347 Stroker - Explorer EFI

[76Bronco302]

I'm not sure, but I thought I read somewhere that Gary said the tune would need to be tweaked for a 347...it could have been in reference to a cam choice though.

Look into one of the Comp Extreme Energy Cams

 

[Timmy390]

I thought the Explorer cam was not far off from the H.O cam

Stock 94-97 cam specs: 256/266 degree duration (advertised) Lift with 1.7 rockers: .445/.473 , Lobe centerline angle is 116. Used in 94-2001 5.0's in pickups, vans, Explorer's and Mountaineers

85-88 HO cams - at .006" lift - 266/266 and .444 lift w/1.6's
89-95 HO cams - at .006" lift - 276/266 and .444 lift w/1.6's

Tim

 

[EFI Guy]

Tuning for a 347 isn't a problem at all as long as you don't use a radical cam.

I wouldn't sweat using a GT40 intake on a 347 unless it's going to see crazy high rpm like constant dunes. Most Bronco builds are for low end torque and good road manners, following what the Mustang crowd does will just eat at the pocket book, shift the usable rpm range higher, and sacrifice idle quality. Bigger injectors isn't a bad idea if you're on an early 40 PSI system, if you go 99-01 the stock injectors should be fine at 65 PSI (unless you're running crazy high RPM).

The A9L is a Mustang computer, no need to hunt one of those down if you're using all Explorer electronics for the rest of it.

Valve springs should absolutely be upgraded if changing the cam.

 

[englewoodcowboy]

The explorer cam is very anemic to start with on a dyno, some claim it is an RV type cam but how it actually pans out on the motor with the GT40 or P heads is not so hot.

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
116 lobe separation

HO F1ZZ-6250-A Hydraulic Roller
Intake at 1.6 rocker ratio .448" lift 276 duration
Exhaust at 1.6 rocker ratio .448 lift 266 duration
116/115 lobe separation

On paper they look similar however it is the intake lift that is improved along with both valves duration that is significantly different. On the dyno the HO cam is much better, TQ curve etc is moved slightly up the rpm range but the base numbers jump up a lot at the same rpm points. The HO cam really wakes up the explorer motor and makes better use of the heads. Now if you had a Cobra cam, while it would be a bigger increase yet, it is a rare bird to find and in all reality we are only sourcing OEM cams because they can be had very easily and low cost. Aftermarket cams would also be a huge improvement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Joe473]

Tuning for a 347 isn't a problem at all as long as you don't use a radical cam.

I wouldn't sweat using a GT40 intake on a 347 unless it's going to see crazy high rpm like constant dunes. Most Bronco builds are for low end torque and good road manners, following what the Mustang crowd does will just eat at the pocket book, shift the usable rpm range higher, and sacrifice idle quality. Bigger injectors isn't a bad idea if you're on an early 40 PSI system, if you go 99-01 the stock injectors should be fine at 65 PSI (unless you're running crazy high RPM).

The A9L is a Mustang computer, no need to hunt one of those down if you're using all Explorer electronics for the rest of it.

Valve springs should absolutely be upgraded if changing the cam.

Look at Alex's parts for a gt40 valvespring kit if you decide to use explorer heads. Match springs to max valve lift.

On the cam I initially thought I may have gone too big leading up to the first test drive. So far I am impressed with the torque and suprised at the vacuum and idle quality for a cam with .512 lift. The newer roller cam profiles appear very streetable. I have the autolite 4100 but curious how this cam would do with EFI.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[gambling209]

. Now if you had a Cobra cam, while it would be a bigger increase yet, it is a rare bird to find and in all reality we are only sourcing OEM cams because they can be had very easily and low cost. Aftermarket cams would also be a huge improvement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

I thought the cobra cam was just the h.o. cam but with 1.7 rockers? at least that is on the 93 cobra. by the way cowboy. love your build. also thinking about the fitech fuel injection. its just cheaper when you have to buy all the stuff to make ford fuel injection stuff work.

