Technical => Engine Tech => Topic started by: INFAMOUSAPA on May 26, 2012, 10:54:21 PM
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: INFAMOUSAPA on May 26, 2012, 10:54:21 PM
Hello all,
Fairly new to forums and TBird/Cougar cars in general..I have a 1988 T-Bird 5.0 lx..I just picked up a GT40 lower and upper intake manifold..The question i have is ;;Is it a direct fit to my stock engine..? And also looking forward to a GT40p head..Is that also a direct fit on my engine/car..I do know i have to upgrade injectors and ecu..But other than that..Will the parts be a direct fit ? Please help?
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: daminc on May 26, 2012, 11:08:08 PM
you will need headers for P-heads.... they are made so you can get to the plugs.
Welcome
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: Beau on May 26, 2012, 11:09:05 PM
You can use the intakes and heads, but if you plan to use anything other than a stock HO cam, you'll need to either have your pistons flycut, or snag a good set of pistons from an '87 up HO engine.
And don't change the eec and injectors until you have an HO cam, or you'll be pig rich and have poor idle and drivability.
Here's the formula: HO cam, 5.0HO eec, and 19 pound injectors. Now of course, if you run either speed density or mass air, you'll need the proper EEC for whichever setup, but other than that, you need to have the proper combo of injector, cam, and eec.
And keep in mind that the SO pistons will work safely work with an HO cam, but not one with much more lift than that. Also be cautious about your rockers too, some of the higher end units will also put the valves really close to the pistons...
I've got a Stang 5.0, with a speed density DA1 eec, 19 pounders, and HO cam, runs well enough, but I'm planning on GT40P heads, Explorer upper/lower, and a TFS stage 1 cam with 24# injectors this coming winter...should be a decent performer for junkyard parts :)
And as Jerry said, the P specific headers are nice.... BBK 1515 are some decent ones.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: INFAMOUSAPA on May 26, 2012, 11:21:30 PM
Quote from: ThunderbirdSport302;390855
You can use the intakes and heads, but if you plan to use anything other than a stock HO cam, you'll need to either have your pistons flycut, or snag a good set of pistons from an '87 up HO engine.
And don't change the eec and injectors until you have an HO cam, or you'll be pig rich and have poor idle and drivability.
Here's the formula: HO cam, 5.0HO eec, and 19 pound injectors. Now of course, if you run either speed density or mass air, you'll need the proper EEC for whichever setup, but other than that, you need to have the proper combo of injector, cam, and eec.
And keep in mind that the SO pistons will work safely work with an HO cam, but not one with much more lift than that. Also be cautious about your rockers too, some of the higher end units will also put the valves really close to the pistons...
I've got a Stang 5.0, with a speed density DA1 eec, 19 pounders, and HO cam, runs well enough, but I'm planning on GT40P heads, Explorer upper/lower, and a TFS stage 1 cam with 24# injectors this coming winter...should be a decent performer for junkyard parts :)
And as Jerry said, the P specific headers are nice.... BBK 1515 are some decent ones.
Awesome...Thankyou very much..As for my GT40 manifold..Can i bolt it on now..without the injectors and ecu/cam etc..?
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: Beau on May 27, 2012, 12:02:33 AM
Yeah, just use your 14#'ers till you make the EEC/cam swap.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: thunderjet302 on May 27, 2012, 12:21:33 AM
I'd be worried about the 1.84 valve from the GT40Pshiznitting the stock T-bird pistons. I think someone here checked and found that the won't work without fly cutting the pistons.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: INFAMOUSAPA on May 27, 2012, 12:33:31 AM
Quote from: thunderjet302;390864
I'd be worried about the 1.84 valve from the GT40Pshiznitting the stock T-bird pistons. I think someone here checked and found that the won't work without fly cutting the pistons.
hMM...So maybe im better off gettin the E7 heads? ..To take pistons out..Will i need to take whole engine out of bay? Also is there any other heads that will work with my stock pistons..I heard trickflow had some..But do you know what kind..Or model aftermarket heads will work with my stock pistons..Last question..On summitracing.com they offer these heads for my 88Tbird http://www.summitracing.com/parts/FMS-M-6049-X307/ http://www.summitracing.com/parts/FMS-M-6049-Z304D/
Does that mean that they will be a direct fit for my 302 with stock block/pistons???
