Great read, good write up... 10/10
SVTPerformance Installs and Tests Intake, Exhaust, and Tune to 2009 V8 Explorer
- Thread starter SID297
- Start date
Thanks:beer:
Thanks:beer:
Thanks:beer:
Thanks:beer:
Time to do some mods.
epper:Thanks:beer:
The garage needs a little cleaning today.
Thanks:beer:
Thanks:beer:
In case you guys missed it check out the video we made about the mods:
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/XWD-pPKAy98" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/XWD-pPKAy98" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Looks like you loaded it up more for the launch after the mods...
Please explain you reasoning.
Good write up, I didn't expect that much of a difference from just basic bolt ons on an explorer.
P.S. You don't know anything about my moms car, she doesn't drive an Explorer!:lol1:
P.S. You don't know anything about my moms car, she doesn't drive an Explorer!:lol1:
I think he might be referring to the fact you were loading up on the stall"... Just footbraking it a bit while bringing up the rpms.
I get that part, I just want to know why it "looks" so to him.
All launches were made the same way; foot on brake, throttle to the floor, release brake, run to 60 MPH, ...., profit.
Gonna take it to the strip at all? Without actually bothering to look up the numbers, sounds like mid-high 15s could be possible. Not bad for an explorer.
Awesome writeup! I've always enjoyed modding explorers. I had a 97 Explorer 5.0 with 195,000 miles I bought for $1,500 and I installed a B303 cam, 1.7 roller rockers, underdrive pulleys, a cold air intake, and a basic shop-fabricated 2.5" dual flowmaster exhaust. A 5.0 explorer with a cam and flowmasters sounded just like a mustang with the same mods, but it sounded better in an explorer! If the motor had gone, I would have installed a 347 in it.
Nice job showing all the steps in great detail and including such thorough testing results.
I wasn't aware that the 3V Explorer motor was so different than the mustang motor as far as the iron block, compression, cams, exhaust manifolds etc. I would have thought they'd just use a standard mustang long block in everything and only used explorer-specific externals, such as the intake manifold, throttle body, front dress, etc.
The Aviator motor, on the other hand, has the same exact long block as the Marauder and the Mach 1 (with Auto trans). The intake manifold is the only main difference. But the Aviators are long gone. Even the Navigators have the 3V motor in them now.
You used explorer-specific upgrade parts for this round. Have you given any thoughts to using any mustang 4.6 parts, such as the stock 3V mustang intake, or the FRPP piece? Perhaps a set of hot rod cams, or a different set of cams that maintains good bottom end power?
Nice job showing all the steps in great detail and including such thorough testing results.
I wasn't aware that the 3V Explorer motor was so different than the mustang motor as far as the iron block, compression, cams, exhaust manifolds etc. I would have thought they'd just use a standard mustang long block in everything and only used explorer-specific externals, such as the intake manifold, throttle body, front dress, etc.
The Aviator motor, on the other hand, has the same exact long block as the Marauder and the Mach 1 (with Auto trans). The intake manifold is the only main difference. But the Aviators are long gone. Even the Navigators have the 3V motor in them now.
You used explorer-specific upgrade parts for this round. Have you given any thoughts to using any mustang 4.6 parts, such as the stock 3V mustang intake, or the FRPP piece? Perhaps a set of hot rod cams, or a different set of cams that maintains good bottom end power?
Nice write up Sid. Now it makes me wanna o look for EX Sport.
BTW: Was in Myrtle the week of July 29th for vacation.
BTW: Was in Myrtle the week of July 29th for vacation.
I have no definitive plans to take it to the track, but if I happen to be at a track with it I won't be able to keep myself from running it.
I would be afraid of loosing too much power down low with the FRPP manifold. That's not to say I wouldn't bolt it on if one were to come my way though. I like the idea of cams. As you can see in the pics, one of the valve covers needs to come off any way, might as well install cams at the same time.
Thanks:beer:
It's getting to be my favorite time of the year here.
op:
I think he could run low-15's to a possible high-14.xx in the 1/4 at full weight. My 3rd gen 4x4 with a 2V 4.6, tuned, catback at full weigh on 20's ran 15.421 in the 1/4. I took the second and third row seats out and then ran 15.1. Hoping that a tune revision and CAI will help clip that 14.9x mark.
I am almost tempted to post up my 15.1 run as well as an interior vid or two...
Edit: Just watched the video... sounds SOOO much better!!!
Last edited:
It should be faster than mid-high 15's. My 2003 4.6 2v Explorer was doing 15's back when it only had a CAI and exhaust on the stock tune.
In the first video, where it seems to me there was less aggressive foot braking, the suspension looks less hunkered down. Granted the camera angles weren't the same for both videos for whatever reason and I can only see the tach in the first launch so that is tough to say.
However, in the first launch at 44 seconds I heard what I thought was the gas pedal hitting the floor after you let off the brake. At that exact time your head, which I can see in the rear view, also moves back more than it does in the second launch. I thought that perhaps you moved more from stabbing the throttle, like anyone would when suddenly pushing harder with their right foot while seated. But I don't hear that noise in the second launch where it seemed to me like you were floored to begin with and despite the increase in power your head moves less.
Post it up. I like the exhaust a lot.
Thanks for breaking it down. I use this to tighten future videoing so as to remove confusion. Like you mentioned, the angle are different. What makes you think it looks less hunkered in the first run is the fact that the clip starts after the truck is staged and the suspension has been loaded. In the second clip you see the truck come to a stop and then stage.
What you heard was camera equipment and cases moving around in the floor. I had that thing full of cameras, tripods, computers, cases, etc. I see basically the same head movement in both vids while watching a master copy of the vid on a TV monitor. The angles are different in both in-car clips too (had the mount in and out of the truck), so that may be throwing you off a bit. Also, in the first clip the audio is from the in-car camera but in the second clip it comes off the Go-Pro by the exhaust.
Next time I'll try to keep the camera angles and audio sources more consistent. :beer:
I'm interested in doing another run or two when it gets cooler outside.
Not sure if you know or not but theres an AWD dyno in Charleston. Nice write up.
Users who are viewing this thread
