• Welcome to ClassicBroncos! - You are currently viewing the forums as a GUEST. To take advantage of all the site features, please take a moment to register. It's fast, simple and absolutely free. So please join our community today!
    If you have problems registering or can't log into your account, please contact Admin.

Help me understand one Explorer swap question please

TheVazha

Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2022
Messages
187
Hi All!

I recently purchased a 97 5.0 explorer that I plan to use the engine and trans from. I've done a ton of research and lots of info is out there in terms of the process, I don't know what all the parts talked about are, but I can probably figure it out.

My question is, why do so many parts need to be swapped/modified? Why cant every part from the explorer jut be unbolted from the explorer and bolted on to the Bronco? Is is simply to do size constraints or functionality? Is it because most people jut get the engine and trans and not the whole explorer to pillage?

This is a fantastic thread here: https://classicbroncos.com/forums/threads/dan-wheelers-explorer-efi-swap-thread.150669/ and the the author talks about new distributor, new coil, new ecu, new radiator etc etc. My question is pertaining to this, cant you just take off ALL the parts?

I picture an explorer stripped of its body, and a bronco stripped of its engine and trans sitting side by side. Why couldn't you just start taking things off the explorer and bolting them to the bronco?

I genuinely do not understand and I'm hoping for constructive advice.
 

DirtDonk

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
44,005
If that's an older thread, then the main reason for doing a distributor was because back then the whole DIS (distributorless ignition system) was a black box mystery to most. And of course to be avoided at all costs!
Not so today, where many of us are running the Explorer setup in full. My own '68 that 904Bronco here built, has everything from the EGR and stock intake and stock ignition even to the stock exhaust manifolds.
But even some of those had to be modified. Such as the intake tubing for hood clearance even with the 1" body lift. A 2" would have cured that, but most of use still prefer the lower body lifts to the taller ones.

The big mods to the electrical harness is that very few, if any Bronco owners are going to utilize a tenth of the stuff in an Explorer wiring harness. It's just too big, bulky and complicated to make work in our limited space. Hence cutting out 2/3 of the wires from the original harness.

Otherwise, you actually do keep most of what comes out of the Exploder. Most of it is very desirable. More so today than in year's past. I did not click on the link, but see that it's one of Dan Wheeler's threads. So probably old enough that most of what I just said applies.

paul
 
OP
OP
T

TheVazha

Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2022
Messages
187
Paul thank you for the fantastic response. This a huge weight of my shoulders to know that we can get creative and swap parts and for the most part not have to go hunting for a million parts to make the swap work. I can stomach a 1” body lift but beyond that would not be fun. Also those stupid impact bumpers have a 1” lift tolerance so I guess that seals the deal on using them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

DirtDonk

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
44,005
Forgot one more thing. The typical modification even with a 1" body lift is to lower the coil pack and power steering reservoir.
Both have been done many times, but the coil pack seems more work than the reservoir I think. By no means impossible, just more work to create a lower profile bracket if you want it to sit on top of the engine.
One older method was to move it over to the firewall, but nowadays the more popular locating of the computer negates the coil pack in that area. So over on a wheel well might be another way, but the modded bracket remaining on top of the engine seems the more logical location. Still gets good cooling air from the amazing Explorer fan and is not in the way of anything else important other than the hood. Which is the whole point of the lowered bracket in the first place anyway.

paul
 

Shes mad

Contributor
Jr. Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
68
I did this swap, using a 2000 Explorer. I did lift the body, but used the Harness, ECU (Gary reworked) cruise, all intake piping and the air box, throttle and cruise cables. Put an NP205 in, with the shifter.

Thats about all I used
 

lars

Contributor
Been here awhile
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Messages
2,772
Loc.
NorCal flatlands
Adding to what DirtDonk wrote...

Back in the day, no one knew how to use the distributorless ignition system on an Exploder 5.0, so they removed it (including me, until I got help from an EFI Master back in 2005). Those days are past. Since you are new to this, remove as much of the under hood wiring back into the cabin as possible, carefully, intact. You won't need most of it. But better to have it and not need it than the other way around.

904Bronco is an ace at these swaps, has done several. He keeps all the OEM emissions stuff, but you don't have to (though I would read anything he has posted about his swaps carefully, he is good at this).

Mechanically, the engine is a direct bolt-in. Uses stock Bronco motor mounts, among other things. A few bits to connect the Explorer power steering pump to your existing box. The Explorer alternator puts out a lot more juice than the Bronco unit, so some wiring needs upgrading to avoid melting things.

