Went to the track for the first time with the 5.0!!!!

[Nate_V8]

Well I did say with or without lol

 

[techieman33]

I highly doubt a cam will get you into the 14's. The faster you go the harder it is to go even faster. I'd be surprised if you see anything much lower than 15.20's myself.

 

[Limited02]

As nice as the DA correction is, it's not what the timeslip is reading. Otherwise, I would have a 14.6 with the DA correction instead of the 15.2 that I have.

Keep up the good work and after each mod, post your results when you get to the track. Who know's, after a few big mods(headers, cam, gears, weight reduction, etc) you just might hit the 14's!

 

[Nate_V8]

You guys act like 14s are so impossible. Seriously when your slow, it's easy to get going faster. my 85 GT is alot harder to get going faster N/A keeping stock stroke and it runs 11.3@120mph. This isn't hard. It's like the 94-98 3.8L mustangs, mid 17s stock. those are slow. a simple M90 put it into low 14s. and that was @ 210rwhp @ 5200rpms......and they aren't light weight mustang, they weigh about 3500.

A cam setup for the vehicle makes all the difference. Alphabet cams suck and always will compared to a custom cam. If a 325ish hp exploder can't get into 14s with AWD and 3.73s there's something wrong lol.

Just to let you know btw I just checked out my explorer and the TB isn't anyhwere near WOT. it goes to 3/4 throttle. Also going to chang tranny fluid, all the shifts are crappy compared to my buddies 98 limited and he has 30k on top of mine.

 

[Limited02]

The Saleen Explorer XP8 had a superchargerd 5.0(285hp) and only went 15.7

Tell you what, run those 14's and break the trend...

 

[Nate_V8]

Well I ordered some parts to get going on the cam swap for this spring! Going to show you guys you don't need a corked 347 to hit 14s lol

And to further prove that 5.0s can be quicker then the 4.6L...

The 4.6L has a cam that has a different profile then the 5.0 explorer, the 5.0 explorer has better heads and intake and has better exhaust flow (and header selection thank to TMH) it also has more cubes of course but it's slower? this might be proof right there

But the 5.0 doesn't have the same torque curve as the 4.6L, the 5.0 is like an RV cam. The 4.6L cam is better matched to it's setup as well and this is obvious because it makes more power with less cubes and has less airflow then the 5.0, but is still quicker.

The 5.0 cam is only making use of 3/5 of the hp potential of the 5.0 explorer motor (with headers/tune/exhaust). You don't need a 347 to hit 14s. a 4.6L with catback and tune could run 14s with just a custom cam setup.

If you need a 347 to hit 14s then something is wrong. You can have all the best parts but if something isn't matched up then you have a polished turd. The 5.0 explorer has potential but it has an ancient turd cam in it.

Not trying to argue but can you state the facts as to why you think a 5.0 explorer with a cam/headers/exhaust/tune won't run 14s?

This is fun

 

[Limited02]

Not trying to argue but can you state the facts as to why you think a 5.0 explorer with a cam/headers/exhaust/tune won't run 14s?

This is fun

With just the mods mentioned, I bet you'll see mid-15's at best(full weight). What you are doing now is opening up the topend and allowing it to rev, which is were the 5.0 falls short in stock form(but has great lowend torque)

Now add some gears and put it on a diet, you just might get that 14.99

I wish you luck and hopefully you'll get'er done!

 

[Nate_V8]

Did you read what I posted? Lol

It falls short with the stock cam, where a custom will allow it to breathe better then your 4.6L. It has more potential then your 4.6. To make this simple, with a custom cam you could mimic the same rpm and power band as the 4.6L...except it would make more hp and torque because of the better airflow and extra cubes. So this means it would be quicker then yours, not to mention we have better header selection.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Turdle]

I doubt a N/A , stock block 302 while pushing an explorer will run 14,s but I am willing to watch you try.

The 347 doesn't only gain power due to added cubes--the additional stroke adds torque which you need.

Stroking is where it's at. Just food for thought.

 

[Nate_V8]

Stroking would put me into 12s- 13s. I don't want that. I'd rather sink that money into my mustang lol.

I don't need stroke for my winter beater lol.

I know more cubes gives more torque. Another point that proves how un efficient the cam is in a stock 5.0 explorer compared to the 4.6 but no one seems to get my point lol.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Turdle]

Instead of using your keyboard to prove your point, I recommend getting out the wrenches. We'll see your point once you have proven it.

A time slip alone is not good enough. We need a witness to the run.

 

[Limited02]

Nate- You missunderstood what I was saying. A full weight AWD 2nd gen Explorer with just a cam/full exhaust/tune will run mid-15's at best(15.5-15.9)

Now if you were doing H/C/I/tune/stall, then you will have a much better chance at full weight. Also, forget the gears, I forgot you were AWD.

I know some of us may be pissing in your cheerios, but you're not the first 5.0 to try run X amount of time. I have followed a lot of buildups of different combos for different makes and have a good idea what to expect(I need to be on Pass Time!)

