96 explorer 5.0 donor

[Ed C]

Hi everyone' I'm sure this has been asked a thousand times before, but what is the latest year ranger that i can use a 96 5.0 explorer for a v8 conversion project. I am aware of pats problems but need to know how late i can use the explorer harness and PCM Thanks

 

[Mechrick]

From a practical installation standpoint, 2003 was the last year for SCP, 2004 Rangers switched to CAN. Rangers were simple throughout their run and didn't tie another module to the main communication bus until 2004 (cluster). The most you'd have to deal with is PATS, which you already know. PATS was a standalone module under the dash.

From an emissions legality standpoint, 2001 was the last 5.0L Explorer so a Ranger with the right 5.0 parts up to 2001 could be emissions legal. I've always thought a 1997 F150 with a 5.0L/4R70W swap would be neat...

 

[rubydist]

Technically for emissions purposes, the donor engine needs to be the same year or newer than the vehicle its going into, so that would mean a 96 would be the latest year you can use if you have to get emissions testing or vehicle inspections done.

And if you don't have to worry about emissions or inspections, you could put it in a Ranger up to 2011 if you swap the dash wiring and cluster from the Ex into the Ranger.

The tech section has lots of good information on these swaps - you should be studying the information there closely.

 

[JoshT]

Technically for emissions purposes, the donor engine needs to be the same year or newer than the vehicle its going into, so that would mean a 96 would be the latest year you can use if you have to get emissions testing or vehicle inspections done.

###############################################

The tech section has lots of good information on these swaps - you should be studying the information there closely.

What he said...

Beyond that, there is an article in the tech library that alludes ro which year model Rangers are the best match for which year model donor Explorers. With a 96, I think you probably want to stay 98 or older on the Ranger. Here's the page: https://www.therangerstation.com/tech/swapping-an-explorer-5-0l-in-to-a-1998-2011-ranger/

I really recommend against any swap that it going to require using more than the engine harness from the Explorer. Swapping the dash and chassis harness opens up a whole extra and aggrevating area of wiring modification that is just unnecessary.

Your donot is a really good choice for the older Rangers since it doesn't have PATS. That makes it a lot easier to whittle doen the 5.0 wiring to just the engine harness and removes any worries about having to get the system disabled. It's also got a return style fuel system like many of the older trucks, though that can be worked around if you want to install in a newer one.

The new (98+) and old (pre-98) chassis both have their advantages. You're going to have to study, compare, and decide which you prefer.

 

[Mechrick]

you could put it in a Ranger up to 2011 if you swap the dash wiring and cluster from the Ex into the Ranger

Ummm, no.

A 2011 Ranger has six modules that rely on CAN data from The PCM. The 1996 PCM speaks SCP.

I've been down this rabbit hole on F150's . Since 1997 was the first year Ford crammed the engine under the windshield (thanks Ford) and then used an engine with overhead cams that's bigger than a 460 (thanks again) I've thought a 5.0 out of an Explorer would be a neat swap just to free up space in the engine compartment. F150s didn't pass data from the PCM and other modules (cluster) until 1999. Ranger did it in 2004. So a swap means using a different cluster in those vehicles. Realistically you could swap an Explorer drivetrain and electronics into a 1999 F150 and use aftermarket gauges, or a cluster from a 1998. Newer Rangers get too complex to swap in an SCP module.

Ford is one of the better manufacturers as far as waiting to daisy chain modules together. Chrysler started much earlier.

From my experience, vehicles that have CAN (especially those that run scads of modules connected to the same communication bus) are less reliable. For instance, a Silverado that runs CAN all the way to the rear bumper (FPCM and CCM) will have more CAN communication issues than something like a 1996 Ranger.

 

[Ed C]

My sincere thanks to Mechrick,Rubydist,and Josh T for sharing there knowledge of the ranger 5.0 conversion process. As i approach 70 it's probably wise to stickwith the older stuff like me and keep it as simple as possible

 

[JoshT]

Ummm, no.