 

[Casey4wd]

The A9L is a Mustang computer, no need to hunt one of those down if you're using all Explorer electronics for the rest of it.

Since I am going to continue to use the Ford ZF transmission that I currently have in my Bronco, do I need a new computer or will the one out of the '96 Explorer work?

 

[sykanr0ng]

Since I am going to continue to use the Ford ZF transmission that I currently have in my Bronco, do I need a new computer or will the one out of the '96 Explorer work?

EFI Guy can make it work.

No need or improvement to change the EFI to the older Mustang stuff.
It is much more than just the computer involved in the change.

 

[Broncobowsher]

I am at the point of choking out an explorer intake set up on a stock bore original block roller converted 302, at most the cylinders are opened up to 306 just for wear during the rebuild. running stock internals, a lunati cam, and flotech aluminum heads with 19# injectors I am at the limit of the stock maf, throttle body, intake and injectors to make more power. Running a tweeker piggy back on an a9l computer with a mustang harness. on the dyno I put down 209hp 233 torque, talking with the dyno tech that spent most of the week with my rig on the dyno I am pretty maxed out on air and fuel. So I would plan on going aftermarket for intakes and injectors. Do some research on the mustang forums those guys have probably been there done that.

The 19# injectors will be the limiting factor long before the intake is the choke point. The Explorer intake is just a cast version of the GT40. It is known to breath 400 naturally aspirated HP which is way more than the stock injectors will feed. Stock mustang MAF will run out of range before the intake is a choke point as well.

 

[Timmy390]

The 96 Explorer MA sensor, T-body and upper intake work great on my 351W build with GT40 lower. I am using the Explorer F4TE-6250-BA Hydraulic Roller with truck/van injectors (the fat boys).......and my ECM is from a 94/95 Stang with EFI Guy's chip.

Tim

 

[Casey4wd]

So I made the decision today... Stroker build it is. 347 is underway!

Will see how it works with the Explorer EFI set-up.

 

[Nickm1024cobra]

I built what i would call an explorer motor based on the front dress, 50 oz imbalance and efi setup. Im running a 94/95 mustang harness (obd1) and a bauman to shift the trans. After mapping out this build over the last year, I've decided if I build anything in the future it will have a FITECH type setup. They are just getting way to easy to install, program, and tune. These systems used to cost well over 2 grand just 2 years ago. On top of that, my efi setup is very limited in terms of troubleshooting, rich/lean...chasing 02 sensors, etc. Just not worth it anymore.

Also, cost is cheaper after you figure all that is needed for a ford efi setup. MAP, TPS, throttle body, injectors, MAF, IAC, and the list goes on.

My humble opinion.

 

[AZ69EB]

Nick what EFI are you running on your 408W?
Not trying to hijack, but just curious.

 

[Timmy390]

I built what i would call an explorer motor based on the front dress, 50 oz imbalance and efi setup. Im running a 94/95 mustang harness (obd1) and a bauman to shift the trans. After mapping out this build over the last year, I've decided if I build anything in the future it will have a FITECH type setup. They are just getting way to easy to install, program, and tune. These systems used to cost well over 2 grand just 2 years ago. On top of that, my efi setup is very limited in terms of troubleshooting, rich/lean...chasing 02 sensors, etc. Just not worth it anymore.

Also, cost is cheaper after you figure all that is needed for a ford efi setup. MAP, TPS, throttle body, injectors, MAF, IAC, and the list goes on.

My humble opinion.

I'm running a 94/95 harness and TM04 ECM on my 351W and it rips.

Not being a jerk just passing along the FITech unit (and I'm sure the other TB injection as well) have most all the sensors the Ford EFI has (Injectors, O2, MAP, IAC, etc.) but you can't buy them at the local parts store like you can the Ford stuff if one of them goes out. SN95 does not have a MAP or BAP sensor. It's internal to the ECM.