As I have said before, good luck and get'er done

 

[techieman33]

I was running 15.50's on a good day with my mods and had a lot of passes under my belt. A cam is not going to give you over .5 of a seconds, now if you got rid of the crap heads and decent intake, and put good parts in their place then yes you could run 14's with a good tune.

 

[Nate_V8]

crap heads???????? The 4.6L heads flow worse! it also has less cubes! yet it's faster? Is anyone grasping this here? It's like arguing with a bunch of blind people, because obviously you can't see what I'm typing.

Limited 02 ran 15.2 with exhaust, tune, Efan right? with a cam he would be in 14s....this is what I'm trying to explain! This is a cam matched for the application and you guys are just ignoring that the cam makes the motor work when it's matched!

Better flowing heads, more cubes BUT!!!!!!!!! it has a crappy ass cam. This is certainly an interesting day to here everyone vote that a motor with less cubes, worse airflow has more potential then a motor that is bigger and has better airflow LOL Only build I have seen so far on this site that is going to work phenomenal is Ford99_1979s 347. It's going to be the fastest N/A 302 based motor here.

 

[OVERKILL]

The Saleen Explorer XP8 had a superchargerd 5.0(285hp) and only went 15.7

Tell you what, run those 14's and break the trend...

285HP flywheel????? That's not the greatest output for a 302 with a blower...

I own three 302's.

Wait, let me preface this with the fact that NONE of them are in an Explorer. HOWEVER, they aren't hard to make power with.

I made 270RWHP with some ported GT40's, OTS TrickFlow cam (stage 1), TFS-R intake on a stock HO shortblock from 1987 with 300,000Km on it. That's roughly 325HP flywheel; or about 40HP MORE than the supercharged SALEEN if those are flywheel numbers. With the same heads.

I imagine the biggest issue with doing this in an Explorer is getting the REST of the package to work correctly with the increased power output.... Which of course is going to raise the RPM ceiling.

With a Mustang, gears are key. A bit more of a PITA when you've got two pots to put them in..... And of course the heavier your ride, the more gear you need with the same power to get the best ET.

Now, I also have a Town Car. Not the quickest thing in the world; has gone 16.2 at 89MPH on street tires. Has a stock lopo shortblock, some milled Mustang E7 heads (junk) FMS E-cam, Mustang A9P ECM, and an Explorer intake on it. Car has 3.27's and the factory converter stalls WAY before the engine is making good power. On a tire, with a converter and more gear, it should be well into the 15's. Why is this relevant? Because it is about the same weight as an Explorer.

I'm a friend of Nate's. I've been helping him wrench on his '85, and that car is a monster. I also understand the route he wants to go with the Explorer, and the guy doing the cam for the Explorer is the same guy who did the cam for the '85. And the '85 isn't a "tricked out" package either, it is actually pretty basic:

-Stock HO shortblock
-OOTB TFS TW heads w/roller rockers and springs matched to cam (~500lbs)
-Camshaft Innovations cam
-Victor Jr intake (had a Weiand XCELerator on it when it ET'd bottom 12's on street tires)
-Holley HP 750 carb (had an OOTB Holley 650DP on it when it had the other intake)
-Manual steering
-4.10 gears

He has a baseline for the Explorer at least, and he knows where he wants to be with it.

How I see it is that it is going to need gears and a tune to change the shift points (higher) if he goes the route he wants to go. It's heavy, so it is going to need major gear. It's a 302, so to make more power, it is going to need to rev. I'm not sure if it needs a bigger intake or not. That'll be up to the cam grinder to decide.

Anyways, I'm wishing him the best of luck with the project, I know he's stubborn and determined, and I'll likely be lending a major hand in the actual work involved. I think all Nate wants is for people to keep an open mind in terms of somebody doing it "differently" and hoping to achieve better results. It seems a few can at least respect that and have wished him well in his endeavors. That is very commendable.

 

[Turdle]

crap heads???????? The 4.6L heads flow worse! it also has less cubes! yet it's faster? Is anyone grasping this here? It's like arguing with a bunch of blind people, because obviously you can't see what I'm typing.

Limited 02 ran 15.2 with exhaust, tune, Efan right? with a cam he would be in 14s....this is what I'm trying to explain! This is a cam matched for the application and you guys are just ignoring that the cam makes the motor work when it's matched!

Better flowing heads, more cubes BUT!!!!!!!!! it has a crappy ass cam. This is certainly an interesting day to here everyone vote that a motor with less cubes, worse airflow has more potential then a motor that is bigger and has better airflow LOL Only build I have seen so far on this site that is going to work phenomenal is Ford99_1979s 347. It's going to be the fastest N/A 302 based motor here.

Nobody is listening to me--or he is blind.

