1998 Explorer engine into 88 fox???

Greetings everybody.. I have the opportunity to purchase a low-mileage 1998 Explorer engine to replace my present 185,000 mile mill. I like the idea of having a good short block, gt40p heads, and the higher flowing intake. My idea is to put a cam, valvespring/retainer kit, and timing chain in it and swap the parts to get it in the car.

I know the EGR system flat will not work and is actually not there. My question is whether the EGR system is something that is vitally important to the engine running correctly. I have to pass smog now, but is is not a visual test, just the sniffer. Do I NEED the EGR system on the car?

I have also been looking at cam choices and like the Comp XE264HR for this car, which is my daily driver. Also, would you guys take the heads off of a low-mileage motor just to do some minor cleanup on the ports or just cam it and leave the factory seal on the heads?

I hope to find out if the engine is even worth getting for $600 if using the non-EGR intake is an amazingly bad idea. Thanks

John

Tmoss- I live in the St. Louis area and have been pretty excited to have somebody as helpful and knowledgable as yourself in my general vicinity. It seems as if Michael Yount and you are pretty much the only two people on this particular forum that will tackle the truly technical problems all of the time. Any yahoo can post an answer to "what HP will this combo produce?" or "what 1/4 time will my car go?", but you guys try your best to help the rest of us who have questions like mine. I do know a couple of people who have taken the EGR systems off of their 5.0s and passed here in Alton, IL, but this is my daily driver and I can't afford to make a mistake. I guess the worst case scenario is that I will have to have my factory lower ported if this does not pass next year.

Is removing the heads and touching the ports up worth the expense/trouble? I have done a couple of sets of E7s over the years and with the flow characteristics of the gt40p, the "less is more" philosiphy of porting will pay dividends by keeping the velocity up.

I used to have a 93 coupe with a ported lower, slightly ported E7s and 1.7 rockers that would regularly spank the more heavily modified cars of the time. I do not want to build the engine this time around to lose lots of low end torque to gain a couple hundred rpms up top. My hope is to have a broad powerband from about 1800 rpms to 5500 or so. It is funny to see porting of the stock lower in 2004 that is almost identical to the porting that my friend used to do to them in 1992. He went on to work for Chrysler as an engineer, but his ported lowers helped many young, poor 5.0 owners back then...

Tom - I am also "testing" some gen III injectors off a mid 90's tbird that I found at Uwrech It. They seem to work well as you predicted. Thanks for the tip. But again, would an Explorer engine be worth the $600 price with low miles in my situation? Thanks

Michael-

Thanks for the cam compliment. As in my previous post, my experience has been that it is very easy to kill the great, broad powerband of the 5.0 motor with an incorrect cam choice. I had at first looked at the Crower 15511 or the TFS stage one, but the Crower is over $300 and the TFS cam looks to be a little soft for me in a mild motor. I like the 114 degree lobe separation of the Comp cam and the lobes are agressive without too much duration. I also had to consider emissions which had me picking that cam over the 270 which is similar, just with more duration.

I remember reading that you had an E303 in your motor at one time? When those alphabet cams first came out, my buddy had the B, then the E. I personally didn't like either of them for the soft low end and sometimes funky idle issues.

Again, I hope the Explorer motor is a wise investment instead of getting a tired HO motor and rebuilding the entire thing and finding heads for it. I think the fresh short block and the gt40ps are almost worth the price.

XE264HR #35-349-8 264,270 - 212,218 .512 .512 114* 1500-5500

This is the cam that I am thinking would be a good match for the flow characteristics of the intake and heads on the explorer engine. Like I was saying before, I need to have great driveability and pass emissions. I liked my 93 HO cam with the 1.7 rocker arms, but it seemed like the motor ran out of air above 5100 rpms (probably stock intake and stock throttle body..lol). Really, the XE264 should act like a stock cam with a wider powerband. So, removing the heads and milling them and port work is a waste of time? I thing the explorer motor is probably 9.0:1 compression. How much power would .5 points of compression add? How much would porting help? These are the questions that I need to ask myself when considering the extra work/expense of doing these things on what would be a pretty mild daily driver. Though I have been one to not leave 20 hp on the table. To me, 20 hp would be worth the work because I am putting a TFS spring/seal/retainer/lock kit on the heads anyway. I am not a fan of using "stock" springs in an improved performance application. .512 lift is, in my opinion, more lift than one would want to run most any factory Ford valvespring on. I just think about the heavy-ass hydraulic roller lifters and the aggresive cam lobes at about 5600 rpms. Besides, one might get away with using the springs for a while, but the cam would catch up with them eventually. Changing them with the engine out of the car is much easier than doing it in there (I've done that gymnastics routine 7 or so times on different 5.0s).

