So I bought an Explorer intake........

[OVERKILL]

So, for Project Super Binky, I've now purchased an Explorer intake instead of using the stock HO upper/lower that I was originally going to use. The GT40-series intakes are reversible as well, so that part won't be an issue, I've got a stock Mustang TB I'm converting over to work on it as well, so we'll see how this pans out :) I'll have pics when the HO conversion begins :)

I just figure, the GT-40 intakes have a much more even flow bias than our crappy stock, and the Mustang crappy stock intakes, so its a much better choice. The price was right, so why not :)

[JoshMcMadMac]

Port them and clean them up while you have the chance! That's be pretty cool on a Townie, too.

[OVERKILL]

I'm hoping so :)

[gadget73]

Did you get a 96 intake? only 96 has EGR passages internally. What would be ideal is a Lightning EGR spacer and a modded Explorer throttle body, as they are 65 mm. The Lightning EGR spacer is the only factory part with the correct bosses for our brackets and is already 67mm. You can bore a Panther spacer to like 63 mm, or you could mod the Mustang spacer to accept our cables, or use Mark VII cables. Personally I dislike the VII cable arrangement as it makes the engine bay look cluttered and the cable geometry looks bad to me. I'd expect binding.

[OVERKILL]

Did you get a 96 intake? only 96 has EGR passages internally. What would be ideal is a Lightning EGR spacer and a modded Explorer throttle body, as they are 65 mm. The Lightning EGR spacer is the only factory part with the correct bosses for our brackets and is already 67mm. You can bore a Panther spacer to like 63 mm, or you could mod the Mustang spacer to accept our cables, or use Mark VII cables. Personally I dislike the VII cable arrangement as it makes the engine bay look cluttered and the cable geometry looks bad to me. I'd expect binding.

1. Yes I got a 96 intake with the internal EGR. Only 96 through to about mid 97 had it.

2. Yes, the lightning EGR would be cool from the sounds of it, didn't know it was the same style. I was just going to use the 60mm Mustang one and route the coolant hoses differently. The Mustang TB can be "adapted" by using the shaft from the panther TB, correct? I guess I'll know when I put the two side-by-side :) Regardless, with E7's and the stock HO camshaft, I'm not going to be drawing enough air for the 65mm TB to really make a difference. I run a 75mm (overkill) on my 'stang, but its got some heavily ported heads and a custom camshaft, as well as a toilet for an intake (TFS-R).

[JoshMcMadMac]

...as well as a toilet for an intake (TFS-R).


Sorry, that was great first thing this morning...I now need to clean the apple off of my monitor. :rofl:

[pro-five-oh]

Yeah its a good idea if the price is right...clean up the exhaust ports on the E7 heads and it'll help a bit. I wouldn't buy one new for a stock 5.0HO but its a good building block for sure.

Tell us if installing on a TC backwards had any issues.

[OVERKILL]

Will do :)

-Chris

[gadget73]

1. Yes I got a 96 intake with the internal EGR. Only 96 through to about mid 97 had it.

2. Yes, the lightning EGR would be cool from the sounds of it, didn't know it was the same style. I was just going to use the 60mm Mustang one and route the coolant hoses differently. The Mustang TB can be "adapted" by using the shaft from the panther TB, correct? I guess I'll know when I put the two side-by-side :) Regardless, with E7's and the stock HO camshaft, I'm not going to be drawing enough air for the 65mm TB to really make a difference. I run a 75mm (overkill) on my 'stang, but its got some heavily ported heads and a custom camshaft, as well as a toilet for an intake (TFS-R).

The Lightning EGR has mounting bosses for both Fox and Panther style throttle brackets. its sort of the holy grail and just about as impossible to find. The coolant hoses (which incidentally are not really helpful in the slightest) aren't the problem its mounting up the throttle brackets to the spacer. The Mustang one has the bosses on the wrong side. You could whack the bosses off a Panther spacer and weld them to the Mustang one I guess.

Yes, the throttle levers are swappable. Just grind down the end of the shaft to get it flush with the throttle lever. You can pop it off and swap with the Panther lever. Spot weld it back on and you're good to go.

Intake should have no clearance issues if you use a 3/8" spacer so it clears the fuel rail. I know for a fact you can run up to a 1" spacer with the Explorer intake under the hood of a stock Townie and not have clearance issues.

