GT40-P engine info

wicked93gs · Aug 10, 2008

I'm trying to track down some info on this engine since its what I plan on installing in my 66(someone stole my original planned engine if you can believe it) first off what is the HP rating from an 01 explorer? am I right to assume its going to be in the 250HP range? This engine runs off a trigger wheel on the crank, rather than a distributor(it has a camshaft position sensor in its place from how it looks) the information I am mainly looking for is to see if I can find out if its a 28.8oz or 50oz balance(or even nuetral) I'll be using an 01 T5 from a v6 mustang(its WC rated at 300ft/lb and will bolt up)

enferno · Aug 10, 2008

i can't comment on the balance of the motor, but it's going to be very difficult to find a set of headers that work in your car, unless you have a mustang II front end and no shock towers. spark plugs are also going to be a pain to replace . . .

5.0ina66 · Aug 10, 2008

It's a 93 Cobra motor with a SLIGHTLY smaller cam and the exhaust manifolds from hell that look like they were designed by a crack smoking plumber. Factory rated at 215hp and the Cobra motor was rated at 235hp. Stock Cobras tend to dyno at 260RWHP with headers FYI.

enferno said:
it's going to be very difficult to find a set of headers that work in your car, unless you have a mustang II front end and no shock towers. spark plugs are also going to be a pain to replace . . .

That's an exaggeration. True, the GT40P heads on the late 97-2001 Explorers are a pain in the arse when it comes to headers, but most will fit as long as you can deal with spark plug changes being hell.

BTW it's 50oz balance...good choice BTW, I've got a 96 Exploder motor myself.

Rusty67 · Aug 11, 2008

I don't know what year it happened, but Ford stoped using the C8 rod in the 5.0's and went to a weaker one because I guess it was cheaper to produce. I think they switched it out in 94 or 96 ?

Sorry to hear someone stole your SHO setup man... that is messed up. I was really looking forward to seeing that all come together.

Decurion · Aug 11, 2008

I believe the hi-po manifolds will work, its not too difficult to cut/weld a set of cheapy headers either. My old headers only hit on 2 cylinders, so you wouldnt have to modificate much (I used a 2lb install kit). I have basically a stock 96 exploder engine in my Falcon now and I can say its definitely a good all around street engine. I would stick in a stock H.O. cam, 1.7 Cobra roller rockers, stiffer valve springs, mill the heads .030, and do a little cleanup on the ports (mostly exhaust), and youll have a pretty strong engine for notta lotta dough. If you keep the fuel injection, get the distributor and wiring and computer from a fox body stang but keep the intake as they flow very well. Otherwise, sell the intake (assuming you have it), replace it with Performer RPM and 600 or equivalent, and stab in a standard duraspark or whatever. Just dont forget to make sure your distibutor gear is roller cam compatible.
Ditto on the SHO setup too, I wanted to see how it was going to come out.

D.Hearne · Aug 11, 2008

There's no point swapping to a stock H.O cam from the Explorer grind, there's barely a dime's worth of difference between the two. The Explorer cam specs at 256/266 advertised duration and .445/.473 lift with 1.7 rockers. The Explorer grind is a great one to use with a carb. Pulls from idle to 6500 rpms. Good mileage too. You'll think it's got EFI if you use it with a carb.

D.Hearne · Aug 11, 2008

Rusty67 said:
I don't know what year it happened, but Ford stoped using the C8 rod in the 5.0's and went to a weaker one because I guess it was cheaper to produce. I think they switched it out in 94 or 96 ?

Sorry to hear someone stole your SHO setup man... that is messed up. I was really looking forward to seeing that all come together.

