1996 Explorer 5.0 Conversion Emissions Success

[fishinman78]

Curious who has installed a complete explorer donor in a 76 or 77 and successfully passed emissions and in what states.

Working on a 76 Bronco and I have a complete running and driving 96 Explorer with 95k on it that I plan to use.

I've done some searching in the forum and it sounds like making it legal in CA is a tall order, but not too bad in other states

 

[duffymahoney]

My state has no emissions (Idaho), but if you leave the Cats and such, it should pass fine for a 1996 motor. Keep stock injectors, stock egr etc..

 

[DirtDonk]

Not the explorer, but a couple of the locals here have done successful 5.0 conversions over the years.
Differing results, depending upon what referee station you got your approval from though.
Member here 904Bronco got his in one area, where they insisted he run full dual exhaust, four catalytic converter‘s, multiple O2 sensors, and all the vacuum accessories from under the hood of a Mustang.
That was on a 77 I believe, and another friend did the same thing to his 77, where the referee station passed it with just a single exhaust, and one catalytic converter. And none of the extraneous stuff under the hood that wasn’t directly related to emissions.
That was the problem with 904s assembly and approval. They wanted things under the hood that had nothing to do with emissions.

 

[DirtDonk]

Hopefully, Doug will pop in here. He’s done several explorer swaps, including some work for Smog Stuff. But I don’t know if any of them have been and 76 or 77 Broncos that had to pass inspection.

 

[thegreatjustino]

I spoke to Doug about doing an Explorer swap to a 1977 Bronco. With the nightmare he had getting the Mustang swap to pass smog, he said there's no way he'd even attempt to do it with the Explorer stuff. That was enough to scare me off of pursing it any further.

 

[EFI Guy]

I've helped a few people do it. The hardest part is dealing with people who don't want your ICE on the road to begin with.
If you leave the CATS and EGR alone and in a stock configuration then the only other system to deal with is the EVAP system.
It consists of the purge valve near the driver's fender, and the charcoal canister and vent valve back by the tank. Those are not terribly difficult to plumb in.

However, the Evap system self-checks for leaks using a fuel tank pressure sensor. Obviously, Bronco tanks do not have a provision for the pressure sensor. You can remove it from the Explorer tank and find a creative way to connect to a hose to the tank and that "should" be enough for you to pass if the system seals. I say "should" because one person in CA was told that he needed to use the entire gas tank from the Explorer which obviously doesn't fit.
I'm not sure what he did to get a different bureaucrat to sign off on it, but ultimately someone signed off on it.

Eventually, I plan on producing something that will adapt the quarter-turn pressure sensor to a simple hose barb to make that part of it easy.
Additionally, some Explorer computers want a fuel-level input signal. The purpose of it is so that the system only tests when the tank is between 15% and 85% full.
I'm not sure why some have it and some don't, but that signal was sent to the PCM from the instrument cluster and doesn't match any Ford-level sensors. My temporary solution is a resistor that makes it read 50% at all times so that the system can test. I would like to make something that converts the signal from a Bronco sender to make it accurate in the future.

I think some states want documentation to prove that the engine came from a similar vehicle, and similar GVWR and such. I'm not much help on the paperwork side but I know how to make the systems work as designed. Some states might get mad at you for having a bling-looking intake, other states only care that the emissions devices are present. YMMV

 

[fishinman78]

I've helped a few people do it. The hardest part is dealing with people who don't want your ICE on the road to begin with.
If you leave the CATS and EGR alone and in a stock configuration then the only other system to deal with is the EVAP system.
It consists of the purge valve near the driver's fender, and the charcoal canister and vent valve back by the tank. Those are not terribly difficult to plumb in.

