PDA

View Full Version : ok does this make any sense to you guys at all?


dlevi2121
02-14-2011, 07:43 PM
My buddy swears up and down that he took a 1897 ranger with a 2.9 in it and swaped a 1991 351 f.i. motor extended the wires to the injection for the other 2 cyl and pluged in the computer for the 351 and it all worked just fine there has to be more to it wouldent there be? :dunno:

holyford86
02-14-2011, 07:50 PM
if done correctly, the 2.9 like the 351w is a bank fired engine so it has a great possibility of working just fine

cammeddrz
02-14-2011, 07:51 PM
guys do it with the 5.0's all the time

mp3deviant721
02-14-2011, 08:07 PM
Anybody notice that he's asking about a 1897 Ranger?

Anyway, this sounds interesting. An easy swap? Hmmm......... :icon_hornsup:

TheTopher
02-14-2011, 08:07 PM
1897 ranger with a 2.9

No, this does not make sense. I was unaware they had rangers back in 1897.

85_Ranger4x4
02-14-2011, 08:08 PM
No, this does not make sense. I was unaware they had rangers back in 1897.

They had Rangers, but I doubt they would like their wiring played with. :icon_twisted:

cammeddrz
02-14-2011, 08:14 PM
they had rangers but instead of having california models......they were texas models :icon_rofl:

adsm08
02-14-2011, 08:17 PM
guys do it with the 5.0's all the time

And the 351 is just a glorified 5.0.

cammeddrz
02-14-2011, 08:19 PM
And the 351 is just a glorified 5.0.

a 351w is, the modifieds and clevelands are quite different but the principles stay the regardless

dirttrackracer
02-14-2011, 08:22 PM
come on guys you shuld know ford made a black ranger then. lol here it is you might have a hard time fitting the 351 in there but some manhandling is required

http://i1001.photobucket.com/albums/af131/matts_mowing/image001.jpg

adsm08
02-14-2011, 08:40 PM
a 351w is, the modifieds and clevelands are quite different but the principles stay the regardless

Yes, the M was a toned down 400, and the Cleveland was it's own awesome beast, but you and I both know that if the swap was that easy and involved adding two injector plugs to the 2.9 harness, its more than just a safe bet that the engine in question was a Windsor.

Also, the OP clearly states it was a 91 MY engine. The W was the only 351 still in production into the 90s.

Stxrangerbumper
02-14-2011, 09:25 PM
henry ford die in 1947
hahaha really awesome http://www.lessignets.com/signetsdiane/calendrier/images/juillet/30/ford_quadricycle16.jpg probably the guy that car with him,there are very-tiny at world,make any sense with a 351w

88_Eddie
02-14-2011, 09:33 PM
it's impossible, rangers didnt come with 2.9's until 1906

Sunk
02-14-2011, 09:39 PM
Hell I've seen an FI setup for a 5.0 modded to fit a 351C intake in a Pantera.

dlevi2121
02-15-2011, 05:02 AM
Ok it looks like you guys had a lot of fun with that one and yes it is a 1987 and a 351 w this phone is hard to read as I am doing all of this from my phone sitting here at work watching the time roll by

--weezl--
02-15-2011, 05:14 AM
they had rangers but instead of having california models......they were texas models :icon_rofl:
lol
come on guys you shuld know ford made a black ranger then. lol here it is you might have a hard time fitting the 351 in there but some manhandling is required

http://i1001.photobucket.com/albums/af131/matts_mowing/image001.jpg

someone call GWAII!!!

351w efi and 5L HO motors should almost swap straight across... the firing order is the same and should be interchangeable...

heptofite
02-15-2011, 06:17 AM
'runs' and 'runs well' are two different animals.

Boggin
02-15-2011, 06:22 AM
Yes, the M was a toned down 400, and the Cleveland was it's own awesome beast, but you and I both know that if the swap was that easy and involved adding two injector plugs to the 2.9 harness, its more than just a safe bet that the engine in question was a Windsor.

Also, the OP clearly states it was a 91 MY engine. The W was the only 351 still in production into the 90s.