The switch was in 1991. I've seen two broken F1TE rods that I pulled from 90's 5.0's. I've had someone else come up with an F2TE rod too.

bnickel · Aug 12, 2008

D.Hearne said:
There's no point swapping to a stock H.O cam from the Explorer grind, there's barely a dime's worth of difference between the two. The Explorer cam specs at 256/266 advertised duration and .445/.473 lift with 1.7 rockers. The Explorer grind is a great one to use with a carb. Pulls from idle to 6500 rpms. Good mileage too. You'll think it's got EFI if you use it with a carb.

hey D, mind if i ask where you're always coming up with these cam specs for stocker motors? is there a list of them or something? i'm interested because i'm considering possibly using a stock ford cam in my long rod, roller 351w that i plan on building for the coug. it would be nice to know where to find all this cam info.

thanks

Rusty67 · Aug 12, 2008

He provably has 1 of each taged, marked and catalouged

D.Hearne · Aug 13, 2008

bnickel said:
hey D, mind if i ask where you're always coming up with these cam specs for stocker motors? is there a list of them or something? i'm interested because i'm considering possibly using a stock ford cam in my long rod, roller 351w that i plan on building for the coug. it would be nice to know where to find all this cam info.

thanks

The specs are listed in a chart in this book: "The Official Ford Mustang 5.0" by Al Kirschenbaum, it's published and sold thru Ford Racing's catalog. Lotsa good info on the 302/5.0 from 79 to 2001. The roller 351W also used the F4TE cam (same cam as the one I alluded to above for the Explorer) Same cam was also in the 94-97 roller 5.0 in the E & F series trucks and vans.

bnickel · Aug 13, 2008

D.Hearne said:
The specs are listed in a chart in this book: "The Official Ford Mustang 5.0" by Al Kirschenbaum, it's published and sold thru Ford Racing's catalog. Lotsa good info on the 302/5.0 from 79 to 2001. The roller 351W also used the F4TE cam (same cam as the one I alluded to above for the Explorer) Same cam was also in the 94-97 roller 5.0 in the E & F series trucks and vans.

sweet thanks

wicked93gs · Aug 16, 2008

thanks for the info guys, 215 seems a bit low though since any old HO 5.0 was rated 225(I think) and my 289 in my old 67 was 195....the reason it seems low though is simply because I hear how easy it is to gain power with gt40p heads....as far as my new plans go...it will still be a twin turbo setup(making headers even more of a PITA) initially low-boost till I get around to building it(7-8psi)since I happen to have a good portion of the turbo system I was going to use for the SHO engine, why not?(these heads may not flow quite as well, but the extra displacement will make up for it) I do have one other engine option I am considering....a BA falcon engine(from australia) either the turbo or the non-turbo doesnt much matter since it would be turbo by the time I'm done with it anyway...only problem is the $1000 shipping cost I was quoted, hard to stomach(and I would have to make a tranny adapter plate to use the T5(just like the one I made for the SHO, still have the adapter plate btw) oh, the gt40p engine would still be EFI distributorless run of MegaSquirt using EDIS-8 for ignition control

D.Hearne · Aug 16, 2008

The 215 rating isn't low at all. You have to consider the differences between the Stang motor and the Explorer motor. The Stang had better exhaust manifold/headers than the GT40P motor. The Stang's H.O cam has 10-20 degrees more duration(depending on what figures you find in what book) and slightly more lift on the exhuast side. Even the ratings for the 93 Cobra 5.0's were downrated too. A closer motor to compare the cam differences between the F4TE and H.O. would be to compare a 94-95 Stang 5.0 to the same years pickup/van 5.0. Same long block for both, only different cams, induction and exhaust.

Decurion · Aug 16, 2008

I think these have something to do with the low power rating:
and actually, these are aftermarket replacements made of cast iron. The original stamped/cramped tubing is awful!

D.Hearne · Aug 16, 2008

Decurion said:
I think these have something to do with the low power rating:
and actually, these are aftermarket replacements made of cast iron. The original stamped/cramped tubing is awful!

EXACTLY ! Really if you take a close look at the Stang's tubular manifolds, they're not a whole lot better. Every tube is crimped to **** at the port for bolt clearance.

GT40-P engine info

wicked93gs

enferno

Member

5.0ina66

Member

Rusty67

Decurion

Member

D.Hearne

New Member

D.Hearne

New Member

bnickel

Rusty67

D.Hearne

New Member

bnickel

wicked93gs

D.Hearne

New Member

Decurion

Member

D.Hearne

New Member

Similar threads

GT40-P engine info

Member

Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency