Mustang5l5's Progress Thread - Frame rail welded in

  • Sponsors(?)


CarMichael Angelo

clearly, I’ve got something going on in that hole
SN Certified Technician
Nov 29, 1999
12,919
14,166
234
62
Birmingham, al
m.imdb.com
This bad Larry was missing from the box.

BTW, I did score an SN95 pedal cluster, so I’m hoping the clutch pedal will swap with the fox pedal so I can properly install my bullitt pedals finally

ABFCDD1B-5F19-4C68-A8DF-E8268DF5F135.jpeg
What’s a bad Larry?
One of my cats name is Larry.....He’s only a bad Larry when he brings a living thing through the cat door in his mouth.
 

Mustang5L5

i'm familiar with penetration
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
33,124
9,348
224
Massachusetts
Pad showed up today. I need to see about how I can grind it down to slip the bullitt pad on. Maybe I should hold off for now and do that later on. Pad can be unbolted obviously

5884880C-567A-4E41-AFA2-3A15E67AE51D.jpeg

D7BB1229-2539-4DCD-8872-C6680746F1F4.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustinL

Mustang5L5

i'm familiar with penetration
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
33,124
9,348
224
Massachusetts
Also, some new parts showed up. I didn’t want to get caught up in the MM backlog so I ordered these now while they were in stock.

brake line adapters from hydroboost MC down to stock prop valve.

steering rack bushings for the mm k-member

bolt through bumpsteer kit conversion. I still need to ream my 96+ spindles to fit these.
9DFE1183-CCF2-4DB9-B1E9-F7F73ECDA4DE.jpeg
 

Mustang5L5

i'm familiar with penetration
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
33,124
9,348
224
Massachusetts
After much debate....I think I’m NOT going to run the Explorer intake.

I think I want to run this
19777CEF-B0A7-4436-A7C7-9F7835A27B09.jpeg



Obviously it needs a refinish, but I think this intake needs to be on my car. I installed it when I was 18 years old, and it was the first mod I ever did. It’s been on the car ever since, and kinda bummed to see it just sitting on the floor.

Ive also been reading on other forums that there is a difference in flow in the upper plenum, and the explorer upper isn’t that good.
 

BlakeusMaximus

Still got to try a little lube on my speedo head
Jul 12, 2017
1,980
1,140
163
After much debate....I think I’m NOT going to run the Explorer intake.

I think I want to run this
19777CEF-B0A7-4436-A7C7-9F7835A27B09.jpeg



Obviously it needs a refinish, but I think this intake needs to be on my car. I installed it when I was 18 years old, and it was the first mod I ever did. It’s been on the car ever since, and kinda bummed to see it just sitting on the floor.

Ive also been reading on other forums that there is a difference in flow in the upper plenum, and the explorer upper isn’t that good.
I can see the sentimental value there.
 

Mustang5L5

i'm familiar with penetration
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
33,124
9,348
224
Massachusetts
The difference is minimal. Cobra gets extra points for looks. Tubular intake gets more points for classic looks.
It’s not though. That’s what the data showed.

they flow benched the entire intake and got 187 CFM on an explorer intake and 219 cfm on a gt40 tubular through the same runner. All untouched.

remember that video I posted of the dyno between a tubular gt40 and explorer upper on the same ported lower. The tubular made 10 more hp and 10 more ft-LBs
 
Last edited:

bird_dog0347

still married haven't seen testicles in years
5 Year Member
Jun 7, 2012
1,101
937
154
40
Little Elm, TX
Run it man, if you're worried about 10 hp, you shouldn't be running a Cobra/GT40/explorer intake, you'd be running a systemax 2 or something like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustinL

WhiteCobra95

5 Year Member
May 2, 2006
303
23
29
It’s not though. That’s what the data showed.

they flow benched the entire intake and got 187 CFM on an explorer intake and 219 cfm on a gt40 tubular through the same runner. All untouched.

remember that video I posted of the dyno between a tubular gt40 and explorer upper on the same ported lower. The tubular made 10 more hp and 10 more ft-LBs
Years ago on a development engine that I calibrated, I received a rapid prototype layered aluminum intake manifold before the production-intent cast parts were available. This intake was pretty smooth. If the production casting was like a 220 grid surface roughness equivalent, the rapid proto intake was like an 800+ grit. In any case, the rapid proto intake made about 10 more horsepower peak than the production intake, and also saw a torque bump across the whole rpm range with no changes to EOI, cam positions, or spark. The performance gains were also backed up by an increase in the measured air flow and higher IMEP. This was on an NA high performance 4V V6 with a tuned induction system. Since I ran these numbers first hand, it made a pretty strong impression that the turbulent boundary layer along the walls of the plenum volume and runners is in fact significant. How much so probably depends heavily on the engine / manifold design itself.

