HO or exploder cam

nkhd1 · Nov 27, 2017

4.11 gears 35 tires zf tranny motor is a 97 exploder and has exploder cam in it. i have heard the mustang ho cam gets you about 20hp more but low end might suffer.
Motor is rebuilt but not too far to change cam. heads are gt40 rebuilt and on the motor -stock springs. plan is to go fuel injection.

Going in wifes bronco and will not likely see much in the way of trails.

advice...

sykanr0ng · Nov 27, 2017

And yet most of those cams were replaced by the Mustang crowd because the HO cams are biased toward torque instead of the high RPM horsepower they crave.

Timmy390 · Nov 27, 2017

The Explorer cam is a good one. Don't get caught up in the HP buzz numbers people through around. It's torque that gets you down the road and the Bronco needs it down low.

The Explorer cam is used in the 351W line even in big heavy vans such as my donor 96 E350

Explorer cam specs
Explorer F4TE-6250-BA Hydraulic Roller
Intake at 1.6 rocker ratio .422" lift 256 duration
Exhaust at 1.6 rocker ratio .448" lift 266 duration
1.7 rockers is .449 intake and .476 Exhaust
116 lobe separation

I upgraded to this cam get get more torque but it requires new springs as the GT40 and GT40P heads have only enough spring to handle the Explorer cam.
Comp 35-349-8/XE264HR
Advertised Duration (Int/Exh): 264/270
Duration @ .050 (Int/Exh): 212/218
Gross Valve Lift (Int/Exh): .512/.512
LSA/ICL:114/110
RPM Range: 1,500-5,500

One note, my 95 Stang EFI didn't like this cam but I found a way around it and it runs well. I'm sure the Explorer EFI would have no issues with it.

Tim

bsquared · Nov 27, 2017

nkhd1 said:
4.11 gears 35 tires zf tranny motor is a 97 exploder and has exploder cam in it. i have heard the mustang ho cam gets you about 20hp more but low end might suffer.
Motor is rebuilt but not too far to change cam. heads are gt40 rebuilt and on the motor -stock springs. plan is to go fuel injection.

Going in wifes bronco and will not likely see much in the way of trails.

advice...

You have my exact setup, except I'm running 31's because mine is a LUBR. I am wicked happy with mine, for what it's worth. Glad I stayed with the exploder cam, but 35's might behave differently. Cheers, B2

englewoodcowboy · Nov 28, 2017

I prefer the HO cam, more power and torque across the board. You can advance the cam 4* to bring it in a little sooner but it is a much better cam IMHO. Now looking at the specs with the explorer cam and switching to 1.7 rockers might be worth playing with but you will still need to replace the springs to go that route.

pcf_mark · Nov 28, 2017

I have the stock E7 Mustang engine cam and it runs fine for me. I have all stock lift and tires so I am lame compared to you guys! I can light the tires easily on dry pavement and it can get exciting in the rain or snow with 3.50:1 gears and 4R70W. No doubt the gears in the 4R70W are helping.

I do not think I would want too much more torque down low or I would need more tire (width not height). I was thinking more cam in my future to soften the bottom end and give me some more punch in the mid-range.

englewoodcowboy · Nov 28, 2017

pcf_mark said:
I have the stock E7 Mustang engine cam and it runs fine for me. I have all stock lift and tires so I am lame compared to you guys! I can light the tires easily on dry pavement and it can get exciting in the rain or snow with 3.50:1 gears and 4R70W. No doubt the gears in the 4R70W are helping.

I do not think I would want too much more torque down low or I would need more tire (width not height). I was thinking more cam in my future to soften the bottom end and give me some more punch in the mid-range.