No need to change radiators, my ancient OEM-spec 3 row Modine radiator cooled my basically stock Explorer 5.0 for 20 years and 120,000 miles of driving in all sorts of conditions without issue. It would probably have cooled my new 408 except that it chose the moment of the recent swap to die, a topic for another thread.

Use the Explorer transmission, you need an adapter to the transfer case and may need to move it back (I know nothing about this, I'm a manual transmission guy with an NV400 + Atlas and Advance Adapters crossmember).

Fuel system is all electric, no more mechanical pump, so you need an in tank or external pump, a source of never-ending debates. The plumbing is more complicated than stock, either way.

You can keep the 90° elbow on the intake or remove it and bolt the throttle body straight to the upper intake. Your choice.

Keep the OEM exhaust manifolds or use headers, your choice. I made things hard on myself because I wanted headers and 22 years ago there were no options that fit GT-40P heads. That has changed.

You'll eventually want to simplify the engine harness to get rid of all the irrelevant stuff, though not before you have educated yourself. I understand that EFIGuy has videos on how to do that. He can also reprogram the engine control computer to turn off things you don't need, like the passive anti theft system.

It may seem intimidating at first, but don't overthink it. Most stuff just bolts in. And once you are done, it just runs. And runs. And runs.
 

jamesroney

Contributor
Sr. Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
941
Loc.
Fremont, CA
Adding to what DirtDonk wrote...

Back in the day, no one knew how to use the distributorless ignition system on an Exploder 5.0, so they removed it (including me, until I got help from an EFI Master back in 2005). Those days are past. Since you are new to this, remove as much of the under hood wiring back into the cabin as possible, carefully, intact. You won't need most of it. But better to have it and not need it than the other way around.

904Bronco is an ace at these swaps, has done several. He keeps all the OEM emissions stuff, but you don't have to (though I would read anything he has posted about his swaps carefully, he is good at this).

Mechanically, the engine is a direct bolt-in. Uses stock Bronco motor mounts, among other things. A few bits to connect the Explorer power steering pump to your existing box. The Explorer alternator puts out a lot more juice than the Bronco unit, so some wiring needs upgrading to avoid melting things.

No need to change radiators, my ancient OEM-spec 3 row Modine radiator cooled my basically stock Explorer 5.0 for 20 years and 120,000 miles of driving in all sorts of conditions without issue. It would probably have cooled my new 408 except that it chose the moment of the recent swap to die, a topic for another thread.

Use the Explorer transmission, you need an adapter to the transfer case and may need to move it back (I know nothing about this, I'm a manual transmission guy with an NV400 + Atlas and Advance Adapters crossmember).

Fuel system is all electric, no more mechanical pump, so you need an in tank or external pump, a source of never-ending debates. The plumbing is more complicated than stock, either way.

You can keep the 90° elbow on the intake or remove it and bolt the throttle body straight to the upper intake. Your choice.

Keep the OEM exhaust manifolds or use headers, your choice. I made things hard on myself because I wanted headers and 22 years ago there were no options that fit GT-40P heads. That has changed.

You'll eventually want to simplify the engine harness to get rid of all the irrelevant stuff, though not before you have educated yourself. I understand that EFIGuy has videos on how to do that. He can also reprogram the engine control computer to turn off things you don't need, like the passive anti theft system.

It may seem intimidating at first, but don't overthink it. Most stuff just bolts in. And once you are done, it just runs. And runs. And runs.
So here is the flip side of the coin. Please don't construe anything that I post as my preference, my belief, or my prejudice. It's just that the internet is something of an echo chamber...and if you don't have both sides of the arguement...then it really isn't an arguement.

Yes, obviously you can jack up the radiator cap, and park an Explorer under it. So yes...as long as you use all of crap that came with the Explorer, you can convince yourself that it is a good swap. But there's that pesky "Check Engine Light." When you start removing things that are deemed "unnecessary" then the CEL comes on. So in order to make the thing run...you MUST have a custom ECU. (Don't pretend that just because you flash your old ECU with a new program that you didn't invent a new ECU. That's just silly semantics. If I can't go to Autozone and buy an ECU to drop in...then I need a "custom" ECU.)

Which gets us to the crux of the issue. What "Custom" parts do you want to use? Is there aftermarket support? What is the common failure mode, or MTBF for the custom parts that you employ? Can you take it to a shop and have it serviced? Can you take it to a Dealer and have it serviced? Who knows how to fix what?

