Explorer Serpentine VS Mustang 5.0 EFI Serpentine, I'm confused...

[ba123]

So I read the tech article cause I'm at least considering this swap if it will save me room, but the article keeps mentioning that the reason there is more room is that there is no mechanical fuel pump boss on the Explorer. There is no mechanical fuel pump on the mustang either, so do I really save any room by going from Mustang to Explorer? I do understand they are different, but how much to I really save if I already do not have the fuel pump boss? Sorry if this has been posted somewhere. I've tried searching but can't find this.



Is just that part bad info but the movement is all the same because I can see the accessories mount closer to the engine and the balancer and pulley are integrated?

Thanks!

 

[jamesroney]

It should say: The timing cover is thinner, AND there is no fuel pump boss. Causation is incorrect here.

But the real space savings comes from the shorter water pump, and the fact that the serpentine pulley is located at the face of the damper. The Fox 5.0 crank pulley is about 2-1/2 inches deep. If you ignore everything about the water pump, timing cover, etc...and just look at the distance from the front of the serpentine pulley to the radiator...you will see that you gain ~1.5 inches.

Since the water pump is ALSO shorter, there is room for the fan clutch and fan.

You can measure from any location on the block, to the center of your Serpentine. The Explorer serpentine will be at least an inch closer to the block.

 

[ba123]

Thanks, yes, makes sense. I found this too after posting:

This REALLY shows the difference:

water pumps - Explorer 5.0 *VS* SN95 Mustang 5.0

I have a timing chain cover, waterpump (F67E-8505-BB) and balancer/crank trigger/pulley that originally came on my Ford Racing crate motor about 8 years ago. (Edelbrock water pump from my '90 5.0 Mustang on left, Ford Racing crate engine water pump on right) Plans change and I now want...

www.corral.net

 

[Broncobowsher]

The provision for a mechanical fuel pump existed when the serpentine belt was first started. If you can find a '79 Mustang they were even using the York compressor it is so old. When they got new enough that EFI was used they still had the same accessory drive (the York compressor was long gone at that time). But everything else remained the same. The mustang chassis didn't change from '79 to '93. EFI was just an add on in replacement of the carburator. No need to revise the whole front accessory drive, timing cover, etc. The simple fix was to bolt a fuel pump block off plate. The rest of the timing cover stayed the same. Eventually they made a small change to the cover and quit casting the hole for the fuel pump. Remember the 302 was not just a Mustang engine, it was also a truck engine (and marine and probably some other stuff). One part that fits all, easier to build, known to work, tooling paid for (both making the part and putting the parts together).

The '93(?) Thunderbird and Cougar had a more compact front accessory drive for the new body style. This is the source of the SN95 Mustang accessory drive. It is more compact. Never had provision for a mechanical fan as they were always electric.

The Explorer was becoming a hit as the SUV craze was killing the minivan. There was a quest for more power. Being a truck they could get a bit more life out of old 302 for a few more years. While the SN95 accessory drive was compact, it was not compact enough to shoehorn the 302 into the Explorer. So there was even more nip and tuck. The belt was moved about ¾" closer to the engine that the SN95. It is as short as it can get. So short that a different alternator, the 4G, was made just so it would clear the valve cover. Being a big engine shoehorned into a little engine bay in an SUV that needed to keep the A/C blowing cold while idling in front of the school to pick up kids or towing the family boat up the mountain they put in a great clutched mechanical fan. Just different enough that it won't interchange with the SN95. The Explorer has just about everything about it being unique, but this was the last breath of the old 302, it didn't need to interchange with any other models. With SUV sales being hot in the late 90s, it didn't matter anymore, The engine line was only making the engine for one product and that product was making them money.

But all this compactness didn't leave room for legacy parts that were not used. That fuel pump ecentric on the front of the cam, didn't exist anymore. Getting rid of that allowed the timing cover to be shorter and more compact, and that gave room for the water pump to move back. When you are trying to get the shortest accessory drive possible every little bit they can get helps.

 

[ba123]

Wow, that's an awesome history lesson. I love reading all that stuff and I appreciate the detail.

The only thing in there I'm arguing with is the timing cover/fuel boss part. My 1990 Mustang engine does not have a fuel boss. I think they stopped putting that in 1998, at least that's what I found.

Here is a shot of my '90:

 

[Bruners4]

I've always wondered what was so special about the Explorer front engine dress. Thank you for the detailed history. I'm past this point in my build but it is very good to know these details that influenced my decision to find a '96-'97 Explorer doner.

 

[Broncobowsher]

Wow, that's an awesome history lesson. I love reading all that stuff and I appreciate the detail.

The only thing in there I'm arguing with is the timing cover/fuel boss part. My 1990 Mustang engine does not have a fuel boss. I think they stopped putting that in 1998, at least that's what I found.

Here is a shot of my '90:
View attachment 893635

I couldn't remember exactly what year the boss was deleted. I know there are factory block off plates out there. By '90 it would make sense, the engine was 100% EFI and not machining the hole and not having to block it off would cost less. But keep the rest the same so it still interchanged will all the existing brackets, accessories, etc. Not reinventing the wheel at this stage, just making it cheaper with less work.

