999 for the 50% pressure increase. If you're still running the stock fuel pump you should consider upgrading it. You'll eventually have to anyway.

Some racers prefer the return type fuel system over the returnless. I suspect they think that the vacuum control of the fuel pressure is more responsive than waiting on the PCM to calculate an engine load change to adjust the pulse width. It may not make a difference after 2003 (2004 and later) when Ford added the fuel pressure sensor to the fuel rail and pulse width modulation control of the fuel pump.

 

[Twisted1]

Right, I agree the vacuum controlled seems like it would be more responsive. As far as the fuel lines go, they are the same stainless hard lines and braided stainless flex lines so they'll hold any pressure you put to them. Upgrading the fuel pump is on the list of winter changes but I'll need to upgrade the FPR regardless to take advantage of the increased flow and pressure. I know the 99+ technically uses a fuel damper on the rail and not an actual FPR but I was more using it as a comparison as far as line pressure. I'd have to source another style FPR that would be compatible. I found an Aeromotive adjustable on Summit for around $130 which is a direct replacement for a 97 V8 explorer that is adjustable from 35-70lbs.
I'm about to compare the regulators from the 9 different engines I have in a few minutes to see which other applications would be interchangeable. At my finger tips this second I have 2 early SOHC set ups, 2 99+ SOHC engines, 2 95 4.0 OHV engines, a 97 V8 engine, an 89 2.9l and an 80's SVO 2.3t in a 2nd ranger and every one has full injection set ups on them to compare. With any luck the V8 will be compatible and I can just order the adjustable regulator from summit which will work for any future upgrades as well.

 

[Twisted1]

The Aeromotive FPR for V8

http://m.summitracing.com/parts/aei-13102

 

[4pointslow]

fuel pressure regulator

That looks like one for a 5.0L

They don't make any for the 4.0 SOHC that would fit directly to the fuel rail.
You have to use custom fuel rails and find one that will work with that or one that is not attached top the fuel rails that would instead use AN fittings.