I've been trying to find some real flow data for an extrude honed cast upper for years. There are a lot of anecdotal posts about extrude honed uppers "making a huge difference," but no hard data to show the flow benefit. I can see two potential benefits - runner smoothness and an increase in diameter. A light extrude hone which doesn't enlarge the diameter by much could reproduce the same benefits as the GT40 upper, if the fabricated intake's primary advantage is it's smooth wall tubing. I have a spare '94/'95 Cobra upper that I've been meaning to have extrude honed for some time, with the plan of getting it on a flow bench to document some real numbers. However, the cost has become prohibitive especially when you factor in shipping that big mass of aluminum back and forth. I might have to pick this back up and see if anyone in the Detroit area has extrude honing capability.

Beyond the smoothness factor, opening up the diameter of the runners will change the tuning of the intake in the right direction, albeit by a small amount. This would be a good thing for a performance engine since most of the Ford factory intakes are tuned for a low rpm torque peak with a displacement of 302 cubes. If you throw these intakes on a built motor with HCI or especially a stroker, it can push the torque down lower than you want it and it will result in the tuning going out of phase early at higher engine speeds for a lower peak power rpm than what your heads or cam are intended for. If you look at the intakes Saleen used on the S351s, they took a cobra intake and changed the plenum volume by a good amount to retune the Cobra intake for the 351 (you can see where they have a section welded into the middle of the plenum volume). The same benefit could be had on a built 302 or stroker motor. It would be great to find some CAD drawings of the stock intake manifolds to gather the exact dimensions and volumes. That info would make it possible to calculate the Helmholtz resonance rpms and determine how much volume to add to the plenum for a specific non-stock application and retune the peak torque and power points.
 

Mustang5L5

i'm familiar with penetration
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
33,124
9,348
224
Massachusetts
Run it man, if you're worried about 10 hp, you shouldn't be running a Cobra/GT40/explorer intake, you'd be running a systemax 2 or something like that.
you make a valid point. I think my bigger justification is keeping the cobra intake with The car due to history
 

Mustang5L5

i'm familiar with penetration
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
33,124
9,348
224
Massachusetts
Ok, prep work done. Weld thru primer sprayed where it needs to be, and strut tower formed as close as it’s gonna get. I prepped my splice tube, and drilled out the 3/8” spot weld holes for it.

I’m taking Wed off from work and getting this done. Next time you see this it will be welded in.

70C32224-6248-4979-A7CF-B2DB28CD90A1.jpeg
 

Mustang5L5

i'm familiar with penetration
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
33,124
9,348
224
Massachusetts
Years ago on a development engine that I calibrated, I received a rapid prototype layered aluminum intake manifold before the production-intent cast parts were available. This intake was pretty smooth. If the production casting was like a 220 grid surface roughness equivalent, the rapid proto intake was like an 800+ grit. In any case, the rapid proto intake made about 10 more horsepower peak than the production intake, and also saw a torque bump across the whole rpm range with no changes to EOI, cam positions, or spark. The performance gains were also backed up by an increase in the measured air flow and higher IMEP. This was on an NA high performance 4V V6 with a tuned induction system. Since I ran these numbers first hand, it made a pretty strong impression that the turbulent boundary layer along the walls of the plenum volume and runners is in fact significant. How much so probably depends heavily on the engine / manifold design itself.

I've been trying to find some real flow data for an extrude honed cast upper for years. There are a lot of anecdotal posts about extrude honed uppers "making a huge difference," but no hard data to show the flow benefit. I can see two potential benefits - runner smoothness and an increase in diameter. A light extrude hone which doesn't enlarge the diameter by much could reproduce the same benefits as the GT40 upper, if the fabricated intake's primary advantage is it's smooth wall tubing. I have a spare '94/'95 Cobra upper that I've been meaning to have extrude honed for some time, with the plan of getting it on a flow bench to document some real numbers. However, the cost has become prohibitive especially when you factor in shipping that big mass of aluminum back and forth. I might have to pick this back up and see if anyone in the Detroit area has extrude honing capability.

Beyond the smoothness factor, opening up the diameter of the runners will change the tuning of the intake in the right direction, albeit by a small amount. This would be a good thing for a performance engine since most of the Ford factory intakes are tuned for a low rpm torque peak with a displacement of 302 cubes. If you throw these intakes on a built motor with HCI or especially a stroker, it can push the torque down lower than you want it and it will result in the tuning going out of phase early at higher engine speeds for a lower peak power rpm than what your heads or cam are intended for. If you look at the intakes Saleen used on the S351s, they took a cobra intake and changed the plenum volume by a good amount to retune the Cobra intake for the 351 (you can see where they have a section welded into the middle of the plenum volume). The same benefit could be had on a built 302 or stroker motor. It would be great to find some CAD drawings of the stock intake manifolds to gather the exact dimensions and volumes. That info would make it possible to calculate the Helmholtz resonance rpms and determine how much volume to add to the plenum for a specific non-stock application and retune the peak torque and power points.