 

[jamesroney]

I couldn't remember exactly what year the boss was deleted. I know there are factory block off plates out there. By '90 it would make sense, the engine was 100% EFI and not machining the hole and not having to block it off would cost less. But keep the rest the same so it still interchanged will all the existing brackets, accessories, etc. Not reinventing the wheel at this stage, just making it cheaper with less work.

I’ve never seen a factory installed block off plate. The Sunbeam Tiger had one, but it’s not a ford piece. I can’t think of where Ford would use one. Do you have an application?

The E5AE-6509-F timing cover was engineered for the 1985 model year, and deleted the fuel pump provision. It was used on the Fox platform (with another rev) thru 1993.

Don’t forget that the 1985 and later blocks got the addition of the dowels on the timing cover, so older covers won’t fit the newer blocks without removing the dowels.

Also, the SN 95 timing cover will interchange with the 96+ Explorer.

 

[Broncobowsher]

It's been a long time, but I do remember seeing a block off plate in a factory application. Being that the part number is '85, it may have been an '84 truck engine? I've seen a lot of stuff over the years. 1984 was the first year for port injection on the 302 in the trucks (yes, the trucks got port EFI before the cars). Maybe that was my parent's '84 Econoline I remember? Have not seen that in 25 years.

I remember sometimes running into the timing cover dowel, never knew the revision date that it was added.

I would have to look up the application of that Explorer timing cover. I always remember the Explorer being a seperate listing. Maybe I just never looked to see if it had other applications (SN95)?

 

[toddz69]

It's been a long time, but I do remember seeing a block off plate in a factory application. Being that the part number is '85, it may have been an '84 truck engine? I've seen a lot of stuff over the years. 1984 was the first year for port injection on the 302 in the trucks (yes, the trucks got port EFI before the cars). Maybe that was my parent's '84 Econoline I remember? Have not seen that in 25 years.

I would have to look up the application of that Explorer timing cover. I always remember the Explorer being a seperate listing. Maybe I just never looked to see if it had other applications (SN95)?

Actually, the '85 trucks were the first year to get the multi-port 302s (5.0s).

Todd Z.

 

[MarsChariot]

Yes we could have been more specific with the reason, but pretty much as Broncobowsher says, "no fuel pump=no fuel pump eccentric= shorter timing cover=water pump moved back=more clearance" etc etc.

 

[Broncobowsher]

You are making me dig through the gray matter. Who owned what when I was young. There were a lot of mid 80's Fords I messed with when I was young. I think I remember what it was now. Mike had an '84-ish T-bird with the TBI injection. I remember parting that car out for the 302 and the AOD and trying to figure if there was a way to use that throttle body in something cool. But in the 90's there was nothing that could be done with the Ford throttle body EFI (and there still isn't), only the GM stuff ever got any aftermarket support.

 

[jamesroney]

You are making me dig through the gray matter. Who owned what when I was young. There were a lot of mid 80's Fords I messed with when I was young. I think I remember what it was now. Mike had an '84-ish T-bird with the TBI injection. I remember parting that car out for the 302 and the AOD and trying to figure if there was a way to use that throttle body in something cool. But in the 90's there was nothing that could be done with the Ford throttle body EFI (and there still isn't), only the GM stuff ever got any aftermarket support.

Your memory is still impressive! The Mustang didn't get the TBI until half of the year in 1985. BUT the 83-84 Thunderbird did get TBI, and got a new timing cover in 1983. The E3AE-6059-AB got an (unused) crank trigger mounting boss, but retained the fuel pump mount. Since the T-Bird had an electric fuel pump, it would have to have a block off plate. So 84 T-bird non HO 5.0 is a winner!

And I would love to know if that engine got a fuel pump eccentric...just to confirm for @MarsChariot

Turns out there is one on ebay today!

 

[ba123]

All this is like reading an encyclopedia...

 

[EPB72]

.

I remember sometimes running into the timing cover dowel, never knew the revision date that it was added.

I would have to look up the application of that Explorer timing cover. I always remember the Explorer being a seperate listing. Maybe I just never looked to see if it had other applications (SN95)?

The 94/95 mustang cover is a different cover then the 96-01 explorer cover .
The mustang cover didn't have the mounting for a crank sensor,,,but they did have the same mounting for the water pump...
But the water pumps are different as well..different pulley/fan Hub.......

 

[EPB72]

Your memory is still impressive! The Mustang didn't get the TBI until half of the year in 1985. BUT the 83-84 Thunderbird did get TBI, and got a new timing cover in 1983. The E3AE-6059-AB got an (unused) crank trigger mounting boss, but retained the fuel pump mount. Since the T-Bird had an electric fuel pump, it would have to have a block off plate. So 84 T-bird non HO 5.0 is a winner!

And I would love to know if that engine got a fuel pump eccentric...just to confirm for @MarsChariot

Turns out there is one on ebay today!

Don't remember the application 5'0/5'8.? but have seen unused eccentric's in place.