Just so you know, he was basically saying the same thing that you did.

That it can be swapped into those later trucks... IF you also swap in all of the associated wiring and modules from the Explorer. In the case of the CAN model trucks that would mean moving over all of the wiring and electronics from the Explorer, not just the engine harness and PCM like we do with the earlier trucks. That would be a big PITA for something that isn't going to be legal by federal emissions standards, and that is worth considering given the potential direction that things could go in the next several years.

 

[Mechrick]

Just so you know, he was basically saying the same thing that you did

No, my recommendation was to stick with vehicles that originally had SCP as a communication language. His was to:

you could put it in a Ranger up to 2011 if you swap the dash wiring and cluster from the Ex into the Ranger

The problem with that statement is the modules expecting CAN in that Ranger including the Smart Junction box, Cluster, ABS, 4x4, Airbag and OCC, which involve a *lot* more than the dash. And the Explorer modules, although technically could be swapped into the Ranger, would be more difficult than most sane people would attempt.

The issue is the mismatch in communication protocols. If attempting a swap with a drivetrain/electronics that used CAN, then there are devices that can reassign the CAN ID in the modules to match them up. This is what happens when swapping LS engines into Mopars.

The 5.0 Explorer engine with the electronics is a great swap platform because there are only two modules on the main bus that matter (PCM, PATS, and PATS can be flashed out). Plus, there is no air pump. just EGR and evap to be concerned with.

I stand by my recommendation. Swapping an Explorer drivetrain into a CAN vehicle is not good advice.

 

[JoshT]

The problem with that statement is the modules expecting CAN in that Ranger including the Smart Junction box, Cluster, ABS, 4x4, Airbag and OCC, which involve a *lot* more than the dash. And the Explorer modules, although technically could be swapped into the Ranger, would be more difficult than most sane people would attempt.

And he was implying to ditch all of that and swap in the stuff from the Explorer. We know that swapping that stuff in is difficult, we know that it isn't a good choice, but it hasn't stopped people on this very forum from doing it that way before.

Nevermind, it ain't worth it. Enjoy your day.

 

[bobbywalter]

yeah.

the lin and lan can-c can-ihs uds can really make for fun times wiring in a ford....that shit in mopars is awful....i thought nissan was a pia...



like stated.
just throw all of that shit away. and put in normal stuff....its not hard to swap out a ranger setup if that is easier due to canbus devils...while i would rather just stand alone an engine swap it is not too difficult to hide a ls or coyote or carb engine in the later ranger...and have it accept it enough to keep the abs and hvac working and the t case shifter. it is simpler to put older stuff in it.





when you live in the rust belt and can get a minty 2011 rig..... it makes sense.


well...i will just swap whatever the fawk i want anyway...


though it is the reason 2004 is a cutoff for me system wise....

can bus is the debilz.

 

[Mechrick]

Nevermind, it ain't worth it. Enjoy your day

It's worth it to me to prevent someone from going down a path they regret later on.

I've been working on these communication systems most of my career, and I can agree that

can bus is the debilz

CAN integration is just simply not understood by the majority of people that work on them, even so-called 'Technicians'. But imagine a system where each module attached to the bus has an equal capability of bringing it crashing down. Further imagine a system where most of the switches to control such things like windows, door locks and even engine starter and ignition, are not longer directly controlling the end device but are now inputs to a 'Smart fusebox' that polls those inputs and controls the end device. Think about that. Your ignition switch is now a digital input to a fusebox with a brain.

Ford: Smart Junction Box Chrysler: Totally Integrated Power Module Nissan: Electronic Power Distribution Module GM: Body Control Module

Most of those serve a dual role as a 'Communication Bus Master' taking one communication protocol and changing it for another. For instance, in many Fords, the SJB plays that role changing high speed CAN to medium speed CAN to allow communication between two incompatible protocols.

