Gor my 302 H.O. swap I'll be using the explorer upper/lower intake, along with 70mm TB, MAF, and intake. I don's see an advantage to NOT using at least a 3/8" phoenolic spacer (increased valve cover clearance, and heat barrier to keep the upper intake cooler...

I'm wondering if taking into account the shorter runner length and volume of the explorer intake vs. truck upper, would it be beneficial to install a custom 1.5 or 2" spacer? The way I see it it would add some degree of runner length and plenum volume...I realize 3/8 or 1" difference may be negligible, but what about a 2 or 3 inch spacer?

 

Sure.. use the spacer but don't put too much time or money into it, the difference it will make won't be noticable from the drivers seat. There is only a slight difference in total runner length between any of the factory intakes.. the truck versions might be an inch longer than the car versions, but the later Explorer intake was badly compromised for hood clearance so you might want to reconsider your choice and just use the truck intake if you have the room.

 

I doubt any spacer between the upper and lower intakes is going to do much to keep them cooler. Remember that the EGR system passes hot exhaust gasses through both the lower and upper intakes to the EGR spacer behind throttle body, where the EGR valve directs exhaust into the intake stream. This is why the EGR spacer plate has a coolant passage in it, to help remove the exhaust heat at that point. But there aren't similar cooling passages along the rest of the intake manifolds. The only way you can reduce this heating is to block off the holes in the heads that feed exhaust into the lower intake.

There was a book about cooking food on various parts of the engine while you're motoring called "Manifold Destiny". In one part, they showed how you can cook a steak on the intake manifold of the 5.0 HO engine because it got so hot.

 

Like the others, I think the insulating properties would be negligible as well. Normally, anyone running one of these types of intakes (I'll be running one on my Mustang) would be looking for less runner length. The uppers flow about 240 cfm average while the lower is less, around 205 - 210 cfm average. But longer runners will just make the torque lower in the RPM range typically.

If you want to increase the performance of the intake give Tom Moss (tmoss) a shout and he can port it. He can get the lower up to 240 cfm. http://tmoss.efidynotuning.com/

Articles like this can help as well.
http://tmoss.efidynotuning.com/Ford_...servations.pdf

 

I'll give him a look today about the porting...forgot to mention I'll be deleting the EGR.

Maybe I'm overthinking the intake possibilities; I wont shell out the $$$ for an aftermarket EFI intake, just want to go with the best stock option, but I already have the mustang 70mm TB. Per your comments I'm reconsidering keeping the truck intake, but my concern is if there is an advantage of the GT40 with 70mm TB over stock truck with stock TB connected to stock truck MAF which is what? 50mm?

The H.O. swap will be MAF converted, so if I dump the GT40 intake/70mm TB I'll have to grab the Y adapter from a MAF truck, for the stock TB, but now I'm giving up intake diameter.

If I'm debating all these variable for an un-noticeable change in TQ/HP, let me know guys, I dont need to be an expert on the topic right now, just don't want to leave any power on the table for my first build.

Thanks guys, great info!

 

I don't know if the truck intake would be a better intake or not. What we do have is empirical evidence that the Lightning used a tubular version (the original GT40) of the Explorer intake when it came out. Tom has cfm flow numbers on a lot of intakes. Maybe he has the numbers for the truck intake.


Tom also informed me that the Explorer intake can use a 70 mm throttle body so it would be best to use that. I think he also recommends disconnecting the EGR from the spacer and running the spacer dry with no coolant. There are other spacers that can be used if you need the throttle connection there but not the cooling properties.

 

Tmoss did some testing on the 5.0 truck lower and found it can easily outflow all the GT40 versions as it has the straightest and largest runners of all the OEM intakes, it just has 1 flaw which is narrowing of the port exits at the head junction.. something that can be easily corrected in a few minutes with a dremmel tool. The stock 5.0/5.8 twin 51mm throttlebodies have the same flow capacity as a 72mm single TB so they aren't a bottleneck. The choice of intake should compliment your overall engine goals, runner length and volume can enhance or optimize the powerband you have designed your engine to produce but that is all it will do, if the intake isn't a perfect match it won't totally kill the engine, the benefits and downsides are subtle as long as its not way too small for the motor, and interestingly an intake that is way too big doesn't have as much downside.

 

I forgot about the truck lower intake. Maybe the reason people use other intakes is hood clearance and not much aftermarket support for the truck intakes. Plus the myriad of aftermarket intakes for the cars.