However, the Evap system self-checks for leaks using a fuel tank pressure sensor. Obviously, Bronco tanks do not have a provision for the pressure sensor. You can remove it from the Explorer tank and find a creative way to connect to a hose to the tank and that "should" be enough for you to pass if the system seals. I say "should" because one person in CA was told that he needed to use the entire gas tank from the Explorer which obviously doesn't fit.
I'm not sure what he did to get a different bureaucrat to sign off on it, but ultimately someone signed off on it.

Eventually, I plan on producing something that will adapt the quarter-turn pressure sensor to a simple hose barb to make that part of it easy.
Additionally, some Explorer computers want a fuel-level input signal. The purpose of it is so that the system only tests when the tank is between 15% and 85% full.
I'm not sure why some have it and some don't, but that signal was sent to the PCM from the instrument cluster and doesn't match any Ford-level sensors. My temporary solution is a resistor that makes it read 50% at all times so that the system can test. I would like to make something that converts the signal from a Bronco sender to make it accurate in the future.

I think some states want documentation to prove that the engine came from a similar vehicle, and similar GVWR and such. I'm not much help on the paperwork side but I know how to make the systems work as designed. Some states might get mad at you for having a bling-looking intake, other states only care that the emissions devices are present. YMMV

Garry, Great information. Thank you very much

 

[Broncobowsher]

What EFI guy said.
Trying to pass cali emissions, I would go back to the 5.0 mustang stuff on a single tank. With Cali wanting to pass emissions of the year of the engine, and all the Explorer stuff is early OBDII stuff. The computer wants to know the level of fuel in the tank, the temperature of the fuel in the tank. The fox body EFI is much simplier and the evaporative emissions is simplier as well.

I'll say what you need to do before you start is find the referee who will be inspecting/approving the swap and start with there feedback.IF there is something that they are going to require you do do, best to know that up front. There is the book, and from what I have heard a bit of interpretation of that book. And it is how the ref reads the book, not how you read the book.

 

[904Bronco]

A time warp back a few years...

Yes an 88 Mustang EFI in a 77 Bronco, that I had to get smoged with the original equipment first since it had a tired 5.0 motor transplanted in it. I was able to get the mustang front dress with a smog pump to work with the factory 2V carb.

Smog Ref in Salinas, who is no longer there... Had to have: correct ECU for the transmission, Mustang air box, 4 cats, dual exhaust. I found a mustang H-pipe and since I don't have a pipe bender there were a few trips to the exhaust shop for bends. (Exhaust shop cannot do this for you) Then I made heat shields. Aero fuel tank, they had to send me a letter to show the REF that the replacement tanks were compliant with 88 mustang standards. Most everything else was doable since I kept EGR, Smog pump, even the TAB and TAD solenoids. There were a few trips to the REF to get signed off and then a dyno run with no check engine codes. It ran great and I sold it a few years later to a guy in Reno, NV who ripped it (smog equip) all off the motor. Stripped it down to bare metal and painted it another color....

Garry and I have talked about Explorer conversion, anything is possible, be sure to have a donor car. a 96 Explorer would be the best.
But Damn, Fuel inject a EB in Kalifornia and it runs so much better than in say 1977... but it will not pass visual inspection. Makes no sense to me, I mean the air will be cleaner....

 

[904Bronco]

Hopefully, Doug will pop in here. He’s done several explorer swaps, including some work for Smog Stuff. But I don’t know if any of them have been and 76 or 77 Broncos that had to pass inspection.

I have kept the EGR and some of the other systems when doing an Explorer conversion. But the big thing is the fuel tank pressurization which is deleted in Garry's former reprograming. I also run only one Cat (pre 76) and only two O2 sensors (Fronts) A single Cat (universal) really cleans up the emissions. As Justin said it would be a nightmare to retro fit the Explorer components. You would need a donor rig and a lot of patience... That and on any given day, talking to any two Smog Refs, you will probably get different answers to your questions.

And then there was the time I put a TBI Chevy truck motor in an 77 FJ40...

