FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => Non-FE Discussion Forum => Topic started by: DuckRyder on January 01, 2021, 10:03:45 AM
-
So lets say you have a 2001ish explorer drive train, a set of springs/retainers that will work on the p heads and the stock cam plus an E and a B...
You're exceedingly cheap and won't buy another cam...
it is an automatic with a 373 rear 225/70/15 no headers, no intake and it is truck but no heavy towing.
Which cam would you use?
-
E.
-
Definitely the E-303 camshaft. Everyone who installed the B-303 camshaft hated it locally, and many changed them out asap. San Antonio is the 8th or 9th largest US city, and back in the late '80s to mid '90s, the SBF was king of the streets, with super chargers and nitrous or both on hundreds of those cars. It was the E-303 camshaft that was simplest to make work on the mostly stock short blocks at the time. Joe-JDC
-
Thanks Guys.
That was my feeling just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Never run the B, not even sure why I have it, I think I was going to put it in an former FHP Mustang I had...
-
Neither! :o
Although, I do disagree with the previous statements made of the unpopularity of the "B" cam, as it's one of my favorites (although not solely, but also as it was significantly less expensive as compared to other suppliers' offerings), as it has proven to be successful in Fox Mustangs with hop-ups, is the "B" cam coupled to the 1.7 rockers. And this not only of my own personal experiences as applied to customer vehicles, but also in sales numbers over the decades, as I doubt any other grind comes close to the "B" in its' distribution in this market intention. :)
The "E" cam has never been one I appreciated as it just proved to produce less top-end with seemingly no real improvement in the bottom-end performance. :(
But, in the instance of a 2001 Explorer (or anything of this mass), if one were determined for a camshaft change.......well, if one is exceedingly cheap then what has worked for us numerous times in truck applications is the use of the O.E.M. 5.0 HO Mustang camshaft (generally, find a good "take-out", polish it up and go!) coupled to the 1.7 rockers. This even has proven to work with the speed density systems, yet providing a mild up-grade in performance. 8)
If this seems an unappealing choice, then I would recommend the Crower #15510 camshaft with a standard ratio 1.6 rocker arm, although this will cost one a few additional dollars the difference in perceived savings wouldn't offset the otherwise disappointing results. ;)
Scott.
-
Although I have never used any 5.0 "alphabet cams, my buddy had a warmed over 79 Mustang with a C4, and a 5.0 roller engine with a B cam. It ran pretty well, usually 12.2s at the track, best of a 12.09 in good air. Looking to try something different, he swapped in a E and promptly lost 2 tenths in the 1/4 mile. He put the B back in and got his 2 tenths back. Now, this was in a fairly light FOX Mustang, with headers, and RPM AirGap intake, and 650 Holley DP with 4.10 gears, so not sure how this would equate in a stock much heavier Explorer, but I agree a stock 5.0 cam would be pretty nice.
-
I should probably clarify...
My plan is to swap said drive train into an otherwise bone stock 2002 Ranger XLT.
I don't think I have a stock HO cam or 1.7 rockers... I'm pretty sure i have the springs and a the two alphabet cams...
-
I ran an E cam in a 1990 Mustang LX 5-speed car with freeway flyer gears. GT40-X heads, Performer intake, 65mm throttle body, 24lb injectors and Ford Racing shorty headers--typical 1990s 5.0 street engine. I liked that cam. Had a nice racy sounding idle, pulled great in the low and midrange up to about 5500--exactly where it was rated to.