[OVERKILL]

So you don't think it will clear the rails without a spacer then?

[OVERKILL]

Its here!!!

http://www.photodump.com/direct/cadlam/Explorer.jpg


It arrived this morning. The throttle body opening looks like its been ported out a bit, but I haven't measured it yet to see how much.

The round holes look WAY bigger in real life then they do online, they are MUCH larger than the ports on the stocker, by a HUGE amount.

[Four Eyed Stangs]

Sweet!

I liked my Cobra intake when I had it.
It was purdy!

They are a nice improvement over stock.

[pro-five-oh]

So you don't think it will clear the rails without a spacer then?

You'll have to grind the upper intake to clear the rail otherwise. Since you run the risk of hitting the inlet tube in the casting, its not a good idea to run without a spacer.

[OVERKILL]

You'll have to grind the upper intake to clear the rail otherwise. Since you run the risk of hitting the inlet tube in the casting, its not a good idea to run without a spacer.

Please elaborate, because the Mustang rails don't have an issue...........????????

EDIT: Basically, what I'm asking is what makes the Town Car rails different from the rails on a Mustang, which don't have an issue?

[Four Eyed Stangs]

The TC rails are higher maybe because they are plumbed differently.

I had issues puting the HO upper on mine.
I ditched EGR anyway so I ground on through.

[OVERKILL]

OK, but is this a known issue only with the HO intakes and maybe not with the Explorer, or has it been confirmed with the Explorer as well?

[Four Eyed Stangs]

I'd locate a speedshop that carries the spacer and try it without first.

Then if it wont just go get one.

I haven't seen anyone put an Explorer on a Panther yet.

[OVERKILL]

You happen to have a shot of a stock HO intake together, from the front? I can take one of the Explorer and we can compare spacing...........

I can't believe I'm the first to do this, that's wicked!

[OVERKILL]

OK, here are two shots of the intake, assembled the way it would sit on the car:

http://www.photodump.com/direct/cadlam/233327.jpg

http://www.photodump.com/direct/cadlam/233532.jpg


What do you think? It LOOKS like there is lots of room there...........

[pro-five-oh]

OK, but is this a known issue only with the HO intakes and maybe not with the Explorer, or has it been confirmed with the Explorer as well?

You're our test mule, tell us how it works out. :)

I don't know of any height differences between the HO and GT-40 intake, so I'd get a line on a spacer ASAP.

[OVERKILL]

You're our test mule, tell us how it works out. :)

I don't know of any height differences between the HO and GT-40 intake, so I'd get a line on a spacer ASAP.

Well, a buddy of mine can get me one next day if its necessary, I'm just hoping it isn't. I have a 1" spacer on my TFS-R and it prevented me from using the factory bolts/studs and I had to used threaded rod. I would have rather used the factory hardware, and the hardware that came with this intake looks brand-new, so I'd like to use it as well, if possible of course.

I guess its time to go measure the stock Mustang intake I've got and compare eh?

[Four Eyed Stangs]

I have a Holley Sys 1 and stock upper in the garage.
If you still need a pick by tomorrow I can get one.

[Four Eyed Stangs]

Here's the best I have on my PC right now.

[OVERKILL]

Thank you very much. The raised portion that seems to be on the bottom of the stock HO upper, where the TB mounts, isn't there, its flat and tapered, which I hope you can see in the pic. Whether this will provide adequate clearance or not, well, I guess we'll find out :)


-Chris

[Ivan D.]

Overkill, here is a picture of a stock Mustang intake behind a stock Tc intake, should help you compare things:
http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/314883/fullsize/100_0536.jpg

And you're not the first one to have an Explorer intake in a Townie, Scott (lincolnmania) installed one in the Superlinc, and IIRC there was at least another guy with that setup - they do not post here I think, but fact is it's been done before. I'll ask Scott about the spacer.

[OVERKILL]

Overkill, here is a picture of a stock Mustang intake behind a stock Tc intake, should help you compare things:
http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/314883/fullsize/100_0536.jpg

And you're not the first one to have an Explorer intake in a Townie, Scott (lincolnmania) installed one in the Superlinc, and IIRC there was at least another guy with that setup - they do not post here I think, but fact is it's been done before. I'll ask Scott about the spacer.

OK, the throttle-side of the Explorer, looks like the TC intake in the pic, flat.