I think the folks doing the porting have the data, but keep it somewhat close to their chest. I engaged one particult porter over the details of what he's seen and that's where I was put on to information regarding the differences in stock GT-40 type manifolds and how they are not all the same. It was a 30 cfm difference from the explorer, to the tubular.

Your point about the surface roughness is something I've always thought about, but lacked the resources to test. I've found some how-to's on building a flow bench, and most of it is equipment I can obtain/borrow, but never thought of what I would do with the data since i'm not building various combos day in and out and performing real-world testing.

Either way, my point was that I think the Explorer/Cobra/GT40 family is often overlooked and dismissed. There are better manifolds out there, yes. BUT, the fast majority of budget Mustang modders out there seem to run some variation of the GT40 family (more specifically the explorer) so it would be helpful to maybe revisit this. I never had faith any of the Automotive magazines with resources at hand would ever do such a thing, because they pay their mortgage helping to sell their vendors products, so they have no interest in pushing 20 year old junkyard explorer intakes in lieu of a slick, $700+ trick flow piece. Yes, there are performance differences, but not when running common GT40/GT40P heads.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Mustang5L5 Mustang5L5's progress thread! 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 7
Mustang5L5 Mustang5L5 DIY MS3x Thread Digital Self-tuning Forum 104
insanestang ATTN: Mustang5L5 Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech 1
Benni614 Update on my progress with my on3 build. SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech 2
Red50Fox Constant vs. progressive coil springs 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 12
LILCBRA LILCBRA's 87 GT convertible project (and it's lack of actual progress!!) 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 20
Onesick99GT 99 Gt Progress Build 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- 5
0 Progress thread - GT Auto to Manual Swap (and new seats!) SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech 21
rademf64 Fox progress thread 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 2
G Progress Thread My new 5.0 engine bay progress 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 10
Olivethefet Progress Thread Therapy Car-- Making Progress 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 976
9 Progress build. 99 SVT 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- 7
9 Anyone turbo their 3.8 sn95 Mustang ? [build progress] 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- 5
TheFourEyedKid Progress Thread 1989 Daily Driver Build Up (probably slow progress) 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 4
Q First Mustang GT...work in progress The Welcome Wagon 2
E Progress Thread Granny's Help and Progress Thread - 94 GT, I ain't skeered... 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech 25
A Blew my motor, new MMR 750 build in progress 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- 14
Sweetmarie66 66 Coupe Progress 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- 8
Mstng93SSP 94 Cobra Progress Thread (formerly Help Me Decide Thread) 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 168
2/75TH RANGER Finally ! Progress On The 302 ! 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 1
Gunmonkey Thot: A Work In Progress 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 13
FastDriver Progress Thread Reef Blue '93 GT Turbo Progress Thread - Houston we have a problem 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 233
darkfader Progress Thread Darkfader's 93 Gt Progress- Heads are here!! 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 259
Slobin3d 86 Mystery Mods Progress! 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 182
K '88 Lx Vert Progress 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 10
reeber Progress Thread 7 Year Build Back In Progress! 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- 4
acoddo Progress Pics / Motor Teardown 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 5
ConnorM37 2000 Gt Engine Swap- In Progress 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- 12
DrakeRobinson68 Hello From Ca With A '68 In Progress 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- 8
acoddo Progress Pictures 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 4
RangerJoe Nos Mini Progressive Review 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 0
F Progress!! 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 7
RaggedGT Progress Thread The Ragged Gt Thread-little To No Progress Made-Garage Art 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 164
rd Back At It, But Slow Progress 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 11
Jaystang73 Progress 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 7
87_notch_402 Fox 87 Notch Progresss 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 73
falconater Fairmont Progress? 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 7
John Dirks Jr More Progress 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 8
J.dement Neglected 2000 3.8l Restoration Progress (12.2.16) SN95 V6 Mustang Tech 0
S Progress Thread 2001 Gt Progress Thread - Stock Video 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- 1
v8stang289 V8stang289's 86 Gt That's Taking Way Too Long -progress Thread - 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 29
91BlckGT 91blckgt's "about *&$# Time" Progress Thread 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 84
Crazedstang Progress Thread Slow Progress On My "illegally Abused" 1988 Gt 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 37
MrFoxNutCase Finally Some Progress On Project Smoke Grey Int. 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 4
B Iac / Overheating Woes - Progress And Questions SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech 2
90BlueGTStang Paint Progress 90 Gt 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 10
2000xp8 SOLD Saleen Foxbody Progressive Rate Lowering Springs Suspension Parts 1
awilli93coupe Mini Tub In Progress!! 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 50
Chuckman Progress Thread Street/strip 427w In A Gt Hatch- Slow Progress 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 261
MY 85 GT Little Progress Today. 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- 19
Similar threads