Yes. The explorer uses the HO block, and the HO block has different cylinder walls, thicker main webs, and stronger reinforcement in the valley. You'll notice if you ask people who've dealt a lot with both, that the HO's have fewer and less severe oil leaks, as well as less tendency to burn oil. All of this of course depends on like treatment and age. My SLO burnt as much oil as it leaked, and I know this to be common. My HO was way better with leaks, and didn't burn ANY oil, but it was beat and the bottom was burned up.
My 88 LX has the auto release, so I'll bet yours does, too. Mine was the same way, I just unplugged the line and stuck a small bolt in it. I'd be crazy to even use my parking brake, so an auto release is just silly.
I swapped out the whole ball of lead for a 96 explorer engine. It had everything I needed except an HO cam, but I had one already. I specify 96 because midway through 97 they were changed for external EGR. In 96, however, the GT40 intake had internal EGR, just the same as the SLO and HO engines. The 96 and early 97 Exploders also have NON-P gt40 heads, which means standard headers and larger exhaust valves. You would have to reuse your front cover, water pump and all you your accessories and brackets, swap the oil pump pickup and oil pan and also use your fuel rails and the coolant manifold as well. The Explorer comes with newer style "skinny" injectors, but they still have the same EEC IV connectors and are 19#. Then you just need an HO pcm. I have a spare, and I'm sure a lot of the other guys have spares sitting around. The swap is worth all the trouble, even the block is better. And that is a recipe for 265 HP give or take, add a headers and a good 2.5 inch h-pipe and cat-back, and you keep going up.
I'm just going to put a sticky note on my desk that says "NEVER DO THIS" right under the word seafoam. If I end up with a carbon problem, I'll just fix it, thank you very much.
Nothing new there.....The Generation I and II SHO Taurus had Yamaha V-6 engines........from the factory.....
The 3.0 and 3.2 were NOT Yamaha engines. The heads were designed by Yamaha and as far as I know, final assembly was by Yamaha, but that engine was based on an aluminum casting of the u-code push-rod 3.0L, converted to run DOHC heads, in a similar fashion to the way the 4.0L engine was converted to the SOHC 4.0L monstrosity, only with better results. All SHO engines are very much Ford engines designed (or perhaps redesigned) with outside consultancy. The 3.4L V-8 in the wife's SHO, for example, is based on the 2.5L V6 with 2 additional cylinders and outsourced heads. I heard through reliable sources that they were engineered by Yamaha and cast by Cosworth (perhaps the block also, but I don't remember what I was told on that), to which Ford itself added the multi-element intake. And before somebody pipes up about cam sprockets, I welded them when I had the motor apart for valves right after I bought it.
120 Degrees would be fine once sent through a projector lens at the right height from the array. Therein lies the problem, the projector bowl is in the way, and the shield isn't close enough to the lens. I still think my 25 SMD micro-array is the way to go.
The main components of interest, anyway. The array throws 120 degrees and is about the size of a nickel plus it's carrier. I've heatsinked it with the aluminum and copper heatsink from a socket 1155 cpu, so I've got good and efficient dissipation of heat, that should hang out of the back of the housing. I considered a dual pattern projector, but I'd have to throw the back bowl out and create a custom one based on different needs such as focal length and lens height, as well as cutoff position. My color temp is 5600k and my bench mockups at full power have yielded so far 2950 lumens, which is just above the output of a 50w HID.
Anyway, when I get there I'll probably end up putting them in the wife's SHO. My T-bird already has a halogen based projector retrofit (from some halogen E55's I had lying around) that I'm going to throw completely out, and redo at some point, but she needs something better than what she has more than I do.
I've been working on building a LED driver to power (at 2 output levels) a 2000 lumen Bridgelux 25 LED array that I plan to run at 2250/3000 lumens. I'm building one now, once it works, I'll build another. Heat sinking and powering the LED array in a compact fashion is the easy part. shaping the output is hard. Regular projector geometries won't work, and available reflectors won't either, still the beam has to be shaped, or it will be a high beam all the time regardless of WHAT the output is tuned to. I'll update soon with pics if the interest is there.
I'm not beating the h-pipe in because I already don't have enough exhaust flow. After looking at my seat, I guess I wouldn't need one, but that doesn't really change the fact that those parts are exceedingly rare here.
The problem is the H-pipe. it required me to place the linkage joint further rearward a little, and that is causing me problems. What I need is an alternative to the mechanical linkage that DOESN'T require me to track down a console, a shifter, a driver's seat, a column, a shiznitload of trim that matches my color, and to cut a hole in my floor. Even if I wanted to go that way, I live in Michigan where 80 percent of the potential donor cars have long degraded to dust. Soon, I'll be installing an even bigger H-pipe that's likely to make the problem worse. On top of that, my speed density system is pissed off, and I'll be having to get rid of it also, after maf conversion, I'll need a plan for my shift linkage, hopefully soon. I need ideas, because I'm fresh out.
Thanks, vinnie, but I would only make that conversion if I had no other choice. Right now, that's money I'd rather spend in my exhaust or suspension, and I'm probably nuts, but I like my column shift.
So, my column shift linkage really sucks after my h-pipe install. I can't get manual first anymore because I had to re-position the joint. I wan't to know if anybody else has dealt with the same, and what the fix might be. Otherwise, has anybody heard of staying with column shift, but converting to a cable linkage?