Besides, I just changed my oil pump, pickup, and oil pan on my '88 GT in the car so I have used my automotive stunt man points up this year. Well, that and the clutch/flywheel change when I bought the car in January...

l8r

John

Oil pump removal in car lessons learned:

1) Unbolt the motor mounts from the K-member, remove the fan, and move as much stuff out of the way on the firewall right above the engine. I say move some things because I broke my MAP sensor during the change.

1.5) Don't make the other mistake I did, take the console piece off around the shifter and remove the boot. Also, take the two nuts off the transmission crossmember so the tranny can raise up a bit. I didn't unbolt the exhaust because I don't have any tailpipes right now and didn't have any bind issues. Your mileage may vary.

2) Jack the engine up as far as it will go using a piece of wood on the front sump or balancer. I used a piece of 2x6, because it is wider.

3) Once the engine is up, take sections of 2x4 and drive them between the motor mounts and k member. At this point, the engine will be squarely against the firewall.

4) S+ome have said that you can remove the oil pan from the block and drop it down far enough to work. I did not find this to be true. I unbolted the steering rack from the k member and disconnected the rag joint. I then dropped the rack down a bit to make clearence to get the oil pan down far enough for the fun stuff.

5) YOU CANNOT GET THE OIL PAN OUT OF THE CAR WITHOUT UNBOLTING THE PICKUP/PUMP FROM THE BLOCK WITH THE PAN STILL ON THE K MEMBER. I know, I hate caps more than anybody, but this is important. The removal and re-install work will be done with the oil pan still on the k member. This is why you need to make as much room as possible between the pan and the block. Be aware of the pump driveshaft, which will loosen and fall when the pump is unbolted. Might want to catch that before it goes to the bottom of the pan unless you do the smart thing and remove the pan during the operation.

6) I did have a problem with the new pump driveshaft that I installed. I got the FRPP one that is hardened (cheap insurance or broken dist gear, depnending on who you talk to) and could not get the "star" washer pressed onto it correctly. When I tried to tap it on, the little fingers bent and the washer would not stay on tight. It is there to keep the shaft in the pump when you pull the distrubutor and I do not plan on pulling the dist. anytime before the new engine is in the car. Somebody else might have a tip on doing that part correctly.

7) I did replace my oil pan at the same time because the assclown that owned the car before me decided to strip the front oil plug and not tell me. In order to get the pan all the way out, I did have to put a floor jack on the transmission and give it a little shove up to fit the pan between the bellhousing and the car.

Reinstallation is the reverse, except remember to set the shaft into the pump and guide it into the dist. gear, turning where needed.

Do yourself a favor and get a couple things at the part store. Pick up a roll of those disposable shop towels. As clean as you think your car is, it is not under there. Also, get the fel-pro rubber gasket with the steel core. It works great and comes with the little inserts to hold the gasket/pan into place so you can start the bolts. I was able to do this in one day, probably 8 or so hours, because I took my time and had some bad info from some other forums.

Just remember, the oil pan will not come out until the pump/pickup is unbolted. Then they can be dropped into the pan and the whole kit and caboodle can be pulled out through the rear. I then had lots of room to clean the gasket surfaces with the pan out of the way. I have heard of people working around the pan, but could not imagine doing that.

I also put a new pickup on with the pump. I know, extra expense, but I have had problems with crap in the tube in the past and like $19 is going to kill me. I also used the Melling "p" pump, which is a slightly higher pressure pump than stock. Not higher volume, just pressure. The relief spring in the pump is a little stiffer and that keeps the line pressure up a bit, useful on a stock, high mileage motor. I am not a big fan of the high volume pump on a stock type combination because enough smart people have said that a high mileage motor might have gunk in the oil return passages and keep the oil in the top of the motor for a longer time than the high volume pump leaves it in the pan. I have not seen this personally, but do know that a high volume pump does take more HP to move since it holds more oil internally. Also, I have seen clearence issues on some HV pumps and fox pans. Again, to each his own. Good luck and my hands are numb..

John

Well, as far as the cam choice, I would be happy if the engine had the torque curve of my engine was similar to a stock cam with 1.7s, just a couple more hundred rpms up top. 5500 rpms, I don't believe, is too much to ask for HP production. Was your torque peak or HP peak at 4900? I might just need to see how others are doing HP/RPM/emissions wise with the XE264 and XE270 cams and decide from there.

Also, Tom, the two grinds of the XE264 you mentioned earlier do indeed exist, as one for 1.6 rockers and another grind for 1.7s. I need to find out the compression ratio of this longblock (98 explorer) before I decide on head removal/milling. 30 thousandths would be what I would look at and I don't want to get into another $300 with adjustable rocker conversion kits and new rocker arms...I could probably live with 9:1 compression to save $400 or so (with gaskets).