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: Beau on May 27, 2012, 12:40:45 AM
Probably better err on the side of caution, and have a set of HO pistons put in. At this point in time, you can find cheap HO blocks nearly anywhere. I picked up one that needs rebuilt for 50 bucks. It's going to be the basis for my GT40P engine buildup.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: INFAMOUSAPA on May 27, 2012, 01:42:41 AM
Quote from: ThunderbirdSport302;390867
Probably better err on the side of caution, and have a set of HO pistons put in. At this point in time, you can find cheap HO blocks nearly anywhere. I picked up one that needs rebuilt for 50 bucks. It's going to be the basis for my GT40P engine buildup.
Cool thanx for all the help Brother..I found a very good condition Ford Explorer Engine complete with everything..for 7to800 dollars..I think i just might go that route..But really wanted to start out using my block..As i bought my T-bird with 55k original miles..And am not quite ready to go all out..Question i have is does engine need to come out to put new pistons inn? And what exactly is fly cut?
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: vinnietbird on May 27, 2012, 09:20:10 AM
Even E-7 heads are a step up, and can be found dirt cheap. Look for any 5.0 equipped F-150 Ford pickup (fuel injected). Same heads.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: TheFoeYouKnow on May 27, 2012, 10:01:16 AM
I swapped out the whole ball of lead for a 96 explorer engine. It had everything I needed except an HO cam, but I had one already. I specify 96 because midway through 97 they were changed for external EGR. In 96, however, the GT40 intake had internal EGR, just the same as the SLO and HO engines. The 96 and early 97 Exploders also have NON-P gt40 heads, which means standard headers and larger exhaust valves. You would have to reuse your front cover, water pump and all you your accessories and brackets, swap the oil pump pickup and oil pan and also use your fuel rails and the coolant manifold as well. The Explorer comes with newer style "skinny" injectors, but they still have the same EEC IV connectors and are 19#. Then you just need an HO pcm. I have a spare, and I'm sure a lot of the other guys have spares sitting around. The swap is worth all the trouble, even the block is better. And that is a recipe for 265 HP give or take, add a headers and a good 2.5 inch h-pipe and cat-back, and you keep going up.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: Beau on May 27, 2012, 11:18:45 AM
Quote from: TheFoeYouKnow;390879
worth all the trouble, even the block is better.
Really?
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: TheFoeYouKnow on May 27, 2012, 11:47:28 AM
Yes. The explorer uses the HO block, and the HO block has different cylinder walls, thicker main webs, and stronger reinforcement in the valley. You'll notice if you ask people who've dealt a lot with both, that the HO's have fewer and less severe oil leaks, as well as less tendency to burn oil. All of this of course depends on like treatment and age. My SLO burnt as much oil as it leaked, and I know this to be common. My HO was way better with leaks, and didn't burn ANY oil, but it was beat and the bottom was burned up.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: Beau on May 27, 2012, 01:15:17 PM
Hmmm...
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: TheFoeYouKnow on May 27, 2012, 01:27:07 PM
The only really hard part was that the explorer's oil cooler was hard to adapt to the long nose water pump and front cover. I would definitely have wanted to use all the explorer's accessories if they had come on the motor. It would have made keeping the oil cooler easier.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: vinnietbird on May 27, 2012, 02:55:28 PM
My '99 Explorer block is an XXX casting as my '88 block was. No visual difference that I could see. I don't think there's a difference between the blocks. I could be wrong,though.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: TheFoeYouKnow on May 27, 2012, 03:00:12 PM
That's what they told us at the Ford Training Center in Allen Park. There's supposed to be some difference in the materials also, but I don't remember the details.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: vinnietbird on May 27, 2012, 03:07:23 PM
I find this intriguing. I'd like to learn more.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: Beau on May 27, 2012, 06:21:12 PM
I was told by a friend (who worked at the Ford plant in Claycomo Missouri, where Explorers, Mountaineers, and some trucks were built), that the 5.0 blocks were all identical castings up to end of them being used in cars/trucks, etc.