 

[Broncobowsher]

Your memory is still impressive! The Mustang didn't get the TBI until half of the year in 1985. BUT the 83-84 Thunderbird did get TBI, and got a new timing cover in 1983. The E3AE-6059-AB got an (unused) crank trigger mounting boss, but retained the fuel pump mount. Since the T-Bird had an electric fuel pump, it would have to have a block off plate. So 84 T-bird non HO 5.0 is a winner!

And I would love to know if that engine got a fuel pump eccentric...just to confirm for @MarsChariot

Turns out there is one on ebay today!

My memory of the '85 mustangs was the HO only came with the 5-speed manual and was the last carburated engine. The automatics (only AOD) were not the HO motor and they had the EEC-IV throttle body EFI

If you want a real unicorn timing cover, I have one with a factory mechanical tach drive on it. The whole engine is an oddball. How about an SAE #3 bellhousing to go with it?

 

[toddz69]

You are making me dig through the gray matter. Who owned what when I was young. There were a lot of mid 80's Fords I messed with when I was young. I think I remember what it was now. Mike had an '84-ish T-bird with the TBI injection. I remember parting that car out for the 302 and the AOD and trying to figure if there was a way to use that throttle body in something cool. But in the 90's there was nothing that could be done with the Ford throttle body EFI (and there still isn't), only the GM stuff ever got any aftermarket support.

Although I felt like I paid a lot of attention to the Ford cars and their powertrains in the early/mid '80s as a young teen, the CFI was totally off my radar until a decade later when Bronco folks were trying to figure out which EFI systems to use. Only one Bronco owner that I know of (Shannon Shirk, for those of you who were around in the Bronco mailing list(s) days) ever adapted the CFI stuff (think his was from a Lincoln) to his truck. And as I recall, his installation was quite memorable because in the attempt to clean up the wiring in his harness, he inadvertently wiped all the coloring and/or lettering off the wires which made the installation a lot more difficult.

Todd Z.

 

[toddz69]

My memory of the '85 mustangs was the HO only came with the 5-speed manual and was the last carburated engine. The automatics (only AOD) were not the HO motor and they had the EEC-IV throttle body EFI

That was what I paid attention to in 1985 as well. The automatic throttle-body cars were off my radar as well. It was a car on BaT a few years ago that drove me to go back and research and re-read a whole bunch of stuff about the throttle body cars.

Todd Z.

 

[jamesroney]

Although I felt like I paid a lot of attention to the Ford cars and their powertrains in the early/mid '80s as a young teen, the CFI was totally off my radar until a decade later when Bronco folks were trying to figure out which EFI systems to use. Only one Bronco owner that I know of (Shannon Shirk, for those of you who were around in the Bronco mailing list(s) days) ever adapted the CFI stuff (think his was from a Lincoln) to his truck. And as I recall, his installation was quite memorable because in the attempt to clean up the wiring in his harness, he inadvertently wiped all the coloring and/or lettering off the wires which made the installation a lot more difficult.

Todd Z.

Official Thread-jack Warning!!!

The CFI Mustang 5.0 in 1985 put out 10-20 less horsepower than the carburetted version causes MUCH confusion. The fact the Mustang 5.0 HO with CFI came without the roller cam and put out less power causes many to believe that the CFI is not an HO.

@Broncobowsher can confirm this, but the CFI version in the Mustang was still branded HO" even though it actually didn't have "high output" It was a low output "HO" engine. To have a 175HP 5.0 with CFI, and a 185HP 5.0 with a Carb in the same year model Mustang is just silly, and to add a 165HP 5.0 HO in an LTD just makes things silly. This is another reason why marketing terms should never be associated with performance or specifications. But since I have come to terms with the fact that my 1969 Mach 1 will not achieve 760 mph, I guess Ford can call a low output 4949cc engine an HO. And yes, my 70 Boss 302 put out more than 290 HP, but is not high output.

Every reasonable person KNOWS that the 5.0 HO engine should be associated with a feature. Like more power, or a roller cam, Or sequential EFI, or GT heads...or even a double roller timing chain. But alas, no. The 5.0 HO engine is associated with a sticker on the air cleaner, and less power.

But back to my point...the fact that the Mustang 5.0 CFI was a turd compared to the carburetor version led many to believe that CFI was junk. It took several years to learn that Throttle Body Injection (TBI) was not inherently junk. Thank God for the GM TBI system, which was proven to provide reliable horsepower and propel millions of pickups, vans, cars and boats down the road for years. Good enough that Howell figured out how to put TBI on pretty much everything. Stand alone controller, dead reliable, cheap, and plentiful. Now legendary. Totally killed Ford CFI for any enthusiast. (Except one guy named Shannon Shirk?)

GM TBI dispelled almost every prejudice against fuel injection, and killed almost every argument from the carburetor fans. But the damage was done. By the time the enthusiast realized that TBI was awesome...the factory had moved on to port injection. So it took some guys from Holley and FITech to convince the world that TBI is the answer. And now that we've learned how to properly plumb 50 psi gasoline, we seem to have stopped incinerating hapless minivans.