Nope, I'm throwing this one back.
After due diligent research with an engine and vehicle at hand, I'm bailing out of SHO. I found about a dozen annoyances with the swap.
None of them are insurmountable, but the top three combined put me beyond my pain threshold.
Life is short and I have other options. On to the SOHC.

Top issues from a longer list...
(Notes: Left & right are per automotive convention. The Vulcan comparo is sitting in an '89 Aero shorty)

1) The famous reversible intake plenum is not reversible. The throttle side of the loop ends up punching through the cam belt cover and coming to rest (+/-) on the cam belt. Then, on my '95 auto, the plenum has a egr channel cast onto the underside of the plenum, making it now 1-1/4 inch below the cam belt. A machinist could be a hero by putting in spacers, raising the plenum by 2-3/4 inches, however this would cut into the advertised horsepower and contributes further to problem number 2.

OR a talented welder might be able to coach the aluminum intake port into jumping over the belt cover.

Another problem with the EGR feature: Rotating the plenum puts the EGR feature up at the front, on the left side, where the left exhaust manifold is totally unprepared. A welder might fix that also.



2) The engine doesn't fit into the space required. No surprise, and I was prepared for a little cutting and welding. On the right (US passenger) side, the dog house has a roof that slopes at a 45, but parallels the center line.
It would be nice to carve out a 2" notch, front to back, and also move the blower over by about this amount. On the left (driver) side, the wall is vertical, but narrows as it proceeds to the back wall. It is essential to carve out a significant vertical notch, widening the back wall by 5". The driver will notice.

3) It is not known (by me) that the SHO engine computer will be happy with either of Aero RWD transmissions. The SHO PCM is probably unique amongst all the permutations of TFI v DIS v EDIS, and also EEC-IV v EEC-V form-factor, and also dumb v smart transmission. In the Taurus the 60-pin DIS PCM also controls an electronic 4-speed AX4S FWD transmission (a derivative of the AXOD). One one flaw is that the gear ratio's in the AX4S diff from the 4R/5R RWD trannys. I will assume that PCM will view the unexpected pulse rate coming back from the sensors, as slippage or failure to achieve shift. I might then tighten bands/clutches endlessly or never proceed with the shift schedule. The A4LD might be plan B but we still need the PCM to cooperate with TC and 4th gear solenoids.

On the other hand, Expl/Ranger PCM's from 95+ and Aero PCM's from 96+ know about the 4RxxE and 5RxxE trannys. However, they would do a poor job at running the SHO engine. For instance the SHO PCM is EEC-IV-DIS, whereas the 96-97 Aero 4L PCM is EEC-V-EDIS.

I would be delighted to re-direct my EEC-IV box (my design and programming) towards a SHO+5R55E DIS solution, if this were the only SHO stopper here.



Other facts as I know them...
- SHO oil pan is to the rear, like Vulcan, so it fits in behind the Aero cross frame.
- SHO can take the Vulcan bellhousing (tested it myself), except two additional (M10) bolts go to the oil pan, and the inside needs sculpting to remove an internal collision. The SHO starter is two bolts plus pin and works with the Vulcan bell and in my guess will mate with the flexplate.
- The Aero torque converters are adaptable to the SHO. Pilot matches, but the flex plate would need to be redrilled to a 9-5/16 bolt center rather than 8-7/8. No biggy.
- SHO has a 130A 3G alternator on the upper left, Vulcan is 65A on upper right. SHO and Vulcan styles don't match.
- SHO FS10 A/C is on lower left, Vulcan FS6 (or E6DH) on lower right.
- SHO steering pump is on lower right, Vulcan on lower left.
- SHO uses a coil pack, Vulcan has the distributor.
- Both have the 60-pin PCM. The pinouts are 70% similar to any of the EEC-IV (6 cyl's) thru 1995.
- SHO uses a real MAF (aka AFM). I detect the Vulcan using speed-density style calcs with MAP and MAT sensing.
- SHO fuel ports show up on the front right corner, Aero would probably like it in the left rear. Fuel rail might (?) be reversible.
- No mechanical fan on the SHO. FWD Taurus of course has to depend on electric fans.
- The bottom radiator hose is the same on the SHO and Vulcan, but the upper hose (I believe) is at the rear, while the Vulcan is at the top forward.
- SHO engine mounting is approximately where you want it to hook up with the Aero subframe. Bolts go into accessory brackets for steering and A/C.
- SHO throttle diameter is somewhere around 66mm, perhaps a bit more, but the MAF is 56mm. Vulcan is down at 50mm.
- The SHO exhaust manifolds mate to a standard union into a huge 2-1/4OD DP. By comparison, the Aero 3L DP is 1-3/4. The right side elbows out to 15" from the engine centerline, just kissing the Aero rail, while the left side tucks in at 12" from CL.



Thanks. End of SHO.

 

thanks, now I know not to go hunting for an SHO engine, but it just ocurred to me that 93nighthawk is looking for an engine, just don't tell him anything about the insurmountables.

 

I've always thought that the 96-98 V8 SHO engine (spare me the camshaft failure sermon) from the would be a nice Aerostar replacement. Except the contrast between the two is like night and day.
I've got two V8 SHO engines in storage. I guess I should uncrate them and see what type of RWD tranny would bolt up.

