mustang intake
Lead Driver
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,557
Likes: 44
From: Concord, NC
Yeah, it will bolt to the engine and should accept all the sensors (maybe not the air temp sensor, though, since the explorer intake might not have a provision for that in the lower like the stock truck manifold), but you'll have to alter the way the throttle cable mounts (you have to use the explorer or a mustang throttle, which you can probably get with the manifold), and you'll have to figure out a way to run a tube from an air filter to the single throttle body. You might have to find an EGR valve from a 89-93 mustang because all the 5.0 explorers were OBD-II and used a different style EGR valve. It's definitely not a direct plug and play operation, but it bolts to the engine just fine.
Posting Guru
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,349
Likes: 3
From: Cloud USA
I just got done with my Mass air swap on my 87 f-150. I was running a 94+ 302 in my 87 with lack luster results. I swapped the stock mustang intake with the truck intake. One thing I had to do is use the stock truck fuel rail. so the fuel lines come out the factor location on the trucks. You need to run a 3/8 min. intake spacer between the upper and lower to clear the fuel rail. I havent noticed a loss in lowend, but 2000-4000 rpm it really sings. My gas mileage went up alot! I am running a A9L computer also. Well worth the 20+ hours for the swap. I pulled out the engine and swapped accories from a late 80's crown vic. Very clean with just and alternator and ps pump. The front cover needed to be changed and water pump because it is standard rotation. No more tensioner wheels either.
FTE Legend
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 31,930
Likes: 1,499
From: Ottawa, Ontario
Are you saying you took the mustang intake off and installed the truck intake, or the other way around?
Posting Guru
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,923
Likes: 0
i know a cam makes a big difference but, the explorer makes less hp and tq with way better flowing heads and intake, than a stock 5.0HO?. They say dont build a truck motor like a mustang but when the mustang has more hp and tq the already additional tq should make up the difference for the higher hp and tq curve? am i making any sense? there is alot more to building or just bolting parts than just slapping a engine together. i really appreciate all the feedback, u guys and this site rocks!
it isnt the intake differences the its the Cam differences <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0 qUTuv="1"><TBODY qUTuv="1"><TR qUTuv="1"><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset" qUTuv="1">The explorer cam has .422/.448 lift and 256/266 advertised duration. The mustang cam has .444/.444 lift and 278/278 adv</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Posting Guru
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,349
Likes: 3
From: Cloud USA
I am running with the stock HO mustang intake. I dont notice a drop in lowend at all. I wanted to run with long tube headers but problems with clearance issues around the slave cyl kept me from doing that. I am using stock manifolds with 1-wire o2 sensors threaded right into them. I wanted to use the cheaper sensors, for one to prove to my buddy that you dont need heated sensors in the exhaust manifold and I can replace them every so often and it doesnt hurt the wallet.
FTE Legend
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 31,930
Likes: 1,499
From: Ottawa, Ontario
This supports what I have been saying, the small volume car intake is a better match to the 5.0 than the truck intake. I really think somebody messed up when the truck intakes were cast and it was never fixed, why would the 5.0 get an intake with larger volume runners than the 5.8, it doesn't make sense. And if you look at the published specs for the the 5.0HO and 5.0 truck motor, even in '94 when they installed the F4TE roller cam the truck only made 275ft/lbs@3000rpm, while the HO motor was rated about 300ft/lbs at the same rpm.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
Senior User
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
From: Iowa
The stock Mustang 5.0 manifold is readily available for cheap, cheap...find a Mustang guy that has swapped and he will basically give it to you..I am hanging onto mine (I also have an 87 GT just in case I feel the need to swap it). The GT-40 manifold is a nice swap for turning r's...I did this on my stang with the GT-40P heads off an Explorer. Picked up the mid to upper pull of the motor by a bunch but not so sure that is the way I want to go with my truck. I am thinking the stocker manifold will actually be better for my truck (more low end torque).
Senior User
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
From: Iowa
I really have to wonder if the difference between the truck and the Mustang intake is emissions related. If not, why would Ford NOT use the same setup (already cast in 87 stangs..cheap carry over on the trucks)? More torque, and work fine SD too. Far as I am concerned, on a truck you want torque..on a tail happy light weight like the stang you want HP...anyone? Correct me if I am wrong.
Senior User
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
From: Iowa
Oh, to answer the original question...Explorer manifolds you are after are 96-01 on 5.0 motors..the 96 and before, if I recall 2/97 are egr compatable (ie port drilled in very center of manifold)..after that they are the same except for the passage. They have cast tubes off of a large prominently ribbed plenum (TB location stock is to the pass side but they are symmetric so can be flipped so intake is on driver's side) and matched to the lower (so if you get one, get both upper and lower...different port design than the truck stocker or stang stocker..much better). Also, as an aside...96 and early (before 2/97) heads are GT-40 (very good compared to most late model... 3 vertical bars cast into ends of heads)...and after that GT-40P...4 bars cast..even better..more efficient but revised plug angle makes burnt wires, etc a problem if not addressed...they make P specific headers for them for the stangs anyway or there are always heat shielded 90 degree boots, etc..) OH, BTW for those keeping count...the GT-40's were used on the 351 Lightning trucks.
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
From: The blues
The GT-40 manifold is a nice swap for turning r's...I did this on my stang with the GT-40P heads off an Explorer. Picked up the mid to upper pull of the motor by a bunch but not so sure that is the way I want to go with my truck. I am thinking the stocker manifold will actually be better for my truck (more low end torque).
I'm getting my gt40 intake port matched to some thumper heads and cam combo. Along with a MAF conversion. Won't be done for about 7-8 weeks, we shall see if this is a good set-up. Mike at thumper does custom jobs for pretty much every heads/cam combo sold, talk with him, give some input, and you might get a nice pick me up.
Lead Driver
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,557
Likes: 44
From: Concord, NC
I really have to wonder if the difference between the truck and the Mustang intake is emissions related. If not, why would Ford NOT use the same setup (already cast in 87 stangs..cheap carry over on the trucks)?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
nojoke327
1997 - 2006 Expedition & Navigator
7
Nov 24, 2022 07:47 PM
Slow 5.0
Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W)
8
Feb 5, 2017 04:07 PM
mustang4life1985
Lightning, Harley-Davidson F-150, Roush F-150 & Saleen F-150
3
Oct 21, 2013 06:52 AM
