Explorer 5.0 question

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Nov 30, 2004 | 07:33 PM

#16

P51D Mustang

Elder User

Joined: Mar 2004

Posts: 660

Likes: 0

I had a 96 F150 4x4 with the truck 302 (mass air EFI) and the 5 speed manual. It got around 15 mpg stock, but with the timing cranked up to 12* BTDC, it got 17MPG on the hiway. This would cause the check engine lite to come on, but since I knew why, I didn't care.

My brother had 94 2wd F150 with the 302 and the 5 speed manual. He installed a cat back 3" exaust, and also cranked up the timing using a chip. It got 19-20 mpg on the hiway.

I have an 85 5.0 Mustang with a Holley double pumper carb, and 5 speed manual. Stock with 2.73 rear gears it got 27 mpg on the hiway and about 21 in mixed city/hiway driving. Now it has 3.55 rear gears and an E cam equiped 350 horse 302. It can still get 25mpg on the hiway. It depends how fast I drive. If I cruise at 65mph it gets only about 21mpg. If I cruise at 80mph it gets 25mpg. However, if I kick it up to 85mph cruise, it drops back down to about 20. In stop and go, city only, driving, it will only get around 12-16 mpg though.

Dec 2, 2004 | 09:15 PM

#17

300six1990

Thread Starter

Junior User

Joined: Aug 2004

Posts: 77

Likes: 0

From: Port Jervis, NY

That's pretty decent mileage, I was expecting it to be a little worse... I've never owned a 302 so I'm not too familiar with their fuel economy... I might be better off for now with the stock explorer cam or an HO cam from a mustang... Most of my driving is highway cruising right about 1900-2200rpm.. The Comp XE265 looks nice but from what I can tell from their website, it's not a roller cam... I may be wrong cause it was pretty late the other night when I looked....

Feb 15, 2006 | 12:02 AM

#18

Blaze86Vic

New User

Joined: Feb 2006

Posts: 1

Likes: 0

The main reason the Explorer engine has such a sucky power rating is it's headers. Hard to believe but the headers on that 5.0L Explorer are the most restrictive things you will ever see, more so than a manifold.

Older version
http://www.1aautomotive.com/pics/plp/PLP1390309.jpg

And the newer version, niether look at all decent.
http://www.1aautomotive.com/pics/plp/PLP1390306.jpg

Last edited by Blaze86Vic; Feb 15, 2006 at 12:08 AM.

Feb 15, 2006 | 01:44 AM

#19

TigerDan

Hotshot

Joined: May 2004

Posts: 12,170

Likes: 5

From: The hills of No. Calif.

Hi Blaze86Vic, and welcome to FTE! Please take a moment to check out the Guidelines, they contain important information that you'll need when posting here.

Feb 15, 2006 | 11:43 AM

#20

MustangGT221

Post Fiend

Joined: Nov 2001

Posts: 14,947

Likes: 6

From: Topsfield, MA

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95 F150

I thought GT40P's were iron heads

Wow, not really sure why I said aluminum...yes they're iron. My mistake.

Feb 15, 2006 | 02:39 PM

#21

Matt95L

Senior User

Joined: Jan 2005

Posts: 116

Likes: 0

I found these specs on another site.Personally i'd either get an 85-95 Mustang cam or a good aftermarket cam like the Crower 15510 or Comp XE264HR-14(Cam i'm using in my truck great low/mid range power and gas mileage is at least as good as it was with the stocker).

Quote:

1985-1988 Mustang (E5ZE-6250-AA)
266 / 266
210 / 210
0.444 / 0.444
115

1989-1995 Mustang (E8ZE-6250-CA / F1ZE-6250-AA)
276 / 266
214 / 210
0.444 / 0.444
115

1993-1995 Cobra (F3ZE-6250-CA)
270 / 270
212 / 212
0.451 / 0.451
118

1996-2001 Explorer (F4TE-6250-BA)
256 / 266
186 / 197
0.422 / 0.448
116