All of these Explorer swaps rely on ONE GUY who has the magic recipe to make your computer function. (it turns out that there is more than one "one guy" but if you don't know who the "other guy" is...then it's really only ONE GUY. Every time the EFI GUY cuts a fart, or doesn't answer his phone...the forum goes crazy because they can't get their Explorer to run. The beauty of the 89-93 Mustang 5.0 EEC-4 system is that it doesn't use any custom computers. The ONLY custom part on the 89-93 Mustang system is the wiring harness. And the MTBF on a wiring harness is somewhere greater than my lifetime. Ron Francis / The Detail Zone / RJM have invented a new harness with 4 relays in it. But those are COTS parts from TE. (Commercial, Off the Shelf). So yes, there are 2 more components that can fail...but the factory used 2 relays (EEC power, and Fuel Pump), so you are only adding two relays that are readily available. The EEC is the famous A9L, or A9P and there were hundreds of thousands produced, and the 60 pin EEC4 format is supported in the aftermarket. Granted, they are 30+ years old...but you can still buy them, and they are still serviced.

The aftermarket has adopted the 89-93 Mustang 5.0 as the swap of choice in Early Mustangs, and Cobra Kit cars. Also in 79-88 Fox upgrades. So that platform has reached critical mass, and you can get service nationwide. And the Internet is full of support. The diagnostic port works with all EEC-4 code readers, and the check engine light functions.

So that leaves us with the Explorer 5.0 benefits vs the 89-93 Mustang benefits. So lets look at the major differences:
1. Engine management.
2. Transmission management.
3. Oil Pan.
4. Cylinder head exhaust ports.
5. Induction.
6. Valve covers.
7. Ignition
8. EGR / Thermactor / EVAP / Downstream O2 / catalytic converter (how many sensors do you really need?)

If you are NOT going to run a Catalytic Converter, then the multiple O2 sensors are useless. If you are not going to run EGR, EVAP, or Thermactor, then those can also be deleted. So what's left? It's not just coil packs vs. distributor. That discussion has been resolved. Coil packs provide ZERO additional benefit over a properly functioning distributor. The ONLY advantage to a coil pack is that you can have the waste spark enabled...and that doesn't make it run better. Consider the 97-02 Jeep Wrangler 4.0 versus the 03-06 Jeep Wrangler 4.0. The only difference between 02 and 03 is coil packs. After 20 years, and millions of data points...no one can point to an improvement with coil packs. (PLEASE don't argue that waste spark is "better" when you have deleted all of the other emissions equipment...)

Now, if you need transmission management, that opens the door to the Explorer ECU a little...because you get built in transmission control. The aftermarket AODE/4R70 controllers are very reliable, but I can see wanting that function integrated into the factory ECU. But everybody knows I hate automatics, and so it's not something I think about much. If I'm going to run a 4R70, I would modulate it with a throttle valve, and that's a whole different can of worms. But yeah...AOD with 4R70 gears, and then I'd still have an automatic. So no.

(and just to prove that this is not a total rant...I am putting a 6R80 behind my Gen 1 Coyote using a PBH control pack. And yes, I am aware that the 6R80 is an automatic transmission.)

So now we are left with p-heads. Since I run factory cast iron manifolds...its a no-brainer. Avoid p-heads.
So we are left with 89-93 Mustang engine management on a 96-97 Explorer 5.0. DONE.

All of this is driven by my recent interaction with Holley regarding their ProJection 2DI product support. How long should an obsolete product be supported? The answer to that question is hugely philosophical. Think of MS DOS. or Windows Embedded. Or iPhone 3 jailbreak. Or Ford 9 inch ring and pinion. Or Cessna 172 door handle. (when was the first 172 airframe certified?)

Gotta go.
 
Last edited:

Rustytruck

Bronco Guru
Joined
Feb 24, 2002
Messages
10,879
If you plan to run the Bronco manual transmission you have to deal with the mount on the 5.0 where their is no functional mount so you have to buy a bracket or drill and tap.m or converrt to hydraulics.
 

lars

Contributor
Been here awhile
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Messages
2,772
Loc.
NorCal flatlands
If you plan to run the Bronco manual transmission you have to deal with the mount on the 5.0 where their is no functional mount so you have to buy a bracket or drill and tap.m or converrt to hydraulics.
Or make your own. If you know how to weld it’s pretty easy.
 