 

I emailed Tom about it today, see below:

Glaser67: Hello Tom,

I’m getting my feet wet with my first ever build with 302 H.O. swapping into my 89 F150. As you might imagine, I may be overthinking all my possibilities, including EFI intake setup.

I would like to know what it would cost to have my lower explorer intake ported for my gt40 heads?
As for some backround on my build and possible setup options, here are a couple links for your consideration.
I guess the first question is which would be the better setup for low end required for an F150 swap?
1. 302 truck intake, converted to MAF using stock Y pipe converter into stock MAF housing (50mm?)
2. 302 explorer intake with 70 mm TB into 70 MM MAF housing?
3. EGR delete either way
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...ke-spacer.html
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...ine-build.html
Thanks!

Tom: "If the Explorer intake poses no clearance issues, I like it with the 70mm MAF. Since the stock Explorer intake flows ~205 cfm and your GT40 heads flow mid-190 cfm there is no need to port the intake."

So from what I've gathered is that there is no obvious bottneck with the truck upper/lower and explorer combined with 70mm TB. I realize the greater cross section of the truck intake will allow more flow in cfm, and enhance low end band, and that although the explorer has slightly shorter runners, less cross section, it will benefit from greater air flow velocity and push the power band to the top end.

As I already have the explorer and 70mm TB, I'm going to try it out. I figure my comp 35-349 will help shift the power band a little lower and combined with pong tube headers into 2.5" single exhaust, I will still see an overall improvement over my current tire SD non-roller. Combine that with the fact that it's going into a short bed F150 that is just a daily driver, I figure if I feel like I need more low end I can always put the truck intake one.

P.S. plus I already have the explore intake all dolled up!! Wacha think?

 

Oh.. that's a very purdy intake.

 

Are you planning to run it flipped like this (and the Lightning)? I'm interested to see how it works out for you with the connections etc. I would ultimately like to put fuel injection with this type of intake on my dads '75 F100. Whether we would run it conventional or flipped, I don't know.

 

I run a flipped ported exploder in my van with a 70tb.........it was faster with the stock exploder/70 vs the stock truck stuff with a "custom" ram air at the track..........we've since cut it open and ported it along with the lower being done up and it picked up some more..........this is with stock HO roller cam/gt40p's..........had to add some 24lb inj's to get it to its current best ET...even with an adj. reg/19's it liked the 24's.........really need a MAF conversion (working on it) and a real cam........

 

That's good data. Thanks for sharing. Did you guys cut the Explorer? Did you shorten it any? How much does the lower flow? And the upper for that matter Thanks!

 

?Mr.Blue005: You mentioned use of 70mm TB; what is your intent for MAF housing/sensor? My donor came with the C&L but I'm not keen on using the sample tube to trick the ECU. I plan on a tune in the future but want to at least have the truck drivable when I do the swap.

 

I have a 76 c&l a PMAS 75 and a PRO-M 75 on the shelf...........they all work fine but i'll probably end up with the pro-m.........i have 6 efi 5.0 foxes so i'm always swapping stuff around lol...............

Justin: My buddy is a porting junkie and has read all Toms stuff etc........dont have any actual flow numbers but it was cut open and i believe he took 1 inch of runner length out internally and opened the throat pinch........the lower has been lightly touched and port matched to the p heads.......he didnt get crazy with it due to it being in a "heavy" vehicle with a really mild combo..........on a side note earlier this year we replaced a "stock" exploder u/l on one of my stangs with a fully ported u/l explorer......picked up 4 tenths/5mph........and its a basic combo.....2800lb coupe/junkyard 5.0/unported gt40ps/80mm pro-m/75tb/218*-222*@50 509-509" lunati/1-3/4 longtubes/bullet muffs/t5/4.30 gear/26x10 slicks.....ran 7.70@87 first trip stock...last trip was 7.32@92 best ported.......all motor.........when people say stock explorer intakes are "all" you need for mild combos i just chuckle..........

My van stock intake vs stock exploder was with stock stall/heads and 4.10 gear..did have the HO cam in....stock exploder vs ported was with combo in sig........

The truck intake works good but the lower does need a ton of work for any "real" performance stuff......its TINY.........my buddy ported the snot out of one and our systemax II lowers still were faster at the track..........

Van upper, early stages.......arc reactor lol............




Ported upper on mustang.............picked up a tenth and 1 mph just swapping the upper.....did the lower the next weekend............