And I'm glad I'm not the first testing this setup out, though it looks to be very straight-forward.

[TheAudioGuru]

YAY superlincs!!!!! Scotts the man, so is anyone who does this mod to their townie!!!!:p

[Elemino]

The Lightning EGR has mounting bosses for both Fox and Panther style throttle brackets. its sort of the holy grail and just about as impossible to find.So umm... how much would one of these bad boys cost at a dealership? Might be worth the investment if I ever do some of these upgrades

[pro-five-oh]

Thank you very much. The raised portion that seems to be on the bottom of the stock HO upper, where the TB mounts, isn't there, its flat and tapered, which I hope you can see in the pic. Whether this will provide adequate clearance or not, well, I guess we'll find out :)


Check out the TECH article we made to convert a TC to HO. It had a decent picture of the intake clearance problem.

[Ivan D.]

Check out the TECH article we made to convert a TC to HO. It had a decent picture of the intake clearance problem.

Pro, the weird thing is last night I talked to BoxMan at the GMN chat and he said he had no clearance problems when bolting an HO upper to his otherwise stock Crown Vic engine. I run a spacer myself, got it with the untakes so I never really tried if it's gonna hit or not, but BoxMan swears by his setup to be trouble free.

RJ, yes, when it comes to box Panthers Scott is da mang indeed, I was thinking of employing his services for a rear end gear change and disc swap, but never found enough spare cash to go to Scottfest. Now with the big tires I have I will really need these conversions done, so maybe I'll just man up and deal with them myself...

[OVERKILL]

Interesting..........

I'm going to go LOOK at my engine and see if my line looks like its going to hit.

-Chris

[pro-five-oh]

Pro, the weird thing is last night I talked to BoxMan at the GMN chat and he said he had no clearance problems when bolting an HO upper to his otherwise stock Crown Vic engine. I run a spacer myself, got it with the untakes so I never really tried if it's gonna hit or not, but BoxMan swears by his setup to be trouble free.


What year is his Vic? Pre 1988?

[Ivan D.]

What year is his Vic? Pre 1988?

'86 IIRC, he has several but I thibk it was rhe wagon he was talking about.



And here's Scott's answer as to whether a spacer will be needed or no:

"I use the spacers cause I like tall valve covers to clear roller rockers......MrLTD's wagon has no spacer and stock valve covers, so no unless he is running tall valve covers, IIRC Mike did some minor clearincing."

What VCs are you planning on using, Overkill?

[OVERKILL]

The stock ones, though I have a set of stock Mustang ones I could use as well, to get that "Aluminum effect", though I think they are heavier than the stamped-steel ones.

[Ivan D.]

They are heavier indeed, and I don't think they clear 1.7RRs, but they seal great to the heads - my driver side one is held by only 5 out of 6 bolts, and it doesn't leak one bit, stamped steel ones can't do that.

[OVERKILL]

They are heavier indeed, and I don't think they clear 1.7RRs, but they seal great to the heads - my driver side one is held by only 5 out of 6 bolts, and it doesn't leak one bit, stamped steel ones can't do that.

Oh, they clear, just depends on cam size. Mine cleared on the Mustang with the TFS #1 cam.

[pro-five-oh]

'86 IIRC, he has several but I thibk it was rhe wagon he was talking about.


Ya know, I'm starting to think the fuel rails changed in 1988 along with the computer/cruise control. I haven't seen the rails side by side, but I thought the 1988 ones looked a little different when I worked on one. :confused:

Anyone?

[gadget73]

What year is his Vic? Pre 1988?

The Vic with the HO upper is an 89.

[gadget73]

Another thing you might run into, there is a vacuum port on what ends up being the rear right corner of the intake. This thing sticks down into the valve cover. If you have one of the ones that is threaded in, I'd suggest removing it, if not, you might be stuck with a spacer. I can tell you on good authority that the big spacer, the 1 1/8" or whatever it is does fit under the stock hood of a Townie with no clearance problems. Its a smidge tight and I wouldn't suggest it with old engine mounts, but it does fit. The wagon with no spacer uses the stock steel valve covers, and I believe he removed that rear vacuum port. Its also a 1989.

[OVERKILL]

Well, I have the car apart in the garage now, so, we'll see how it goes. I just got the lower intake off.

