New 5.0L Header Findings

[Centaurus5.0]

After wasting more than a few hours of my life trying to find some kind of replacement header for my rig I made 2 discoveries that hold promise so I thought I'd share:


1. 289 Manifolds for
MUSTANG 1966-70
COMET 1967-69
BRONCO 1967-69
COUGAR 1967-68
FAIRLANE 1967-69
FALCON 1967-69
Casting #C6OE-9430,D40E-9428,D5TE-9428

Looks like the passenger side will fit the stock location. Drivers side down pipe will have to be modded just a bit for a 45 bend. Otherwise these look like they should be no problem for those with gt40 heads. I seen a post on a vintage mustang forum where someone ground down the casting a bit to fit P head plug angle. Tapping one of the ports for EGR and customizing a longer tube would be the biggest hurdle.

2. Found a youtube video from 2013 where a dudes got Hedman shorty headers on his 5.0 mountaineer. They could be 88400's but I cant tell or even if/how they are modified.




Just thought I'd throw it out there. Take from it what you will.

 

[Turdle]

I cannot tell from the video if the mounty is 4wd or not. For 2wd I can see how the shorty headers might work.

The 4wd guys have a differential to get around down there-

 

[1996BLKBauer]

I cannot tell from the video if the mounty is 4wd or not. For 2wd I can see how the shorty headers might work.

The 4wd guys have a differential to get around down there-

It would appear that he has V8AWD badges on the side, this might be good for us guys who are cheap...

 

[Centaurus5.0]

It looks like cylinder 2 primary was modified @ 0:30. Didn't catch that at first.

 

[rabbit91]

Following

 

[Jeff213]

Interested.

 

[Moose_Of_Evil]

http://www.cjponyparts.com/exhaust-manifold-pair-289-hi-po-1965-1967/p/EXM4/

Why not these then? I can verify that they do indeed fit P heads...

 

[MAS Tequila]

They may bolt up to the engine but they will not clear the obstacles in the engine bay.

MT

 

[Moose_Of_Evil]

They may bolt up to the engine but they will not clear the obstacles in the engine bay.
MT

These manifolds tuck down pretty tight against the engine. I've used a few sets of these in a couple of vehicles where 302's have been swapped in. I'm about to buy a Mountaineer with a 5.0 in it, and I've also got measurements (depth, length, etc, etc) those K-code manifolds, so I'll check to see if they might work. I've also got another idea for headers, but I'll need to have the vehicle here first to see if it's going to work.

I will say this much: It was a brilliant idea of Ford to move the 302 into that vehicle, but I do wish that they had spent more than 30 seconds designing the exhaust manifolds.

 

[CDW6212R]

They may bolt up to the engine but they will not clear the obstacles in the engine bay.

MT

I agree with MT. The collectors on the Explorer have to b very close to the engine block. Look at the driver's side, the collector is right next to the block, and the frame is just a little outboard from it. There is no variance that we can use other existing manifolds to fit that space.

You might find something that you can grind the hell out of to make it clear the frame, but remember that the fuel lines and brake lines are also there between the frame and the manifold. There is a sheet metal shield there covering the lines, but the exhaust cannot be up against that. The stock parts are close, any closer would be dangerous for the fuel and brake lines.

 

[98 MERC]

Hmm i am going to watch this thread close.I like these new fresh ideas.It seems like no one has even been trying.

 

[Moose_Of_Evil]

Hmm i am going to watch this thread close.I like these new fresh ideas.It seems like no one has even been trying.

I've been screwing around with engine swaps for years. With a few of these engines, I've got a pretty good idea as to what headers are out there, and what might work. The Explorer/Mountaineer is a pretty knotty problem due to the chassis platform in question never being designed for a 5.0 V8, so it's a ridiculously-tight fit in there, so unless those K-code manifolds work...it's custom all the way.

 

[Blk2kXLT]

I had to cut the tops of the passenger motor mount bolts just to get clearance of the TM style headers to allow to bolt up. There is zero room on either side. Confirmed with the driver side being a more expensive two piece design IMO.

 

[Moose_Of_Evil]

I had to cut the tops of the passenger motor mount bolts just to get clearance of the TM style headers to allow to bolt up. There is zero room on either side. Confirmed with the driver side being a more expensive two piece design IMO.

Correct. It's a pain in the ass.

I've got a couple of ideas, however.

 

[Blk2kXLT]

I didn't realize that rapture was going to be focused on 5.0L headers but c'est la vie.

 

[Moose_Of_Evil]

I didn't realize that rapture was going to be focused on 5.0L headers but c'est la vie.

Well, the hilarious bit is how badly Ford has choked off this engine with crappy exhaust manifolds. I've screwed around with P-headed engines for a while, it's kind of amazing what can be done with a simple exhaust manifold upgrade, cam, and valve springs. I'm not getting religious about whatever miracles can be performed, I'm just curious if there isn't something that hasn't been tried yet, as I've squeezed 302's into other vehicles with less room than what's under the hood and between the frame rails of the Esploder. I've already been crawling around and under a 5.0 that's here locally, and have a couple of ideas that might work, I just need to get my own heap purchased and brought home before I get too carried away.

 

[Turdle]

This thread is bringing back memories of back in 2003 when I tried fitting blockhugger headers. My how time flies.

 

[CDW6212R]

This thread is bringing back memories of back in 2003 when I tried fitting blockhugger headers. My how time flies.

How many things were in the way, did you even get them in half way? LOL,

Oh yeah, a Mustang shorty header will go right in there. You might have to dimple a pipe or two, or eight, or hammer a few flat, use a cutting torch, ... etc. Don't forget a fire extinguisher, and hope no one was watching or listening to what you were screaming.

... What's the sledge hammer for?

 

[Mountinheer]

Was seriously considering buying a flange w/ stubs and making something very similar to these K series mani's. I think flow is less important than balance for torque, so similar primaries for each cyl is best.

My understanding is that the computer can only average values for 1 bank, so with imbalanced flow between cylinders you have some lean and some rich cylinders. Balanced flow means averaging works better.... Unless the exploder compensates for certain cylinders known to flow worse based on factory flow bench #s???

Hmm, I guess if they were gunna flow bench it they woulda just made a better manifold.

Who's gunna be the guinea pig?

PS: loved previous post.

 

[98 MERC]

Was seriously considering buying a flange w/ stubs and making something very similar to these K series mani's. I think flow is less important than balance for torque, so similar primaries for each cyl is best.

My understanding is that the computer can only average values for 1 bank, so with imbalanced flow between cylinders you have some lean and some rich cylinders. Balanced flow means averaging works better.... Unless the exploder compensates for certain cylinders known to flow worse based on factory flow bench #s???

Hmm, I guess if they were gunna flow bench it they woulda just made a better manifold.

Who's gunna be the guinea pig?

PS: loved previous post.

Not sure but my 98 needs new manifolds.Its not my daily driver.I would probably be up for that as long as its not burned down or damaged in the process.Hell they leak so bad now it couldn't be any worse.