Broncobowsher

Contributor
Total hack
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
33,597
Actually stock Bronco manifolds work better than many manifolds with the P-heads. There is enough material to clearance for the spark plugs.
 

sprdv1

Contributor
REBEL
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
80,080
If that's an older thread, then the main reason for doing a distributor was because back then the whole DIS (distributorless ignition system) was a black box mystery to most. And of course to be avoided at all costs!
Not so today, where many of us are running the Explorer setup in full. My own '68 that 904Bronco here built, has everything from the EGR and stock intake and stock ignition even to the stock exhaust manifolds.
But even some of those had to be modified. Such as the intake tubing for hood clearance even with the 1" body lift. A 2" would have cured that, but most of use still prefer the lower body lifts to the taller ones.

The big mods to the electrical harness is that very few, if any Bronco owners are going to utilize a tenth of the stuff in an Explorer wiring harness. It's just too big, bulky and complicated to make work in our limited space. Hence cutting out 2/3 of the wires from the original harness.

Otherwise, you actually do keep most of what comes out of the Exploder. Most of it is very desirable. More so today than in year's past. I did not click on the link, but see that it's one of Dan Wheeler's threads. So probably old enough that most of what I just said applies.

X2....
 

lars

Contributor
Been here awhile
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Messages
2,772
Loc.
NorCal flatlands
So here is the flip side of the coin. Please don't construe anything that I post as my preference, my belief, or my prejudice. It's just that the internet is something of an echo chamber...and if you don't have both sides of the arguement...then it really isn't an arguement.

Yes, obviously you can jack up the radiator cap, and park an Explorer under it. So yes...as long as you use all of crap that came with the Explorer, you can convince yourself that it is a good swap. But there's that pesky "Check Engine Light." When you start removing things that are deemed "unnecessary" then the CEL comes on. So in order to make the thing run...you MUST have a custom ECU. (Don't pretend that just because you flash your old ECU with a new program that you didn't invent a new ECU. That's just silly semantics. If I can't go to Autozone and buy an ECU to drop in...then I need a "custom" ECU.)

Which gets us to the crux of the issue. What "Custom" parts do you want to use? Is there aftermarket support? What is the common failure mode, or MTBF for the custom parts that you employ? Can you take it to a shop and have it serviced? Can you take it to a Dealer and have it serviced? Who knows how to fix what?

All of these Explorer swaps rely on ONE GUY who has the magic recipe to make your computer function. (it turns out that there is more than one "one guy" but if you don't know who the "other guy" is...then it's really only ONE GUY. Every time the EFI GUY cuts a fart, or doesn't answer his phone...the forum goes crazy because they can't get their Explorer to run. The beauty of the 89-93 Mustang 5.0 EEC-4 system is that it doesn't use any custom computers. The ONLY custom part on the 89-93 Mustang system is the wiring harness. And the MTBF on a wiring harness is somewhere greater than my lifetime. Ron Francis / The Detail Zone / RJM have invented a new harness with 4 relays in it. But those are COTS parts from TE. (Commercial, Off the Shelf). So yes, there are 2 more components that can fail...but the factory used 2 relays (EEC power, and Fuel Pump), so you are only adding two relays that are readily available. The EEC is the famous A9L, or A9P and there were hundreds of thousands produced, and the 60 pin EEC4 format is supported in the aftermarket. Granted, they are 30+ years old...but you can still buy them, and they are still serviced.

The aftermarket has adopted the 89-93 Mustang 5.0 as the swap of choice in Early Mustangs, and Cobra Kit cars. Also in 79-88 Fox upgrades. So that platform has reached critical mass, and you can get service nationwide. And the Internet is full of support. The diagnostic port works with all EEC-4 code readers, and the check engine light functions.

So that leaves us with the Explorer 5.0 benefits vs the 89-93 Mustang benefits. So lets look at the major differences:
1. Engine management.
2. Transmission management.
3. Oil Pan.
4. Cylinder head exhaust ports.
5. Induction.
6. Valve covers.
7. Ignition
8. EGR / Thermactor / EVAP / Downstream O2 / catalytic converter (how many sensors do you really need?)