 

I went through the calculations about 20 years ago, and realized there had to be major cutting to the Aerostar's dog house to fit that funky intake manifold. I even thought about running a really long snorkel from the engine compartment to the back of the dog house to hook into the throttle body.

But the real problem was the power curve of the engine; it's designed to put out its power at much higher speeds than the regular Aerostar engines normally run at. That means it will over rev the accessories and torque converter and transmission. To change its operating parameters would take away the SHO's special capabilities. The engine is just not tuned for a heavy truck, except maybe for a 2wd shorty. In that case, I would definitely use a manual transmission.

 

The 3.0 SHO engine would fix the EGR valve problems; it does not have one. And 3.0, the intake is reversible.

 

Sorry, the picture of this being done does not seem to show up anywhere in your post. I've would spend yet another few bucks to put this to rest, but the situation here isnt even close. Btw, I am aware of the guy who had to hacked his engine to make it happen, even w/o egr.

 

I have seen the 3.0 engines in hot rods over the years hooked to rear wheel trans. I have 2 93 SHO's; one is a 3.2 with a auto trans and one is a 3.0 with the 5sp trans. I have no pictures, but there is a lot of differences between the engines. One of the differences is that there are two belts on the front for accessories. Alternator is also mounted different.

 

Yes, I saw this thread, sad, but understandable.... some day, yeah, some day.....


Lincoln LS/T-bird 3.0/3.9and any F-150 that has the 3.5/3.7 engine in it tranny would work.

 

The SHO now gets parked on an engine cart, like the one holding my M102, and used to turn a 5R55E while I add 5-spd capability to my EEC-IV box. DIS and EDIS will be add to the current TFI library. Issue #3 gone.

What is needed for the SHO->Aero swap is a new plenum that is tall rather than wide, but has the same runner lengths and valves and uses the same throttle and IAV. This gets you over the cam belt while actually improving the doghouse cut-and-paste. The cut on the (US) passenger side is eliminated, and the drivers side is reduced to a kinder cut. Issue #1 gone, issue #2 halved.

A theoretical possibility for plenum design a is 3-D printing of the moulds for gravity-sand casting. But that leads to $$$. It might be a 2nd, production step if there is any outside interest. A more practical, one-off approach is to weld up custom mandrel bends. This is a stunt I could probably pull off in my garage and budget. It won't be pretty.

 

I thought that you gave up on using the SHO engine?

 

Someone just used a key phrase that opens up all kinds of speculation and what-ifs. I was first going to sell off the SHO, but then I worked at it a little more and eventually found a near term reason to keep it around.

I refer to my garage as The EDL, the Engine Development Lab where I do basic R&D. The primary mission is development of engine controls. After studying the Ford catalog for PCM's, it did not seem to include a 60-pin EEC-IV that also did a V6 with RWD electronic trannys. This is an inconvenience when retrofitting an E-tranny into a pre-96 Aero chassis. That's where the SHO became useful short term, as a tranny turner sitting on a cart. It's the electonics (issue #3) I'm after because it feeds into SOHC+5R55E, something that normally requires EEC-V. Although I could reconfigure, other people can't.

What happens "some day" with the SHO is another matter, and I'm just leaving notes around for myself or anyone else who cares. For instance, with the SHO on a cart, I'm better able to study the exhaust manifolds for twin-turbo fitment.

 

It has just been something I would like to do, a pipe dream I know, but something I have thought throughout the years of doing, take a 3.0L shorty 5-speed and make it a drag/fun only vehicle. But I have come to the conclusion that it will never happen due to space/time/money.

Like this?

 

Lots of win in this thread.

 

Update, since Feb 2015.
I recently regained floor space and cleared out much of my schedule, therefore I hauled both the SHO and the Mercedes 4-banger out of storage. The MBZ has priority by far. The SHO is just getting another look-over without commitment.

A few noteworthy developments...
- This ('15) Spring, when I rebuild the A4LD Franky, a full spec 5R55E was built up in parallel and sports the 3L bell that makes it (almost) a direct bolt-on.
- My version of the EEC-IV was revised to handle all 3 types of ignition systems, and adds in the capability to operate the 5R55E. Normally the e-tranny skills only show up in the EEC-V but the SHO managed to sneek in 5 (out of a required 6 solenoids) on the earlier 60 pin connector. So the sixth tranny solenoid was added along with one for the intake control.
- To make progressive on box development independent of the SHO engine, it is planned to convert the '89 Aero from TFI over to DIS. Therefore I brought in retrofits for the harmonic balancer, the distributor plug and the MAF, and the coil pack and driver is available from the SHO. The one problem I had was in procuring the later 3L MAF-compatible intake tube. The JY sent me one that was chopped, and another hasn't shown up yet on e-bay. Plz look around.
- Before any further bigger commitment, the next step is to figure out the manifold reversal. The easiest method, relative to other options, is to pull the throttle up to hop over the front cam belt cover. On the left and right corners of the front cross over tube, I will fabricate a pair of offset channels and get them (aluminum) welded in. A duplicate manifold set was brought in to practice on since so far I have not demonstrated any talent for aluminum.
- More news from the Bad News department: It was realized that the coolant return comes off the back end of the engine where the thermostat is also located. Pump is up front. The valley is already packed with runners, the engine bay is already beyond packed. Doesn't look good.

SHO, 5R55E w/3L bell, & previous board rev


2nd set, for practice

 

What is the functional difference between the 3L and the 4L intake tubes?