As you know there's much better cams today but you are asking about cams you have and with that said, I would vote for the E. 8)
-
DuckRyder,
I was gathering parts for the exact same swap into my 2002 Ranger but the great state of California won't allow it because there wasn't a 302 offered in 2002. "My" plan ( asI knew it had to be smog legal) was a '97 Explorer ( three bar head , not P) with an HO Mustang cam and 1.7 bolt down Cobra rockers so it would pass emissions here. I have run the B cam in a 347 with 1.7 rockers and "I" didn't like it either because I was running a stock C4 convertor that I was running. I have the F cam with 1.7s in my 408W and it is "almost" too much for a standard C4 ( not modified) convertor. When doing "at the track" testing the 1.7 rockers were worth a solid tenth and a half in ET over stock 1.6. In later testing going back to 1.6 and installing the B cam the car only picked up a tenth. Switching to the 1.7 with the B cam was only another tenth. So really only a half a tenth for allot more work.
For my Ranger I am going to the 2.5 Duratec and a special "South American" 2.5 Ranger intake. looks stock but is worth 35HP over the 2.3 Duratec in it now.
Randy
-
Massachusetts uses the same emissions rules California. So I grabbed obd1 ranger 93 splash. No ecu to plug into and it's just a matter of someone looking the other way on my swap. Trying for a 390 with a c6 in mine. I may end up going 302 or 289. This cam info will prove useful then thanks.
-
Good Morning Randy, Bruce and Jake.
Good info on the Cams. Unfortunately I'm fresh out of X or Y heads, GT40 intakes and bolt down 1.7 rockers. all of that save the heads were on my Nautique when I sold it, the heads went with the FHP car.
I'm still researching this swap trying to become more familiar with the idiosyncrasies of the Explorers. If i do this i'll want to make it look and function like it came that way (even though i won't have to smog it) some of the 5.0 Explorers have a returnees fuel system I think, and I'm pretty sure my truck has a return... but like I said, still researching. This truck is my daily when I am not driving a company ride so it needs to be reliable and mostly unobtrusive. If i could use an earlier engine with regular GT40's i'd probably actually prefer that.
Mine is a 3.0 Vulcan and it is revealing a marked lack of oomph now that I live somewhere with hills. It is also a 2wd truck so it has a 7.5 rear. I'll likely be doing an 8.8 as well, so as we can see this is adding up and eating into money for the FE truck, hence my desire to use what I have to the extent possible.
What I really should do is buy a newer truck but this one does have some sentimental value.
-
Robert ,
I'm in the same boat. If I sold mine and picked up a 2000 , I could do the 302 conversion. I have so many "up grades" done to mine that I said the hell with it and am settling for the 30+ I'll get with the 2.5 conversion. It STILL will cost a grand to do it by the time it's done. I built an 8.8 4.10 track lock and sway bar rear with Mustang disc brakes for mine. That conversion was $300. Not worth it for a $2,500 truck but it's what "I" want LOL.
Randy
-
Hi Randy.
Yes I was planning to do an Explorer 8.8 with disk its probably as easy as a ranger 8.8 and a disc conversion. I was planning to stay with The 3.73.
I doubt the 5.0 would get any worse full mileage, you know what they say about the 3.0, all the power of a 4, all the economy or a V8.
Even without the inevitable project creep it frankly doesn't make lot of sense to do this swap from a dollars and sense stand point. But then again a lot of things don't.
-
Just so you know, the later Rangers came from the factory with 4 wheel disc brakes, when I bought my new 2010 Ranger, I was suprised to see that it had 4 wheel discs, appears that 2010 was the first for them, when I ordered the truck, I did not even know they were available , even as an option. My truck is a 2.3 4 cylinder, so it only has the 7.5" rearend, but the 4.0 V6s have 8.8s, and around here, are much more common that the 4 bangers, so finding a 2010 or newer Ranger with a 8.8 with 4 wheel discs should be pretty easy.
-
Not a 5.0 alphabet cam guy, but why does everyone hate the B cam? Seems like a little less overlap would be nice for this application even though the lobes are a little bigger.
