turdle's mounty moves on

[CDW6212R]

the v6 CMP uses a cast gear. the explorer version uses a steel gear that works with roller cams. i think that billet cams need the bronze gear? i didn't get a billet cam. i will be using the explorer gear.

The same steel gear used for roller cams should be used for a billet cam. A bronze gear should be avoided as much as possible. The real problems with some distributor gears are related to the fitment, the relationship with the cams. That gear mesh must be just right, or any gear is going to wear out really fast. The bronze gear was a good idea at the time. Now though the same steel gears that are most common in stock engines, they work fine for any roller or billet cam. You just have to avoid cheap cams actually.

The billet cams are simply the best, everything else is a cheap product, literally. Those others are SADI cores, meaning cast/poured/pressed etc, a mixture of weak materials. They are all very easy to break, they all have very inaccurate valve lobes(events). If you timed the engine using the ideal method of a degree wheel and the two front lobes, you'd think it was perfect. Try that some time, then time the cam again using any other pair of cam lobes. The cam timing will be different, each pair of lobes of a SADI cam are going to vary a little. That is bad for performance, and for getting the ideal tune.

Basically a custom billet cam is perfect. All of the lobes will match exactly. You can time the engine with a degree wheel using any pairs of those lobes, the timing will be exactly the same. I paid $100 extra for my custom cam to be made from billet instead of a SADI core. That is money well spent, it can survive blown engines much better than a SADI core cam.

Sorry to rant, I try not to get started on cheap parts. Back on topic.

 

[pufferfish]

not that i disbelieve the notion that cast cams are not as accurate as billet, but i have to question it for my own need to understand. the only selling point i have heard of for the billet cams is the high RPM stability over the cast core. basically, the billet is more robust and resists the torsional and bending moment loads the valvetrain imposes on the cam during lift. also, my understanding is that cast cams are made in the same machine as a billet piece (from the mouth of Comp Cams tech line), therefore, any inaccuracies would be shared between both types. unless, the inherent "twistability" of the cast cores end up producing the inconsistancies? in any case, i did choose to save the $100 for this build. i did so based upon the fact that i am not going to turn this thing past 6k (probably not even TO 6k). if it is true that the valvetrain events are innacurate, i would have considered the billet core more seriously. any idea of how inaccurate? 1 degree? more?

 

[CDW6212R]

It is a good degree or two, best to worst. It isn't enough to be able to tell for any stockish build. But for any expensive engine, and none are really cheap now, it's wise to get the better part.

A lot of the difference in quality of them is from the quality control. A SADI core cam is checked after production for a certain tolerance, and accepted 99% of the time. The billet core cams are not made like the others at all. When they are checked, if they are the slightest amount from the design, they are discarded and another one is made. The billet core has to be mad better, even just to pass the final inspection.

I planned my 347 for about 5500rpm tops, but the design suggests that for a max power, and over 5700rpm to shift. All of this information I had explained to me by a cam designer, by phone and he was patient enough to offer the knowledge. You can find this stuff and learn about it on the SBFtech site. Unfortunately that cam guru(Jay Allen) has been very sick this year I gather, he is missed greatly.

We live and learn, it takes a long time for everyone to discover all of the best knowledge. It will be a long time before most people know to avoid OTS cams. Fortunately the cost of a custom cam is virtually the same as the junk OTS stuff, so new people just need to try them and find out for themselves. Regards,

 

[pufferfish]

well, that is some good info for the next build or to help someone with theirs. back on track now, i am preparing pics for your viewing pleasure. in thinking about it, i wonder what the new pan capacity will be? i gained 3/4" depth. guessing at 10x18, thats 135ci. a quart is just north of 35ci, so thats 2 quarts...but...since the crank swings lower by 1" compared to the 302, does that negate the gain in pan depth? hmmm. anyone out there with a theory on where the oil level should be in relation to the crank stroked all the way down? i may need to adjust my dipstick to make up for this issue.

 

[pufferfish]

well, i posed the question elsewhere and fordstrokers.com chimed in. its a non issue. oh, and my math was off. it may be 4" stroke verses 3" stroke, but the swing down is only .5" more. so, i have a 7 quart pan! that should help keep oil temps down!