I WILL say for sure there's not one bit of difference in the SO and the HO cranks...highly unlikely that an ordinary production block would be different as well, unless it was for something like a '93 Cobra R, for example. And, I happen to have an SO block, and an HO block sitting...I can compare numbers, post pics of the casting numbers, as well. Give me a few and I will do it. The SO block is an '88, and the HO block is a '90, at the very least, those were the years of the cars that I MYSELF pulled them from, so I know there wasn't any switching after the fact.
It also stands to reason that if the Explorer 5.0s WERE different castings, then why did they still have the hole where a distributor might have went, and have an externally crank-triggered signal instead of like they are/were?
Just my thought on that...
But like I said, I'll take and post pics of the casting numbers for all and sundry.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: TheFoeYouKnow on May 28, 2012, 10:13:56 AM
If they lied to me I'd like to know it.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: TOM Renzo on May 28, 2012, 03:45:34 PM
Quote from: TheFoeYouKnow;390889
Yes. The explorer uses the HO block, and the HO block has different cylinder walls, thicker main webs, and stronger reinforcement in the valley. You'll notice if you ask people who've dealt a lot with both, that the HO's have fewer and less severe oil leaks, as well as less tendency to burn oil. All of this of course depends on like treatment and age. My SLO burnt as much oil as it leaked, and I know this to be common. My HO was way better with leaks, and didn't burn ANY oil, but it was beat and the bottom was burned up.
WHY PREY TELL WOULD IT BURN OIL ??? Please indulge me why this would be!! Also what is different with the cylinder walls ???????? This is going to be FUN 302 lets see what his answer is.
Their is a few differences with the blocks. But i think the foe is a little sketchie on the differences. HE DOES NOT KNOW!!!
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: Beau on May 28, 2012, 05:41:20 PM
The most obvious one is the different casting for the roller blocks, but yes, there's other minor differences....one piece rear seals vs the older 2 piece, etc. But there's NO difference that'll make an SO block leak oil worse than say, an HO block.
And, I've never seen an older, higher mileage windsor engine NOT have an oil leak. Usually around the front cover, oil drain plug, or a valve cover gasket. A fresh, or well maintained engine, maybe not so much. It doesn't have jack shiznit to do with the block, and the block alone, however.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: TOM Renzo on May 28, 2012, 07:18:40 PM
You got it 302 i agree 100% his post as i do respect everyone's ability to do so is quite fascinating. The change over to roller cams is why the lifter gillies are different. So on and so forth. But as i may so boldly post. The blocks are a slight bit different but nothing to write home about. Thanks 302 You are 100% on this. Like i said this is going to be FUN. Have a good holiday.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: Haystack on May 28, 2012, 07:37:17 PM
Pre 1980-80 block had the one peice rear main. The 80 up to 84-85 or so were not ment for a roller, and the 85up block are what's known as the xxx block. My 85 mustang gt block had xxx stamped in the lifter valley. The pulleys and harmonic ballancer are what make up the differance in the explorer and 94-95 mustang 5.0 blocks.
Older blocks (pre 1980) had slightly more metal in certain places, buy you will need retrofit hydralic rollers if you plan to go that route.
The cranks are the same, and even if there not, they are stonger then the block. The block will crack in half before the crank will let go. If you want a light weight factory crack, go with the 255 crank, but you will have to rebalaance everything.
As far as I know, the only real differances are the h.o. pistons and the double roller timing chain. Everything else shouold be identicle.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: TOM Renzo on May 28, 2012, 09:43:51 PM
Sounds GOOD stacks. You got it!! They will all split apart over the 450 mark give or take a few ponies.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: Beau on May 28, 2012, 11:37:26 PM
Compared to some other 5-to-6 liter blocks, there's not a whole hell of a lot of iron between the crank mains and cam....and a lot of torque, crank flex, and stroke, and you'll have a well ventilated SBF. You could probably build a 750 horse 5.0 based engine, and it may live awhile......if you drive like a little old lady and don't stand on the fun pedal.