-
The B-303 camshafts were difficult to tune with the speed density electronics, and were so lopey at low rpm that they would stall at every stop light, ran rough, got poor fuel mileage. Did not work easily with the super chargers, either. The E-303 was less duration, so it idled better, had more lift, and was easy to tune for EFI. Folks who installed a carburetor were better satisfied with the B-303 cam, and a lot of folks thought it was easier to run a carb than fight the "New" for the time, EFI. Joe-JDC
-
The B-303 camshafts were difficult to tune with the speed density electronics, and were so lopey at low rpm that they would stall at every stop light, ran rough, got poor fuel mileage. Did not work easily with the super chargers, either. The E-303 was less duration, so it idled better, had more lift, and was easy to tune for EFI. Folks who installed a carburetor were better satisfied with the B-303 cam, and a lot of folks thought it was easier to run a carb than fight the "New" for the time, EFI. Joe-JDC
Interesting, makes perfect sense thanks. Even though the lobes are a little bigger, the B has a smidge less overlap because of a 112 split, so unless it was very retarded, you'd think it'd be about the same (or close) from the exhaust and computer's point of view. However, goes to show you, engines don't read LOL
-
.........., you'd think it'd be about the same (or close) from the exhaust and computer's point of view.
The "E" cam has never been one I appreciated as it just proved to produce less top-end with seemingly no real improvement in the bottom-end performance. :(
That's what I was attempting to convey. :)
But it's actually the intake reversion and induction manifold pressure loss as read by the M.A.P. sensor that upsets the Ford speed-density system so.
And, the simple solution for a Fox Mustang attempting this range of camshafts, if of originally a "speed-density" configuration is to convert to the later Ford EECIV "mass-air flow" system and stop beating your head against a wall! ;)
Scott.
-
I ran a B303 cam in my Ranger with an otherwise stock 87 5.0L with a Performer RPM and a factory Holley 4180 carb off an 83-85 Mustang. It has a T5 and 3.73 gears. It sounded good and got great gas mileage. I liked that cam, could have used more lift but the stock heads may not have helped much.
On the 5.0L i am doing now for my Ranchero i have a Comp hyd roller with 232/240 at .050" and .565"/.574" lift, better aluminum heads and a single plane intake with the same carb. T5 and 4.33 gears. Hoping it handily outruns the Ranger's 12.64 best.
-
Hi Randy.
Yes I was planning to do an Explorer 8.8 with disk its probably as easy as a ranger 8.8 and a disc conversion. I was planning to stay with The 3.73.
I doubt the 5.0 would get any worse full mileage, you know what they say about the 3.0, all the power of a 4, all the economy or a V8.
Even without the inevitable project creep it frankly doesn't make lot of sense to do this swap from a dollars and sense stand point. But then again a lot of things don't.
Robert,
I got lucky and found a 4.10 Ranger 8.8 with 10"rakes for $100. The '94 Mustang plates dust shields and calipers were $50 and new slotted /drilled rotors were $80. I added a traction lock I had already. Less than $250 total. The Explorer is heavier , wider, and lowers the truck 4" unless you add spring perches. It was a better way ''for me".
Randy
-
Hi Ross, Joe, Randy, Tom and Scott. (and anyone i Missed.)
Ive done nothing with this, but wanted to thank y'all who talked about Ranger rear end swaps in particular, because knowing later models had disk helps me. The ol Ranger is chugging along, but the 7.5 has developed an increasing in volume whine ... So the rear end information may come in handy here after the first of the year as i definitely want to do an 8.8 and probably won't do the Explorer due to welding.. I guess the search is on for a 2010 - EOP Ranger 8.8 3.73:1 Track Lock.
Trying to get a shop built, then the 5.0 swap might be back on the table.
-
As far as I know the disc brake Ranger rear ends are the width of the Explorer and wider than the old drum 7.5. Since they already use a wheel with lots of backspace you may need to use late model Mustang wheels.
On my Ranger I already had 10" wide wheels I wanted to use with zero offset, I used an Explorer drum rear end and used 8" housing ends and axles. Two left side Maverick axles made the rear end 52" wide to the wheel mount surface, stock is 56" and I think disc is near 60".