Is it compatible?

Topic: Is it compatible? (Read 4949 times) previous topic - next topic

Is it compatible?

Reply #15 – 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.

Is it compatible?

Reply #16 – 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.

Is it compatible?

Reply #17 – May 27, 2012, 03:07:23 PM

I find this intriguing. I'd like to learn more.

Is it compatible?

Reply #18 – 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.

Is it compatible?

Reply #19 – May 28, 2012, 10:13:56 AM

If they lied to me I'd like to know it.

Is it compatible?

Reply #20 – 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!!!

Is it compatible?

Reply #21 – 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.

Is it compatible?

Reply #22 – 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.

Is it compatible?

Reply #23 – 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.

Is it compatible?

Reply #24 – 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.

Is it compatible?

Reply #25 – 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.

Is it compatible?

Reply #26 – 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.

Is it compatible?

Reply #27 – 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.

Is it compatible?

Reply #28 – 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

Is it compatible?

Reply #29 – 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.