Windsor Cams - Explorer, E or B

[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

[My427stang]

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

[pbf777]

.........., 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.

[TomP]

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.

[gt350hr]

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

[DuckRyder]

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.

[TomP]

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".