 

[pufferfish]

heres the pics of the completed oil pan and pickup. its hard to see, but the dipstick tube had to be bent away from the crank after clearing the pan flange of the block because the dipstick ran into the main cap and wanted to go to either side, which then would have rubbed on the crank. now it naturally sits in line with the cap. keep that in mind for you potential swappers!

 

[CDW6212R]

Woody knows Fords, say hello for me. Anything you can do to increase oil capacity is great. I'm adding a bypass filter, the OEM oil cooler, and a priming pump. I should have just over 7 quarts as well. My ATF will be at least 16 quarts, how much does Amsoil cost now? LOL,

 

[2000StreetRod]

pan oil level

I believe that the oil level should be below the reach of the rod cap bolt heads. If the bolt heads penetrate the oil level during crank rotation the oil will foam reducing its ability to protect bearings and other friction surfaces.

 

[2000StreetRod]

pickup height

According to my Ford Windsor Small Block Performance book the clearance between the oil pan bottom and the pickup on the 351W should not exceed 3/8 " with the pan gasket installed.

I remember reading a post some time ago about using different sensors (hall effect vs magnetic) on a Ranger engine swap. I'll try to find it.

 

[pufferfish]

I believe that the oil level should be below the reach of the rod cap bolt heads. If the bolt heads penetrate the oil level during crank rotation the oil will foam reducing its ability to protect bearings and other friction surfaces.

thats what i would have thought, but if ford strokers says its a non-issue, i have to take his word for it. now maybe, since oil level is measured when the vehicle is off, that there is actually less oil in the pan while running and that may be enough to keep the rotating assembly from contacting the pool of oil?

 

[pufferfish]

According to my Ford Windsor Small Block Performance book the clearance between the oil pan bottom and the pickup on the 351W should not exceed 3/8 " with the pan gasket installed.

i didn't realize that. GOOD INFO! i will pull the pan and "play-doh" it to see what my gap is. i think it should be good, but i never thought to check.

 

[2000StreetRod]

Front dress?

What are your plans regarding the front dress of the engine? I've read that the Explorer front dress is very compressed compared to other Ford vehicles with the small block Windsor. I've also read that the Explorer accessories with mounts will not bolt directly to the 351W.

 

[pufferfish]

What are your plans regarding the front dress of the engine? I've read that the Explorer front dress is very compressed compared to other Ford vehicles with the small block Windsor. I've also read that the Explorer accessories with mounts will not bolt directly to the 351W.

they are compressed towards the rear of the vehicle as compared to mustangs, but just like the 94-95 mustangs, the accessory brackets all bolt only to the heads. the issue you are speaking of is related to 93 and older fords that the brackets bolted to the heads and the water pump, making the 351w need special brackets.

so, all the explorer stuff will bolt right up, which is the plan. i used the explorer timing cover and will use an explorer water pump along with all the accessory brackets. its simply a matter of the belt path being longer and the accessories sitting farther out. i don't recall any potential issues there, but i've been wrong before

 

[2000StreetRod]

CMP sensor: OHV vs SOHC

I finally found the thread that briefly discusses the CMPs: Did the SOHC come with a cam synchronizer?

Unfortunately, it's about using a SOHC CMP sensor with a OHV PCM.

 

[2000StreetRod]

Using Explorer dress

they are compressed towards the rear of the vehicle as compared to mustangs, but just like the 94-95 mustangs, the accessory brackets all bolt only to the heads. the issue you are speaking of is related to 93 and older fords that the brackets bolted to the heads and the water pump, making the 351w need special brackets.

so, all the explorer stuff will bolt right up, which is the plan. i used the explorer timing cover and will use an explorer water pump along with all the accessory brackets. its simply a matter of the belt path being longer and the accessories sitting farther out. i don't recall any potential issues there, but i've been wrong before

Thank you for that information! One of the reasons I eliminated the 5.8L as a potential power plant for my 2000 Sport was the front dress. Now I know that for 1994 and later blocks it is not much of an issue. The increased deck height from 8.2 inches for the 5.0L to 9.5 inches for the 5.8L just means that the accessories will be 1.3 inches higher and a little more outward.

I must admit that I'm very interested in your installation since the 5.8L would be my first choice as a powerplant for my Sport. I think its stock bore and stroke is ideal for a compromise between power and fuel economy for my street only vehicle. The large diameter main journals while not that desirable for high revving applications are ideal for low speed engine lugging when main bearing loads are very high.