The thing that finally got my ass in gear was that one of my 14lb injectors started to stick open and the car was running like crap, so, no time like the present to slap in the E7's, 19's, Mustang cam and the Explorer intake.

Vacuum routing is going to be fun, there are a lot less ports on the Explorer intake, so, we'll see what happens.

-Chris

[Ivan D.]

Well, I have the car apart in the garage now, so, we'll see how it goes. I just got the lower intake off.

Got you beat on this - after today I'm down to a short block, with the rods disconnected and bearings removed, crank is coming out tomorrow evening maybe. All that on the SBC engine tho, gotta get the truck running nicely before I can tear down the Townie.


Vacuum routing is going to be fun, there are a lot less ports on the Explorer intake, so, we'll see what happens.
You'll be surprised how easy that actually is, as long as you know where you're getting at - redoing my vacuum system took me about two hours, that's with figuring what is what, deciding what I wanna do, and then running the new lines.

[OVERKILL]

Well, got her completely apart.

Was surprised to see that the car had a double-roller timing chain in it. Not an insane amount of slack in it either, given that it has 300,000Km on it.

Cross-hatching still visible in the cylinders, no ridge, but there was this weird carbon-like stuff coming out into the lifter valley from between the head and the block?

I have the Mustang cam in it now, new timing set, one of the two E7's on it (ARP hardware of course), and the 1.7 roller rockers setup on #1 cylinder and I checked to see if things were going to hit, which they didn't.

These pistons are almost completely flat, just a tiny little dish in the center, smaller than the one on the stock Mustang pistons and of course no valve reliefs. Its also interesting to note, that, when checked with a razor blade, the piston, at TDC, is actually slightly ABOVE the deck, probably .010 or so.

Can't wait to get it back together and hear it run.

-Chris

[gadget73]

Just old sludge oil. Probably in its previous life, the oil wasn't changed as often as it should have been, poor quality oil was used, or it did too much short run driving to really cook the garbage out of the oil. I built an HO from a use station wagon engine and it had the same big black carbon chunks in the lifter galley. Broke them loose and sucked them up with the vacuum and its all better now.

Good to know that the 1.7 RR doesn't hit with the lopo pistons. That has been a source of much debate. If you wouldn't mind, and you happen to have the correct type of chain, could you see if there is any piston to valve clearance issues if you advance the camshaft 4 degrees? I hear mixed stories about this and I'm curious.

[Ivan D.]

Hey Gadget, what does advancing the cam do? I'm not gonna do that to the Townie any time soon, but the truck has a double-roller timing set that allows for such adjustments and I'd like to know what are the advantages and downsides of doing that slight mod.

[OVERKILL]

I don't have the 8-way lower sprocket on it, so unfortunately, I can't check.

I will add that:

1. The Explorer intakes fits fine, clears the fuel rails by MILES.

2. I need vacuum trees. The Explorer intake has FOUR vacuum ports, the TC intake has like 8. I'm a bit short, trying to figure this out now.........

3. The TC takes a LOT longer to take apart/put back together than the Mustang does :)

4. I may need longer push-rods. I figured I'd use the stock rods. They were/are a touch short. Rockers torqued down, still some slack. They are supposed to pre-load the lifter a little bit, that's not happening. I went and get the push-rods out of the Mustang engine that I got the heads off, and those are the same length as the TC ones, so it looks like it might be time to go get an adjustable push-rod and order the right length. Anybody else have this issue?

-Chris

[OVERKILL]

O...........K...............

Well, I had to fab up an adjustable push-rod.

I cut one of the 32 stockers I had here about 1.5" down from one end, tapped it, and then threaded in some threaded rod I had here. I used the same adjustment procedure I used when I did the Mustang, which is, to spin the push-rod until resistance is felt while tightening down the rocker, and then it should hit torque within 1/4 to 1 turn after that point.

After going through this procedure, I took my adjustable rod down to the local machine shop and we checked the length which ended up being 6.3. Stock is 6.25 or 6.27 (can't remember which) which is bizarre.

We think that the valves in the head are slightly shorter Chevy valves that were put in there when the engine that I got them off of was rebuilt, SO, they would have just decked the difference off the block in order to be able to use the stock push-rods. I of course don't have that luxury, which is how I arrived in the boat I am in now. My TC, 3/4 of the way together, sitting in my garage waiting for my hard-to-get 6.300" push-rods.