If you are NOT going to run a Catalytic Converter, then the multiple O2 sensors are useless. If you are not going to run EGR, EVAP, or Thermactor, then those can also be deleted. So what's left? It's not just coil packs vs. distributor. That discussion has been resolved. Coil packs provide ZERO additional benefit over a properly functioning distributor. The ONLY advantage to a coil pack is that you can have the waste spark enabled...and that doesn't make it run better. Consider the 97-02 Jeep Wrangler 4.0 versus the 03-06 Jeep Wrangler 4.0. The only difference between 02 and 03 is coil packs. After 20 years, and millions of data points...no one can point to an improvement with coil packs. (PLEASE don't argue that waste spark is "better" when you have deleted all of the other emissions equipment...)

Now, if you need transmission management, that opens the door to the Explorer ECU a little...because you get built in transmission control. The aftermarket AODE/4R70 controllers are very reliable, but I can see wanting that function integrated into the factory ECU. But everybody knows I hate automatics, and so it's not something I think about much. If I'm going to run a 4R70, I would modulate it with a throttle valve, and that's a whole different can of worms. But yeah...AOD with 4R70 gears, and then I'd still have an automatic. So no.

(and just to prove that this is not a total rant...I am putting a 6R80 behind my Gen 1 Coyote using a PBH control pack. And yes, I am aware that the 6R80 is an automatic transmission.)

So now we are left with p-heads. Since I run factory cast iron manifolds...its a no-brainer. Avoid p-heads.
So we are left with 89-93 Mustang engine management on a 96-97 Explorer 5.0. DONE.

All of this is driven by my recent interaction with Holley regarding their ProJection 2DI product support. How long should an obsolete product be supported? The answer to that question is hugely philosophical. Think of MS DOS. or Windows Embedded. Or iPhone 3 jailbreak. Or Ford 9 inch ring and pinion. Or Cessna 172 door handle. (when was the first 172 airframe certified?)

Gotta go.
What a great rant!! Actually I agree with most of it.

Turns out I'm not running anything resembling EEC-V, let alone an Exploder ECU. I switched to EDIS for the intellectual challenge (seriously) back in 2004 when a friend offered that he'd figured out how to flip the bits in an A9L to run it. Using his guidance I built a bastard hybrid harness out of a Ford Motorsports Mustang 5.0 EEC-IV harness, some 1994 Crown Vic bits and a couple of Explorer 5.0 harness parts, the origin of which is lost to time. So I was (still am, sorta) running an A9L with a Tweecer RT piggybacked on to it for bit flipping, plus a Crown Vic EEC-IV EDIS module and the Exploder coil packs, cam synchronizer and crank pickup. It's so obscure compared to what everyone is doing these days that I don't normally bother to describe it. But my A9L is box stock, and if the external chip that over rides the OEM input file (now a Moates product) ever fails I have backups both in firmware and software, and I can do the tuning myself. The worst of the EEC-IV system is the ECU itself. Not that there is anything wrong with them, unless you want to turn 10,000 rpm. Except. Priced one lately?

All that is now running my 408, though it required a lot of input file mods for the new engine, and because I'm old, lazy and getting lazier, I paid someone else to do the tuning. I've been following along though. It's tedious to learn the input file stuff, but not impossible.

Since, in the spirit of laziness, I didn't want to go back to a distributor, I used an adapter I designed about 10 years ago that facilitates the use of a 2000+/- Windstar cam synchronizer in a 351W block. But strictly speaking a good ole EEC-IV distributor would've worked fine. Cue ego as well.

Back in 2001 I cut up a drivers side WH (built by JBA) header to accommodate the P head spark plugs. Required mods to the #7 tube, everything else was ok. Wouldn't do that again. As Broncobowsher pointed out, the stock cast iron manifolds can be made to work, or the (Sanderson?) header sold by Bronco hut apparently clear. What ever.

As for transmissions, I've been a solid manual transmission True Believer since the stone age. Cue my easily rebuilt (if you could still get good American made parts) NV4500 I've had for 18 years. But I won't lie. Between the guilty pleasure of the Jeep Grand Cherokee with its 8 speed automatic that I bought a couple of years ago and Nvrstuk's 6R80 posts I've been softening. Luckily for my bank account the effort sounds so breathtakingly difficult that I don't see that happening any time soon.
 

904Bronco

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
5,433
Loc.
San Martin, CA
Wow... You guys had a lot to say!

I agree with a lot and disagree with some of what has been said.
Done both EFI swaps, there is good and bad with both...

Single source for parts is never good, whether it is EFI Guy's availability or Former Bronco Hut specific headers from Sanderson.