You already have a solution for the crankshaft position sensor and are very close to solving the oil pan issue. That just leaves the camshaft position sensor which has been done by a few others and a custom exhaust which only takes time and money.

Keep up the good work!

 

[pufferfish]

well, providing a roadmap for others is a major motivation in updating this thread often. i have not found anything so far to be insurmountable. if anything, its been an easier road than i anticipated. i searched alot of forums for any info on what seems to be a perfect engine choice for just about anything you want to do with these trucks. but, nobody seems to have tackled it in a truely stock truck configuration, but alot of folks have said it can't be done and shouldn't be attempted. that just was unacceptable to me. i plan to debunk the myth once and for all and i would like to see lots of others follow in my footsteps.

just so we are clear, you don't need to have a 94+ 351w block. aside from the rare 9.480 (i think?) deck height blocks, they will all work for the swap. the only consideration is the extra depth provided in the lifter holes for roller lifters in the 94+ blocks. my block is vintage and so for the roller cam, i have comp cams retrofit link bar lifters.

the CMP looks to be the hardest part of this swap right now. no factory piece of any factory CMP will work without modification. none of the mods can be done without metal working equipment. i can have custom parts made, but they are expensive. i know of only 1 person who has actually runs a modded v6 CMP in a 351w block...a mustang guy with LS1 coil packs and AEM computer. it has been attempted by others, but that is the only successful case i know of. the only other attempt is tkmoso on this site and the last thread i saw on it hadnt addressed the issue of the explorer body being too small for the 351w hole. if there are other success stories out there with factory parts, i would love to see them. i would like to see this done inexpensively!

 

[CDW6212R]

The oil level will stay the same for the given engine, go by the dipstick. That's why Woody said it's a non issue, you can deepen or widen the pan etc, and that doesn't affect where the oil level needs to be.

Double check the oil pan to rack-n-pinion steering box, several times. Todd(tmsoko) built a pan for his Windsor, and that clearance was the critical issue. The oil pickup should be between 1/4" to 3/8" ideally.

Windsors have the accessories and headers located 3/4" wider and higher than a 302.

 

[CDW6212R]

Todd was the first to start the 351W project, and he finished the oil pan and mst of the headers. He had plans for the CMP but put the project on hold before then.

 

[pufferfish]

yeah, i used tmsoko's posts alot when researching. unless i am mistaken though, he was doing it in a race truck (aka, no a/c or inner fenders)? his headers were a thing of beauty! i dont plan to do anything near as involved...nor can i. there's no way those would work within a stock engine bay. i am waiting for the final bolt in of the engine and trans, but i believe that a 1/4" spacer between the block and the motor mount bracket is all its going to take to make the pan clear the rack. test fitting the engine into the truck, measuring, pulling, cutting, putting it back in, and so on, was a pain, but i think i have it worked out. i do expect that the engine fully dressed and half the trans pushing down on the motor mounts will reduce that clearance, but i believe i have accomodated enough for that. i will make sure the pickup is properly placed before dropping the engine in the truck for the last time. i would like to see what tmsoko ended up with for a plan on the CMP sensor. i looked at alot of possibilities and nothing was simple. i am having a friend make a sleeve for the v6 body to fit and then graft a 351 dizzy shaft bottom to an explorer CMP shaft top. once it is in and running, i am going to try to swap in the AEM EPM to see if it will work. using that would save other folks alot of aggrivation and money.

 

[pufferfish]

oh, and the oil level was a concern because the dipsticks datum plane is the oil pan gasket surface on the block. the crank centerline is on that datum as well, but the bigger caps and bigger crank diameter extends .5" further into the pan. this changes the relationship of the crank to the static oil level. filling the oil to where the dipstick shows makes the oil level closer to the crank. when i asked the question on corral, i only asked about strokers, which wouldn't be as much of an issue. going from a 3" stroke to a 3.4" stroke for a 347 only extends the crank .2" further into the pan. with my 4" stroke, i am .5" further into the pan. that is a considerable extra distance. i guess the i could find out what it should be by getting a dipstick and tube for a 351w that goes into the block and see where its "full" indicater is compared to the 302's.