Oh, the fun.

Oh, and PVC is just fine with the 1.7's and the correct length push-rod (I checked again with the adjustable) so I am good to go in that regard.

[Ivan D.]

2. I need vacuum trees. The Explorer intake has FOUR vacuum ports, the TC intake has like 8. I'm a bit short, trying to figure this out now.........
You only needs ports for the following:
- brakes vacuum booster
- HVAC system
- fuel pressure regulator
- PCV
- MAP sensor

Of all these the first three go to the vacuum tree, the other two have separate ports - on a stock setup that is. You can T-ee the MAP and the PCV together and ryun them off the same vacuum port, mine go to different ports but there is an equalizing hose connecting them too, and it works fine for me.

[OVERKILL]

I have the following:

1. PCV valve
2. Carbon canister
3. Fuel Pressure Regulator
4. TAB/TAD
5. Vacuum Tree

and I think there's another one there somewhere...........

I'll see what I can do. Waiting for push-rods to arrive first.

[Elemino]

If it comes down to it, they make vacuum pumps now that you can use.

I made a post about the double roller when I changed out my timing chain back in the spring. I was very surprised, and I wouldn't have touched it if I had known. The debate ended, we didn't know what year they begin putting the double roller in. I have an '89 (the end of the line), what year is your car? I'm begining to wonder if the double roller was just standard on the TC but the link type chains were used on the Vic and Marquis.

[gadget73]

Doesnt the vac tree on the exploder intake unthread like the Townie one? The only one I would not advise splitting is the MAP sensor line. The carbon canister can easily be split into the PCV line, and the TAB/TAD/EVP can be tied in with the fuel pressure regulator with no troubles.

Ivan: advancing the cam moves the power band downward a little bit, makes it so the HO cam makes power around 2200 instead of 2500-ish. Even advanced, I can tell you that you'll feel it come into the power band of the camshaft very distinctly. The 89 CV I helped assemble takes off OK, then suddenly it goes from decent acceleration to "hang on!" mode.

Overkill: What camshaft and heads were on the donor motor? If those were originally Explorer heads, they're about .030 taller than the Cobra or E7 heads. The Cobra had gt40 irons but milled down a bit so they would use a stock pushrod. The Explorer cam supposedly has a larger base circle, so it uses the same pushrods too. The problem comes in when you use an HO cam with the Explorer heads. The pushrods end up being short. The other guy I know who built an Explorer engine with an aftermarket cam had the same problem and had to get custom pushrods too.

[OVERKILL]

Doesnt the vac tree on the exploder intake unthread like the Townie one?

Nope. It has four "press-fit" vacuum fittings on it, that's it.

The only one I would not advise splitting is the MAP sensor line. The carbon canister can easily be split into the PCV line, and the TAB/TAD/EVP can be tied in with the fuel pressure regulator with no troubles.

I am going to find a second vacuum tree and just run that in conjunction with the first. There is no way I can give the MAP sensor its own line without drilling the intake, which I really don't want to do.


Ivan: advancing the cam moves the power band downward a little bit, makes it so the HO cam makes power around 2200 instead of 2500-ish. Even advanced, I can tell you that you'll feel it come into the power band of the camshaft very distinctly. The 89 CV I helped assemble takes off OK, then suddenly it goes from decent acceleration to "hang on!" mode.

Yeah, that sounds about right. When I swapped the top-end on my Mustang and used the TFS #1 camshaft, it brought that up to 3,000RPM.

Overkill: What camshaft and heads were on the donor motor? If those were originally Explorer heads, they're about .030 taller than the Cobra or E7 heads. The Cobra had gt40 irons but milled down a bit so they would use a stock pushrod. The Explorer cam supposedly has a larger base circle, so it uses the same pushrods too. The problem comes in when you use an HO cam with the Explorer heads. The pushrods end up being short. The other guy I know who built an Explorer engine with an aftermarket cam had the same problem and had to get custom pushrods too.

The engine was a stock Mustang 302 out of an '89 GT. It had a fresh rebuild on it, the heads are E7's, but have newer valve springs and valves in them, or so it would appear.

The heads I have on my Mustang are from the old GT40 crate motor which came with the same heads as the Cobra. They use stock length pushrods.

The camshaft is also a stock HO roller cam, from the same '89 GT.