Problem still is we are dealing with an engine that Ford has not made in 20+ years. Yes, aftermarket parts are available. You can still find them in a wreaking yard though.

So run the Transmission you like, EFI (In my humble opinion) is the way to go. 7 EFI conversions later I am sold.
 

nvrstuk

Contributor
Just a Bronco driver for over 50 yrs!
Joined
Jul 31, 2001
Messages
6,852
Quoted from Lars post above...
"As for transmissions, I've been a solid manual transmission True Believer since the stone age. Cue my easily rebuilt (if you could still get good American made parts) NV4500 I've had for 18 years. But I won't lie. Between the guilty pleasure of the Jeep Grand Cherokee with its 8 speed automatic that I bought a couple of years ago and Nvrstuk's 6R80 posts I've been softening. Luckily for my bank account the effort sounds so breathtakingly difficult that I don't see that happening any time soon." end quote

I enjoy helping ya spend your money buddy!! Took a dozen years to move ya from that reliable workhorse 5.0 to a big time stroker but I gotcha to move... :)

I expect to swing ya over to a 6r in less than half that time!! I'm predicting 6 yrs or less! Finish that plane, go on a few more adventure trips and you'll be swapping tranny's sure as the sun's coming up tomorrow! lol
I was a manual trans Bronco owner for 39 yrs. Tried 4 different manuals. Tried a C4 and swored I'd never own another auto in a Bronco! lol I loved my toploader 4 speed for sheer fun and the ZF with doubler was a game changer but, there isn't a manual made that can surpass the 6r in any category except needing both feet to move your Bronco and both hands to drive it (no holding that warm coffee cup on those cold mornings). 7 different tranny's in the same Bronco.... back to the OP...



Both pro and con arguments on the Exploder setup are great. Little less bias in one than the other but hey, that makes for fun reading right?? If you are keeping the 4r70 then imho keep all the Exploder computer & wiring and control it all with one ecu.

Garry pushed me towards EDIS because I literally hated the reliability of "new" distributors and the LOOK of them. So, he helped me update to EDIS and I haven't looked back. Having it on 2 different stroker motors it is a HUGE plus for wheeling and reliability. Just learn how to solder and make good connections and you'll be good either way.

Wish ya the best of luck.
 

Mikes Early Bronco

Contributor
Newbie
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
43
Sorry to dig up an old thread but the knowledge here is priceless. I saw in a post that someone installed a double sump pan with what looked like an extra pickup. Is that necessary for the Explorer swap? I have a crack in my pan from the Explorer’s steering rack so I need a new one anyway. Thanks.
 

toddz69

Sponsor/Vendor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
9,182
Sorry to dig up an old thread but the knowledge here is priceless. I saw in a post that someone installed a double sump pan with what looked like an extra pickup. Is that necessary for the Explorer swap? I have a crack in my pan from the Explorer’s steering rack so I need a new one anyway. Thanks.
No, the stock Explorer pickup is just fine.

Todd Z.
 

904Bronco

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
5,433
Loc.
San Martin, CA
Sorry to dig up an old thread but the knowledge here is priceless. I saw in a post that someone installed a double sump pan with what looked like an extra pickup. Is that necessary for the Explorer swap? I have a crack in my pan from the Explorer’s steering rack so I need a new one anyway. Thanks.
The steel pan is obsolete from Ford... Never checked on availability for the cast pan? Seen a few on eBay or grab one at U pick and pull.
Todd got the other part of your question.

Doug.
 

DirtDonk

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
44,005
The "double-sump" pans that I know of are so-called because of a second, smaller hump. Some even have their own drain plug to ensure full draining of the pan.
Does not mean that there are two pickups. The rear sump (usually) is deeper and therefore the only one that needs one pickup like normal.

Paul
 

Broncobowsher

Contributor
Total hack
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
33,597
The double sump is a rear sump pan. In the fox body (80's mustang) the crossmember ran under the engine and it needed to be a rear sump engine. Part of the 302 design is the front mounted oil pump. That oil pump is lower than the crossmember. So it got a baby sump, just to give a physical space for the pump to live. The pickup for the pump goes over the crossmember and sucks oil out of the big rear sump. The front sump is just a space to hold the oil pump. As it fills up it just overflows into the rear sump. It holds enough oil that a drain plug was added to get rid of the oil during an oil change.

The original Bronco pan is very much like the mustang pan, except there is a trough down the passenger side so the oil that collects up by the pump can be drained out the back without a second drain plug.
 
Top