Not downing the FITech stuff at all. In fact I'm considering it for my BB 390FE in my Mach 1.

Tim

 

[englewoodcowboy]

I'm running a 94/95 harness and TM04 ECM on my 351W and it rips.

Not being a jerk just passing along the FITech unit (and I'm sure the other TB injection as well) have most all the sensors the Ford EFI has (Injectors, O2, MAP, IAC, etc.) but you can't buy them at the local parts store like you can the Ford stuff if one of them goes out. SN95 does not have a MAP or BAP sensor. It's internal to the ECM.

Not downing the FITech stuff at all. In fact I'm considering it for my BB 390FE in my Mach 1.

Tim

I am not sure where you got your info but all of the components on the FiTech can be sourced locally. They are all late model GM components which are still in production today.

As for the Skip White parts, I bought them, visited their shop first and saw first hand the parts are genuine and the deals they can work are outstanding. They re-balanced a new Dorman Harmonic Balancer to match the crank at no additional charge, I supplied the balancer and had it drop shipped to them. They also cut me a deal on new aluminum heads I could not refuse, ended up being a little more than the cost of having my GT40 heads rebuilt so it was a no brainer, and they built them to my spec again at no additional charge. Great place to deal with and that is where my stroker kits come from.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[sykanr0ng]

I built what i would call an explorer motor based on the front dress, 50 oz imbalance and efi setup. Im running a 94/95 mustang harness (obd1) and a bauman to shift the trans. After mapping out this build over the last year, I've decided if I build anything in the future it will have a FITECH type setup. They are just getting way to easy to install, program, and tune. These systems used to cost well over 2 grand just 2 years ago. On top of that, my efi setup is very limited in terms of troubleshooting, rich/lean...chasing 02 sensors, etc. Just not worth it anymore.

Also, cost is cheaper after you figure all that is needed for a ford efi setup. MAP, TPS, throttle body, injectors, MAF, IAC, and the list goes on.

My humble opinion.

That's because you chose OBD1 instead of OBD2

A whole Explorer engine (and transmission if you want an automatic) with modified harness is not as much trouble as the sort of mongrel built from pieces of Mustang and Explorer.

 

[Casey4wd]

This is all great info. I plan to go OBDII and keep as much of the explorer stuff as possible. We will see how it works.

 

[Timmy390]

I am not sure where you got your info but all of the components on the FiTech can be sourced locally. They are all late model GM components which are still in production today.

I knew it was based off the GM stuff but I sure can't find a list of part numbers for the sensors or an application list. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. maybe there are part numbers on the FItech parts/sensors. You know how the parts store counter guys can be. "I might have some struts at the warehouse" I've had sensor in had and told them what it was and what it was off of and they still couldn't find the part.

Tim

 

[Nickm1024cobra]

Nick what EFI are you running on your 408W?
Not trying to hijack, but just curious.

I am running a system called Mass Flo EFI. It is owned now by Pro-M.

Essentially one of the first generation carb style efi systems. Uses OBD 1 technology.

 

[Nickm1024cobra]

That's because you chose OBD1 instead of OBD2

A whole Explorer engine (and transmission if you want an automatic) with modified harness is not as much trouble as the sort of mongrel built from pieces of Mustang and Explorer.

I hear where you are coming from, but I humbly disagree. Much like many of you I had an ex ford engineer on another forum build/diet my harness to my liking. Using an OBD2 harness added ability to shift the trans, but I wanted more flexibility over the shift points and setup than Explorer ECM could handle. Either way I was going with a stand alone controller for the trans. What would OBD 2 gain me? My harness allowed remote TFI and was 250 bucks. Dont see significant advantage vs going to a completely tuneable stand alone fuel injection

I believe a cheap painless harness and stand alone fuel injection is a good way to.

For reference. When talking about OBD2, this was top of the line technology when OBD 2 was placed on Fords. We've come a long way. And remember...this comes from a guy running two custom builds with OBD1.