headers and horsepower

[jdmarti8]

what year mustang "89-93" had the most horsepower without being a cobra? (are there any differences etween the mustang, lincoln, and murcury motors from the same year?) and a question for malcom and cgrey8, where did you get those explorer headers and how much were they?

[evensteven]

I've always heard the 90 LX Coupe was the fastest. It all boiled down to weight and the calibration on the ECM. I think all the mass air mustangs had about 210 hp? They benefited from a broad torque curve that dominated the Camaro's during the late 80's to early 90's. 88 to 95 mustangs had the HO motor i.e. a 302 with the 351W firing order and a roller cam, better heads (E7TE's), SFI, the same years, except the Lincoln Mark VII, carried the non HO motors, non mass air, flat tappet cam, and batch fire injection, and less perf. oriented heads. Hope it helps. [/img]

[plowboy]

the roller cam came out in the 85 mustang using the 351w firing order i think the jump to 225 hp was 89 to 93

[cgrey8]

I'll add to that that the non Performance 302s also had an intake bass-akwards from the Mustang. Where the Mustang and Explorer intake pulls air in from the passenger side, rolls it around on the driver's side then down into the motor...the Crown Vics/Grand Marquis engines looked almost identical to the Mustang, but the intake of air was from the driver's side.



This creates a problem for fitment to the AC/heater box as well as getting standard application aftermarket parts that were never designed for a "backwards" intake performance application. Visit this page for heater box mod details about how to swap in one of these backward-intake motors:
http://mercuranger.com/My_V8_Swap_Page_10.htm

However I thought at some point, even the non-HO motors had roller cams. Someone that knows may be able to chime in on that one.

I'm sure there are other minor detail differences between the non-HOs and HOs, but I haven't done much reading on the non-HOs since I'm not working with one of them.

As for the Explorer headers, I believe we both got them from Summit Racing.
Summit part # is FMS-M-9430-E52
I think the Ford # is 9430-E52

Here's a thread showcasing those headers when Malcolm 1st received his:
viewtopic.php?t=148

Here's a thread detailing a copper EGR line and how it looked when I was done:
viewtopic.php?t=188

[MercuRanger]

All of the EFI non-HO motors have roller cams (excluding the trucks - not sure about them). Basically any passenger car 302 from '86 up will have a roller cam. I think the Mustangs started with the roller in '85.

That pic is of my intake, and the reason it cuts into the heater box is that my truck has a 3" body lift. Without the body lift, the intake would have fit, but the valve cover would have hit (as with any non body lifted V8 ranger).

Check out www.coolcats.net for HO vs non-HO info.

And BTW, it's a matter of viewpoint. To me YOUR intake is backwards I actually like the TB on the driver's side - more room for the intake tube / filter. Everything else on the Ranger is already stuffed on the passenger's side of the bay. If I ever finish swapping my intake to the HO upper, it will be driver's side TB, too.

Mike

[MalcolmV8]

and a question for malcom and cgrey8, where did you get those explorer headers and how much were they?

As Chris pointed out from Summit. They are made by Ford Racing.

Here's what I had to go through to get my EGR working.

http://www.v8-ranger.com/blue/egr/egr.php

And here's a few pics after I got the headers Jet-Hot coated.

[cgrey8]

Ahh yes, I did fail to give you (MercuRanger) and your site credit on the pic. In my head, I was that's why I put the link to the site, but I forgot to type it out. My bad...and thanks for clarifying my AC/heater box statement. I'd forgotten that the lift was what required the AC box mod. Oneday I'll learn to keep my mouth shut...err...fingers still about things I don't know completely about, but I doubt it'll happen anytime soon.

Malcolm, I still can't get over how nice that Jet-Hot coating makes those headers look. I still have not gotten mine coated. You recommended that I get the motor placed with the headers on the truck uncoated so if they brush up against stuff or get banged up, I'm not damaging an expensive surface.

[MalcolmV8]

Everything else on the Ranger is already stuffed on the passenger's side of the bay.

I guess that depends on your year Ranger. My 92 was like that too. However on my 94 the battery and fuse box is on the driver's side leaving a nice big opening on the passenger's side for the filter and intake tubing.

[evensteven]

The headers look great, Did it cost an arm and a leg? If you you mind me asking. You stated it will have a dramatic reduction in the heat rediated by the exhaust.

[MalcolmV8]

Off the top of my head I don't remember the exact price but no it wasn't as bad as they used to be. I'm thinking somewhere around $220 which included return shipping. If the heat reduction works as good as everyone says it does then I think it's money well spent. Especially with the passenger's side header so close to the A/C box.

[MercuRanger]

Ahh yes, I did fail to give you (MercuRanger) and your site credit on the pic.

I'm not worried about credit

Mike

[Torque Monster]

I believe the horsepower of the HO 5.0 V8 from '85-'93 is something like this:

1985 - 210 hp HO w/600 cfm holley carb and 5-speed tranny only.

1986 - 200 hp HO

1987 to 1993 - 225 hp HO

1994 to 1995 - not sure on hp but HO 5.0 was used.

The horsepower on the 1996 to 2001 Explorer/Mountaineer 5.0 V8 is like this:

1996 to early 1997 - 210 hp w/internal EGR and GT40 heads.

Late 1997 to 2001 - 215 hp w/external EGR and GT40-P heads.

And if you decide to use an Explorer/Mountaineer 5.0 V8 there are very good Swap Headers available for your Ranger/Bronco II.

http://www.torquemonsterheaders.com/multimedia.html

They can be made for the standard ford heads used from 1985-1995 or GT40 heads used on some Mustangs in 1994-1995 and all Explorer/Mountaineers 1996-2001.

Thank you.

Bob Pasquale[/img]

[cgrey8]

Bob,
Does Torque Monster make an external EGR provisioned header for the GT40p heads like the FMS Explorer header? If so, is the price any different?

Looking around, I found some specs on the Torque Monster headers where it claims fuel efficiency improvements as well as torque and horsepower gains. However what's concerning me is the data sheets from the dyno indicate HPs well below 215hp. With production TM headers, the TM website indicates the Explorer motor put out 178.8hp. Is the 215hp rating for the Explorer engines measured at the crankshaft?

I've already bought my FMS Explorer headers for this swap. However nothing says this will be my last swap or that I won't be doing upgrades to what I have once the truck is back on the road. Since this one is primarily a daily driver swap, if I did another swap, I'm positive it would be a more performance oriented venture.

[Dave]

Chris,
All the figures you see quoted on HP is at the crank w/acc. Ford is usually pretty accurate with the ratings on their crate motors but did play around with the numbers on the cars in the different years with basically the same parts, computer was probably main difference. Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords did a test on a stock 4.6 and then switched over to the FMS headers. Think they gained less than 6HP. Stock headers arn't that bad on a stock motor, unless it's one of them tube style Explorer headers.
Dave

[cjcnomor4]

most hp claims are measured at the crankshaft. i've been told you can loose up to 1/3 through the drivetrain