400 modified


homegrownranger

15+ Year Member

Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
135
Points
3,101
City
Florida
Vehicle Year
1992
Transmission
Manual
I was wondering if a 400 modified would fit in my 92 ranger. The 302 I have is efi and I dont want to deal with tracking down parts to make it a carb. I have a 400 modified that I built for drag racing with a big cam, and all chromed out. The 80s f150 I had it in I sold and kept the motor, it was a tight fit. I was just wondering if I could make it fit without a lot of cutting and fabrication? Im putting 350 axles under it once I can decide what motor to use. Any information would be helpful thank you.
 
About as well as a 460 or a mod motor.

In other words, it fits but not really well.
 
homegrownranger said:
The 302 I have is efi and I dont want to deal with tracking down parts to make it a carb
Click to expand...

ALLAND TRS TECH ADVISOR said:
no vehicle with a t-case should have a carb
Click to expand...

jumping through the hoops to put a 400 into an efi truck, just to avoid using an efi engine would be like......well i can't even think of an analogy that would properly outline the flaws in that logic

but by all means go ahead and cut another hole in your firewall to move your steering shaft over, and add a bunch u-joints to the shaft to make it work
 
Last edited:
homegrownranger said:
I was wondering if a 400 modified would fit in my 92 ranger. The 302 I have is efi and I dont want to deal with tracking down parts to make it a carb. I have a 400 modified that I built for drag racing with a big cam, and all chromed out.
Click to expand...

The 400 is far and away more work than carbing the 302. All you need to do that is intake, carb and a distributor.
 
yes I was just wondering. I just have a lot of money in the 400 and nobody wants them. And too Cammonddz my truck Is carbed anyway. nothing about it is stock so before you act like everyone is an idiot get the facts.
 
yeah i just saw that it was a 1992, not that it was a 2.3 (the only still carbed ranger in that year i believe) for that i offer my apologies

and despite being "carbed anyway" that doesn't somehow magically make a carb more suited for a 4wd vehicle. if you are going to take the time to do an engine swap stopping short with the induction system (even though the engine already has an efi setup) would be like remodeling an old house but keeping the rickety outhouse to poop in

that being said, the vast majority of engine swaps done to 1st and 2nd gen rbv's even the "already carbed" ones are efi swaps

baddad457 said:
The 400 is far and away more work than carbing the 302. All you need to do that is intake, carb and a distributor.
Click to expand...

and yes this is true, for the most part any302 carb manifold, and distributor should work, direct bolt-on.
 
Last edited:
To the OP, you did say it was a tight fit in the F150, it sure doesn't get any better in the Ranger. Lots of fabrication and things. Try that motor on an F-150 forum, lots of work to put into a Ranger. If you got the skills, money and time, go for it.
Dave
 
A 400 modified is a poor choice for a lot of reasons.
Parts, deck height, width of block, length of block, power versus work........
Its basically a turd to begin with. Torque at low rpms, but a turd thats expensive to build.

I see your logic in wanting to stay carbed but there are way better options. Such as a carbbed 302. Or you could spend the $500 plus on a plug and play EFI module to transplant an EFI 302 ?
 
Last edited:
baddad457 said:
The 400 is far and away more work than carbing the 302. All you need to do that is intake, carb and a distributor.
Click to expand...

$165+freight for a Wieand Stealth intake on Summit

Just missed a $75 Edelbrock 600 bbl carburator on craigslist

I think it was like $80 + core for a Duraspark dizzy from Carquest. It was like $10 for the DS box at a junkyard, I got the pigtail for free but I doubt it would add much $$ to the DS box.

Nothing wrong with a 400, but they are best left for a fullsize.
 
Duane867 said:
A 400 modified is a poor choice for a lot of reasons.
Parts, deck height, width of block, length of block, power versus work........
Its basically a turd to begin with. Torque at low rpms, but a turd thats expensive to build.

I see your logic in wanting to stay carbed but there are way better options. Such as a carbbed 302. Or you could spend the $500 plus on a plug and play EFI module to transplant an EFI 302 ?
Click to expand...

Turd to begin with ? That's debateable. It IS true of the 351M. As for length of block, the block is no longer than a 302. They both share the same bore size and spacing.
 
baddad457 said:
Turd to begin with ? That's debateable. It IS true of the 351M. As for length of block, the block is no longer than a 302. They both share the same bore size and spacing.
Click to expand...

I am with Baddad on this one. The engine masters compatition was won one year with a 400. :icon_thumby:
 
I got a 400 in a 78 F350, hellacious running motor with a little work, but way to big and heavy for a ranger.

Oh, and a good carb will run that 302 just as good as EFI, and be a helluva lot simpler to modify and work on.

later,
Dustin
 
radar said:
Awesome engines, and cheap to build.-Kantor
Click to expand...
Facts true but not in a Ranger. Too much fabrication involved for most but the die hards.
Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsored Ad

TRS Events & Gatherings

Where We Were in 2025 – The Ranger Station

Latest posts

Featured Rangers

Want to see your truck here? Share your photos and details in the forum.

TRS Latest Video

Official TRS Merchandise

Follow TRS On Instagram

Latest Album Photos

IMG_4690.JPEG
IMG_4689.JPEG
IMG_4688.JPEG
IMG_4679.JPEG
IMG_4656.JPEG
IMG_4625.JPEG
IMG_4562.JPEG
IMG_4561.JPEG
IMG_4560.JPEG
IMG_4559.JPEG
IMG_4558.JPEG
IMG_4445.JPEG

Product Suggestions

Back
Top