I've read and heard from several folks that 500 hp or thereabouts is the ballpark for a standard block...if you're going to spend the money to build that power, and keep things from grenading for the long haul, may as well get a better foundation than a stock block. They're not all that cheap, but it beats building a stocker and then wasting it in a short time.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: TheFoeYouKnow on May 29, 2012, 12:28:49 AM
It seems that there has been a fair amount of misunderstanding between myself and the instructor that I used as my source. We were in class for the new 5.0. Apparently my question of difference was complex and he answered it as if I asked what the difference was between the new and old. This sounds stupid, but when I just discussed it with him again, he told me the same things haystack and vinnie came up with. As near as i can figure now, any differences in oil loss and use must have to do with things like stamped vs cast valve covers, different heads and different piston/ring combos between the two. But now, I'll freely admit to guessing on that. Anyone who knows better can say so.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: beast50 on May 29, 2012, 04:47:55 AM
The new "Coyote" 5.0L is a whole nother animal. Overhead cams versus pushrod ,overhead valve means a completely different block, heads etc. It is also known as a modular motor like the 4.6 or 5.4.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: TOM Renzo on May 29, 2012, 05:47:16 AM
Quote from: TheFoeYouKnow;391011
It seems that there has been a fair amount of misunderstanding between myself and the instructor that I used as my source. We were in class for the new 5.0. Apparently my question of difference was complex and he answered it as if I asked what the difference was between the new and old. This sounds stupid, but when I just discussed it with him again, he told me the same things haystack and vinnie came up with. As near as i can figure now, any differences in oil loss and use must have to do with things like stamped vs cast valve covers, different heads and different piston/ring combos between the two. But now, I'll freely admit to guessing on that. Anyone who knows better can say so.
DUDE many people on this forum are quite knowledgeable on the 5.0. And i can say with conviction that some instructors have been teaching to long and not enough wrench time. Not trying to be critical but cars have not had ring issues since 1955 when the 265 had rings that did not seat. The early ones had rings that were to hard and the rest is history. Today the rings are pre-lapped and actually dont have to be broken in any more. With C&C machining blocks and related components are spot on. And the machines are so accurate they even self adjust for tool wear. As an old timer i found out years ago not to put to much faith in everything people tell you. Even if they are supposedly experts. Over the years i have had so many people tell me things that were totally wrong and 500 people swear the guy walks on water. And no one knows everything no matter how much experience one has on a subject. Example some early GM FORD AND CHRYSLER motors used to have ring issues. I mean early in the industry. Blocks were softer rings were softer ETC. The rings would roll over on the edges and had to be replaced at very short intervals. The blocks were soft as well. It was common to have an upper ridge on a motor as well. Today this normally does not happen or happens in a very slight way. (other than some junk puppiesANESE MOTORS) So basically engineers design great motors today that can go for thousands of miles with no issues. Also the oils are a thousand percent better as well. As a matter of fact some of the model A guys when they rebuild those old motors have components far better than when they were built. Insert bearings better machining and parts and much better oils than when Henry Ford built them. Thanks Tom
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: TheFoeYouKnow on May 29, 2012, 07:15:04 AM
Quote from: beast50;391020
The new "Coyote" 5.0L is a whole nother animal. Overhead cams versus pushrod ,overhead valve means a completely different block, heads etc. It is also known as a modular motor like the 4.6 or 5.4.
I know exactly how different they are, and that's why I feel so stupid about the conversation. I asked about the Windsors, he answered about the coyote (without specifically mentioning it's name), and I didn't figure that out until I emailed with him a couple times yesterday, because he wasn't super specific with his answer.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: beast50 on May 29, 2012, 07:18:27 AM
I know in the 1980's the Chevy 305 and some 350's were popular for the puff of blue smoke at startup due to brittle valve seals, higher the mileage/worse they got as also the 1992-1995/96 Ford 4.6 modular motors like to use oil because of valve seals. Chevy's were an easy fix, the mod motors quite more extensive but still better than pulling the pistons and new rings etc.
Like Tom said they are getting along much better with the technology to upgrade materials in those older motors.
Title: Is it compatible?
Post by: beast50 on May 29, 2012, 07:22:45 AM
http://www.coolcats.net/help/oil.html
I remember reading this long time ago, maybe this might be what you are referring to?