The HO cam was found behind many E7 heads. A good upgrade across the board would be a set of GT40 heads. A little more tire width will def help you plant the tires. My 35x12.5-17 bite well on most roads.

jckkys · Nov 28, 2017

The Ford engine specs are different than what I would expect. The '89 Mustang HO 5.0 put out 225 HP @ 4200 RPM
and 300 ft lbs @ 3200 RPM
The '97 Explorer 5.0 got
210 HP @ 4500 RPM
280 ft lbs @ 3500 RPM
From this the Mustang cam looks better for an EB. I went on and looked up the torque curve for a '96 Bronco with a 5.8 and got
205 HP @3800 RPM
and 328 ft lbs @ 2200 RPM. I think we have a winner, at least as a truck engine. The GT40 heads may help this engine, since the late 5.8 and the Explorer got the same F4TE-BA hydraulic roller cam. The E7TE heads are good but not as good as the GT40s. It makes me wonder how the Mustang HO would have run with GT40s.

englewoodcowboy · Nov 28, 2017

jckkys said:
The Ford engine specs are different than what I would expect. The '89 Mustang HO 5.0 put out 225 HP @ 4200 RPM
and 300 ft lbs @ 3200 RPM
The '97 Explorer 5.0 got
210 HP @ 4500 RPM
280 ft lbs @ 3500 RPM
From this the Mustang cam looks better for an EB. I went on and looked up the torque curve for a '96 Bronco with a 5.8 and got
205 HP @3800 RPM
and 328 ft lbs @ 2200 RPM. I think we have a winner, at least as a truck engine. The GT40 heads may help this engine, since the late 5.8 and the Explorer got the same F4TE-BA hydraulic roller cam. The E7TE heads are good but not as good as the GT40s. It makes me wonder how the Mustang HO would have run with GT40s.

Pretty close to 300. We are building our engines with a slightly modified HO cam, GT40P heads, 306 and they are turning just over 300 HP and 310 TQ. Very smooth and steady pulling motors.

jckkys · Nov 30, 2017

They may make good HP numbers but what kind of torque do they make at 1500 or 2000 RPM? Unless your racing, the torque at really low RPM is what you feel in normal driving at part throttle. No cam or performance adds ever talk about anything less than 2500 RPM. Why? For a stock late model truck engine, the '96 351 looks pretty good. 328 ft/lbs at 2200 RPM isn't likely with any 302 or even a 4.9 that's a better truck engine. What an engine does at over 4000 RPM isn't worth much in a truck application.

AZ69EB · Dec 1, 2017

I had the 91 5.0 engine with the HO cam. I threw on a set of GT40’s and Explorer upper and lower EFI intake with a 1” phenolic spacer. That motor like to rev. It was fun with 4.88 gears and 33” tires in town. But, the ZF was a slow shifting beast.

jckkys · Dec 1, 2017

Building a high HP high RPM 302 is easy. Try build a low RPM high torque 302. Even 300 ft lbs at 2000 would be impressive.

AZ69EB · Dec 2, 2017

Jckkys - thats true. Most people save time and money by going to larger displacement for high torque at lower rpms.

jckkys · Dec 2, 2017

That's why I swapped in a 351 30 yrs. ago. It's also why I pointed out the superior torque curve of the '96 Bronco 351. It produced less HP but much better torque than the '97 5.0 Explorer. 328 ft. lbs.@2200 RPM is far more useful than 350 HP@6000RPM.

RPM289 · Dec 3, 2017

jckkys said:
The Ford engine specs are different than what I would expect. The '89 Mustang HO 5.0 put out 225 HP @ 4200 RPM
and 300 ft lbs @ 3200 RPM
The '97 Explorer 5.0 got
210 HP @ 4500 RPM
280 ft lbs @ 3500 RPM
From this the Mustang cam looks better for an EB. I went on and looked up the torque curve for a '96 Bronco with a 5.8 and got
205 HP @3800 RPM
and 328 ft lbs @ 2200 RPM. I think we have a winner, at least as a truck engine. The GT40 heads may help this engine, since the late 5.8 and the Explorer got the same F4TE-BA hydraulic roller cam. The E7TE heads are good but not as good as the GT40s. It makes me wonder how the Mustang HO would have run with GT40s.