And he might have a hard time just throwing that M or C block in there and plugging the ranger harness into from an EFI truck to a carb'd motor.
:icon_welder:

dlevi2121
02-15-2011, 12:54 PM
I also have a 1972 351 Cleveland its the cobra jet with a whole lot of goodies done to it but I don't know how well that would ever fit down in there I had it in a 1994 mustang so it has the right oil pan but as far as using the conversion headers and god knows what you would get into with the steering that could be a mess

Boggin
02-15-2011, 12:57 PM
aerostar steering shaft

robertc1024
02-15-2011, 01:26 PM
I also have a 1972 351 Cleveland its the cobra jet with a whole lot of goodies done to it but I don't know how well that would ever fit down in there I had it in a 1994 mustang so it has the right oil pan but as far as using the conversion headers and god knows what you would get into with the steering that could be a mess

You should go over to the V8 swap forum if you haven't. There's a few stickies that tell you what other people have done, what fits, what fits easily etc.

--weezl--
02-15-2011, 07:37 PM
I also have a 1972 351 Cleveland its the cobra jet with a whole lot of goodies done to it but I don't know how well that would ever fit down in there I had it in a 1994 mustang so it has the right oil pan but as far as using the conversion headers and god knows what you would get into with the steering that could be a mess

as far as headers go, if you're planning on stuffing a motor like that in, then just cut the inner fenders to fit the motor in and deal with the rest later...

as for steering, you could do one with several u joints, you should see the steering system we have on our FWD streamliner! i'll see if i can find some pics...

edit:
the "red" bar at the top of this pic is part of the steering, it's a little chared here, because this was taken right after the car lit on fire during a run
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_30Z6BIQolRQ/TOIeaCkER4I/AAAAAAAADGA/zg24ggv3MFo/s1600/IMG_2181.JPG
here's another one (too big to img) you can see the red steering on the side of the motor, right at the top
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_30Z6BIQolRQ/SjYUmpkCEQI/AAAAAAAACOI/eEx3TaHJ7pE/s1600/goldenhawk%2B018.JPG

bobbywalter
02-15-2011, 09:33 PM
My buddy swears up and down that he took a 1897 ranger with a 2.9 in it and swaped a 1991 351 f.i. motor extended the wires to the injection for the other 2 cyl and pluged in the computer for the 351 and it all worked just fine there has to be more to it wouldent there be? :dunno:

depends if it was remote mount tfi or not..i have seen 91 models with both systems...the old school and later setups wiring wise...not caring if the knock sensor, power steering pressure switch, etc were functioning and assumes your using a non pcm controlled auto or a manual trans..especially if your were going to use the 351 early style pcm....the thermactor system and egr stuff can be an issue with the 87 but that is not part of most 88.

swap in the dizzy mount tfi distributor and it is basically "that simple"... though the tp wiring and egr stuff needs work too if keeping to that with an 87, the 88 ranger most dont have egr.. and using the 351 pcm is ideal but it will give error codes trying to use the 2.9 harness exclusively..

if your happy with stock power it works fine. but i have seen several issues with odd firing i never tracked down

adsm08
02-15-2011, 09:38 PM
depends if it was remote mount tfi or not..i have seen 91 models with both systems...the old school and later setups wiring wise...not caring if the knock sensor, power steering pressure switch, etc were functioning and assumes your using a non pcm controlled auto or a manual trans..especially if your were going to use the 351 early style pcm....the thermactor system and egr stuff can be an issue with the 87 but that is not part of most 88.

swap in the dizzy mount tfi distributor and it is basically "that simple"... though the tp wiring and egr stuff needs work too if keeping to that with an 87, the 88 ranger most dont have egr.. and using the 351 pcm is ideal but it will give error codes trying to use the 2.9 harness exclusively..

if your happy with stock power it works fine. but i have seen several issues with odd firing i never tracked down


Even with the dizzy-mount TFI, wouldn't you have to rearrange the ignition harness a bit? The 2.9 had the dizzy at the back, the small block's had them up front. I'd think the wires would need extended to reach.

gwaii
02-15-2011, 09:52 PM
someone call GWAII!!!



hello......




HELLO.......




damn wrong numbers right at dinner:annoyed:

--weezl--
02-15-2011, 09:52 PM
gwaii, we need you to put the above motor in the above motor carrage...

bobbywalter
02-16-2011, 12:05 AM
Even with the dizzy-mount TFI, wouldn't you have to rearrange the ignition harness a bit? The 2.9 had the dizzy at the back, the small block's had them up front. I'd think the wires would need extended to reach.

if you leave the pcm in the truck you will on certain setups. depending on what setup the truck has depends on the extension or not. some have the room to fish it out of the loom and go forward. some 2.9 setups have harness connections that separate injectors etc at the valve cover and are a bit different. one 4.0 swap i did had the hybrid harness and made for some head scratching.