 

[EFI Guy]

So one of the funny things about the guys that have done the referee thing and got signed off on the Explorer system is that all of them have reported that once they have their paperwork, they are just tailpipe tested like a regular Bronco. I would think they should be dyno-tested like the Explorer but that hasn't been the case. I don't think the testing centers have even plugged into the OBD2 port. Some states now allow a fast past system where they only plug in first and if there are no codes and all of the readiness monitors are set then they are good to go.

It's a headache either way you go, and like Doug said, you will definitely get different answers, sometimes from the same person. Personally, I'd rather do the extra work to get an Explorer through than the Mustang system. The biggest reason is the smog pump on the Mustang systems. It had to dump in at the back of the heads and into the CATS. The whole smog system is just ugly and I'd prefer Explorer front dress. At least the Explorer Evap components can be hidden under the vehicle. The wiring and plumbing are about an equal amount of work with either one assuming you have an entire donor to rob all of the parts from.

I would think some states would consider the Mustang non-eligible for a donor based on the similar vehicle thing, where the Explorer and Bronco could both be considered an SUV.
But that may be a weight class thing only, I'm not sure. I do know of a guy that was told no on putting the 454 out of a 3/4 ton Chevy truck in his Camaro, this was in CO, not CA.

 

[76Broncofromhell]

So one of the funny things about the guys that have done the referee thing and got signed off on the Explorer system is that all of them have reported that once they have their paperwork, they are just tailpipe tested like a regular Bronco. I would think they should be dyno-tested like the Explorer but that hasn't been the case. I don't think the testing centers have even plugged into the OBD2 port. Some states now allow a fast past system where they only plug in first and if there are no codes and all of the readiness monitors are set then they are good to go.

It's a headache either way you go, and like Doug said, you will definitely get different answers, sometimes from the same person. Personally, I'd rather do the extra work to get an Explorer through than the Mustang system. The biggest reason is the smog pump on the Mustang systems. It had to dump in at the back of the heads and into the CATS. The whole smog system is just ugly and I'd prefer Explorer front dress. At least the Explorer Evap components can be hidden under the vehicle. The wiring and plumbing are about an equal amount of work with either one assuming you have an entire donor to rob all of the parts from.

I would think some states would consider the Mustang non-eligible for a donor based on the similar vehicle thing, where the Explorer and Bronco could both be considered an SUV.
But that may be a weight class thing only, I'm not sure. I do know of a guy that was told no on putting the 454 out of a 3/4 ton Chevy truck in his Camaro, this was in CO, not CA.

Explorer / Mustang and Bronco are all in the same weight class. Everything under 6,000 lbs GVW is the same weight class per the EPA - which is what CA uses as their criteria. https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10380#:~:text=FHWA categorizes vehicles as Light,(GVWR > 8,501 lb).

I've put Mustang engines in a few 80's Toyotas and brought them through the referee station and passed before. The biggest issue you will have in an EB is getting the tank / evap system to function and self-test. Stock tanks will have trouble sealing enough to meet the evap self-test - especially with dual tanks as they have a bridged evap connection.

If you have a referee who demands you use the Explorer tank, take out the back seat and bungee cord the tank in there just to pass the test. There is no standard for how "clean" your work has to be. My friend did this with a 1999 3RZ swap - we ratchet strapped the tank to the bed and used flexible hoses to make it work and it passed. Much like "The Matrix" - I have yet to meet a single person who passes the referee the first time. Mine took 3 and 2 tries respectively.

The Explorer has a more manageable exhaust system in my view and doesn't have air pump which makes packaging a lot easier - but the OBD2 and evap self test are much more work to get functional.

 

[EFI Guy]

Interesting. I had someone tell me that their state wouldn't allow an engine from a 4-door vehicle in a 2-door vehicle, but I can't remember what state it was and I bet that just talking to a different inspector would get you by.
I have had 2 in CO and 1 in CA sail right through on the first attempt. But I would not expect that to be the norm, the people in charge would rather see your classic car crushed.