Wonder how this cam would work in a 302? I was thinking of finding a Crane fireball II cam had one in a mustang great low end and mid torque but not sure where it peaked TQ at or at what RPM I know it was done at 5800 but had enough ummph to run with a 350 z28, mine was spinning all the way through 1/8 mile on street.

sykanr0ng · Dec 3, 2017

RPM289 said:
Wonder how this cam would work in a 302? I was thinking of finding a Crane fireball II cam had one in a mustang great low end and mid torque but not sure where it peaked TQ at or at what RPM I know it was done at 5800 but had enough ummph to run with a 350 z28, mine was spinning all the way through 1/8 mile on street.

The '94-'97 small block V8 truck and '94-'96 Bronco cam is the Explorer cam.
They were already in inventory so they were what was used.

jckkys · Dec 4, 2017

I think RPM289 is talking about the different blocks used on early 289-302-5.0s vs the later 302-5.0 blocks made for hydraulic roller lifters. It stems from the incorrect notion that the 5.0 designation implies a roller block. In the '77 Mustang II, Ford started calling the 302 a 5.0. That engine block was identical to the 302 used in '77 Broncos. The 302-5.0 didn't get a roller block till '85. The pull quote from my post #8 clearly states the the '94 351/5.8 got the same F4TE cam as the Explorer 302/5.0. I'd like to believe RPM289 was cognizant of that. The Crane Fireball definitely moves the power band to higher RPM, and as usual, "performance" part makers don't want to talk about low RPM torque.

WheelHorse · Dec 6, 2017

jckkys said:
The E7TE heads are good but not as good as the GT40s. It makes me wonder how the Mustang HO would have run with GT40s.

It's called a 1993 Cobra Mustang. It actually traded torque for hp from Ford; at least according to specs. Some rumors were Ford pulled timing on the Cobra EEC to get the T5 to hold up for warranty purposes.

The best torque I've seen for down-low from the mousy 302 was all extrude honed E7's (stock valves) and stock intake modified besides extrude honing to correct the choked off runner. Bell mouth stock t-body and at 65 MAF.

Some have also argued that AFR165's didn't lose any low-end compared to the E7's and added darn near 100 hp on the top end for an all around potent combo (granted intake and exhaust support the head upgrade). Edel performer intake was bare minimum required for fuelie set up.

347 I'd step up to the 185's as they give up no low-end compared to 165's and definitely for the 351.

However 351/408 = end of story for low-end torque.

jckkys · Dec 6, 2017

The '93 Mustang Cobra got GT40 heads and a much more aggressive F3ZE-CA cam. Torque is the last thing Ford was looking for. It only produces a wimpy 280 ft. lbs. and that was at 4000 RPM. A 351 that put out 328 ft lbs. at 2200 RPM is far more useful in a truck. I have yet to find a maker of so called performance cams, heads, intakes,etc. willing to talk about how their products work at 1500-2000 RPM. Of course we all know, there's no replacement for displacement. A junk yard 351/5.8 can be had for a few hundred bucks. A 408 build is going to ding you for thousands.

RPM289 · Dec 7, 2017

jckkys said:
I think RPM289 is talking about the different blocks used on early 289-302-5.0s vs the later 302-5.0 blocks made for hydraulic roller lifters. It stems from the incorrect notion that the 5.0 designation implies a roller block. In the '77 Mustang II, Ford started calling the 302 a 5.0. That engine block was identical to the 302 used in '77 Broncos. The 302-5.0 didn't get a roller block till '85. The pull quote from my post #8 clearly states the the '94 351/5.8 got the same F4TE cam as the Explorer 302/5.0. I'd like to believe RPM289 was cognizant of that. The Crane Fireball definitely moves the power band to higher RPM, and as usual, "performance" part makers don't want to talk about low RPM torque.

Wish I had torque numbers on fireball II cam! Anyone try a E303 cam in later 5.0? Guessing it higher rpm cam also.

Sent from my LGUS215 using Tapatalk

HO or exploder cam

Full Member

Bronco Guru

Bronco Guru

Sr. Member

Lick Creek Restorations

Bronco Guru

Lick Creek Restorations

Bronco Guru

Lick Creek Restorations

Bronco Guru

Sr. Member

Bronco Guru

Sr. Member

Bronco Guru

Sr. Member

Bronco Guru

Bronco Guru

Bronco Guru

Bronco Guru

Sr. Member

Similar threads