The 4.6 L (4601 cc, 281 CID)[2] V8 has been offered in 2-valve SOHC, 3-valve SOHC, and 4-valve DOHC versions. It has also been produced with both iron and aluminum blocks. The 4.6 L's bore and stroke are nearly square at 90.2 mm (3.552 in) and 90 mm (3.543 in), respectively.


There is your torque---get it now. It is all in the longer stroke.

 

[OVERKILL]

Nobody is listening to me--or he is blind.

The 4.6 L (4601 cc, 281 CID)[2] V8 has been offered in 2-valve SOHC, 3-valve SOHC, and 4-valve DOHC versions. It has also been produced with both iron and aluminum blocks. The 4.6 L's bore and stroke are nearly square at 90.2 mm (3.552 in) and 90 mm (3.543 in), respectively.


There is your torque---get it now. It is all in the longer stroke.

HP is torque @ RPM.

By that logic, the 305 should have been a torque powerhouse, given that it had a 3.48" stroke (almost the same as the 4.6L). But it was an epic turd because it couldn't breathe. It also made a lot less torque than the short-stroke 302 of the same time period.

Typically by design, engines with limited breathing (small bores, often long strokes) are characteristically fitted with (relatively) poor flowing heads and cams that are designed to make power where those heads breathe. This results in an engine that makes good low-end power but falls on it's face as the RPM's climb.

Engines with larger bores were often fitted with better flowing heads, allowing better breathing up-top which would shift the torque curve for a given displacement, giving the engine the reputation of being a "rev'er"

That has changed since the "pushrod days". Multi-valve heads can make-up for the lack of bore area to fit larger valves. And camshaft design has improved immensely.

However it still all comes down to cubes and airflow.

The Honda B18C5 is undersquare: 81mm bore, 87mm stroke. Yet has a 9,000RPM redline.

The 351W was oversquare, having a 4.0" bore 3.5" stroke. But RPM was not something it excelled at.....

The old 302HO made 300lb-ft of torque with poorer flowing heads than those fitted to the 302 in the Explorer. But the power curve would have been "peakier" due to the more aggressive camshaft. GT40's and the Explorer intake swapped onto a stock 302HO will make more power than the Explorer motor simply because of the cam. It was/is a very common "bargain" swap using a wreckered Explorer.

Modern camshaft design has come a LONG way from the relic stocker and alphabet cams of the early 90's. A quick look at any of GM's LSx engines (the LS1 is oversquare like the 351W, it has a 3.9" bore, 3.6" stroke) and the HP and torque they make should be evidence enough. The LS6 makes 405HP and 400lb-ft of torque from an oversquare design.

The LS6 has heads that flow extremely well and a modern camshaft design. And you can bolt LSx heads on a Windsor, LOL.

Note that I'm not saying that square/undersquare/oversquare don't play a roll. As piston speed and dwell (and subsequently how the cylinder is filled) varies with stroke. However, power is a function of displacement and RPM. The more air you can move, the more power you are going to make putting it in the simplest terms.

It is definitely possible to make very good power while limiting yourself to the 4" bore, 3" stroke 302 engine. But making that power and still retaining driveability takes a lot more than slapping a set of TFS high ports on it with a TFS-R and slapping in a single-pattern cam from 20 years ago. Even the TFS #1 didn't have the greatest driveability when I ran it and it is a "modern profile". Nate's custom cam in his 85 is far more streetable than mine was, and it makes more power.

I KNOW the heads Nate is using, when setup correctly with the right intake and cam can make close to 300RWHP. The difficulty is going to be making the rest of the combo around it work correctly in the Explorer chassis to get it down the track in the time he's looking for.

 

[Nate_V8]

Lol if 285rwhp can't net you a 14.9 when 185rwhp gets you bottom 16s, maybe high 15s on a good day, then there's something wrong here lol. 100rwhp and a better torque curve makes a big differnce.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Limited02]

I like this thread

Get that damn 5.0 to run 14.x.. and then I am going to gun for you in my inferior weakass 4.6!!!

How long should we expect before you will have the cam in place to make a run?

For what it's worth, I know how 5.0's run, I've had an 89' 5.0 LX Hatchback(full exhaust, gears, CAI, efan and a 92' Ranger with a 5.0. First vehicle was a 67' SWB F100 that I swapped a 351W into

 

[pufferfish]

stop bickering about the engines. its not important here. the aerodynamics of the explorer is where the disconnect is. everyones perception of what it should do in the 1/4 mile is based upon previous experience in a CAR. this vehicle is a BRICK. i am not sure of when wind resistance pays a major factor, but i'd bet the farm that it starts before 60mph. you need a hell of alot of power to overcome wind resistance. the real reason the 4.6 powered ex's get better times is because of their 2nd gear...the gear in which wind resistance starts to play into the game. i forget the exact numbers, but i do know that the 45% drop in ratio from first to second in the 4r70w is a terrible way to try to increase speed right when you hit that wall of air. THAT is why you will struggle to get into the 14's with a 302 n/a. if you put the 4.6 in front of a 4r70w (in an ex), you would struggle to make 14's there too.