I have to hand it to Ford for resisting integration for a long time. Standard Corporate Protocol (SCP) equipped vehicles were made until the early 2000's and in those vehicles, the PCM SCP connection is limited to at most, the cluster, PATS, ABS and EATC (climate control). The rest of the vehicle was standalone, meaning each modules' inputs and outputs were discrete circuits that didn't rely on a bussed connection to another module. If you look at a schematic you'll see them connected to an ISO 9141 bus that runs to pin 7 of the dlc, but that's a unidirectional bus, module to scan tool.

Old Fords make great swap vehicles, newer ones, not so much. The cutoff is about 2003. I'm not saying it's impossible, just not desirable, which was the original question of the thread.

Have a great day, I've got a RCDLR to install and program in a Caddy.

 

[bobbywalter]

It's worth it to me to prevent someone from going down a path they regret later on.

I've been working on these communication systems most of my career, and I can agree that


CAN integration is just simply not understood by the majority of people that work on them, even so-called 'Technicians'. But imagine a system where each module attached to the bus has an equal capability of bringing it crashing down. Further imagine a system where most of the switches to control such things like windows, door locks and even engine starter and ignition, are not longer directly controlling the end device but are now inputs to a 'Smart fusebox' that polls those inputs and controls the end device. Think about that. Your ignition switch is now a digital input to a fusebox with a brain.

Ford: Smart Junction Box Chrysler: Totally Integrated Power Module Nissan: Electronic Power Distribution Module GM: Body Control Module

Most of those serve a dual role as a 'Communication Bus Master' taking one communication protocol and changing it for another. For instance, in many Fords, the SJB plays that role changing high speed CAN to medium speed CAN to allow communication between two incompatible protocols.

I have to hand it to Ford for resisting integration for a long time. Standard Corporate Protocol (SCP) equipped vehicles were made until the early 2000's and in those vehicles, the PCM SCP connection is limited to at most, the cluster, PATS, ABS and EATC (climate control). The rest of the vehicle was standalone, meaning each modules' inputs and outputs were discrete circuits that didn't rely on a bussed connection to another module. If you look at a schematic you'll see them connected to an ISO 9141 bus that runs to pin 7 of the dlc, but that's a unidirectional bus, module to scan tool.

Old Fords make great swap vehicles, newer ones, not so much. The cutoff is about 2003. I'm not saying it's impossible, just not desirable, which was the original question of the thread.

Have a great day, I've got a RCDLR to install and program in a Caddy.

the car systems i have tried to stay out of besides some can sniffing for personal use, mostly forscan items....but looking like it is getting unavoidable now...

i have been dealing with early versions in commercial applications for semi truck style powertrains of it not realizing what it was since the early 90,s starting with e shift mud pumps....then the j1939 stuff for controlling gauge sets and switching starting in the late 90s to mid 2ks...extensively with the gen 4 and gen 5 Allisson, and the murphy gauge stuff. and early style pdm's.

when i started working on jacks and listers and power units in 89 i had no way to know how complicated the oilfield could become today.

even the 2004-11 rangers will tolerate a swap...you can put a briggs and stratton in it and still have the hvac and windows and speedo ect work. cruise control may require some creativity but there are ways to gateway /convert signals to keep abs ect working.

newer rangers and trucks otoh.... no thanks.

as a fan of haltech, fass, hp tuners and holley terminator systems....many of which i own, i am beginning to prefer the syvecs because it specifically has abilities to deal with many types of bus protocals.

it would really make dealing with the can bus nissan stuff in the 350Z alot easier...that unified module in regards to the headlights is a shithead.

i was introduced to the syvecs by my son in laws gt3rs and GTR nissans. he previously had a hurrican....

i certainly have appreciation for the bus systems... but for what i do and the level of abuse i leverage against my junk.... the dumber the better.

that syvecs though has me really wanting to dive in after seeing how bad ass they are working with these modern vehicles...

their 4wd/awd controllers, power distribution units and i/o expanders make hooking a tr6060 trans up to a challenger/300/charger transfer case and running it behind a ls to make a nissan 350Z awd the easy part of the swap.


i just fear i am too old to learn and retain it.