Has anyone put an inline 6 in a Ranger?

[schmoo]

people around here like the 300 4 spd because
it handles an anhydrous tank in a field without
maintenance problems.
i think a 200 4 or 5 spd would make a ranger
more useful as a truck without sacrificing much
economy. i wouldn't bother for one used as a car.

 

[dangerranger83]

I have to say the 300 I6 looks great in your BII. Looks like it should have had one from the factory.

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

The 300-6 isn't comparable at all to a 5.4.

Having towed with both (1997 F150 4x4 supercab, 5.4, auto, 3.73 and a 1990 F-150 2wd 4.9L EFI, 5-spd ZF, 4.10) I beg to differ. Around town they are about the same, accelerating up an on-ramp into traffic the 5.4 wins hands down, but dragging stuff through a field or construction site, the 4.9 is 10x better. That and it doesn't do stupid things like shoot spark plugs and shear the exhaust manifold bolts off because the head is aluminum. The 4.9 is a more maintenance free engine, even though both are equally capable of going past 300,000.

That and I just really dislike the design of any truck that the 5.4 ever came in.

And I'd really like to see the torque curves backing up your statement that the 5.4 is better at towing than a 460. It's all about area under the torque curve, and the 460 is a beast of a motor in that respect. A 460 (well, actually it was a EFI 10:1 521 with an RV cam, ported heads, and ZF-5 trans) will easily out tow a 6.8L V10. We had to put 10,000 lbs behind that truck before you could even tell it was there

 

[sr975j]

i personally know a guy with a 6bt cummins in a ranger and another guy with a 4bt in a ranger. theyve said their biggest issues were simply weight( more for the 6bt ranger)....and finding room in the firewall for the length

 

[Will]

First, nobody that uses a 5.4 to tow a mini-hoe or skidsteer is going to be willing to trade it for a 4.9. I don't know how one engine could be any better, let alone ten times better, at going through a farm field in low range. I also can't quantify something like having to have over 10,000# on it before you feel it.

I could probably find torque curves to compare the 5.4 and the 460. Maybe I will. It will show the 460 losing the curve-area battle in a big way and you will still say the 460 will thrash even the 6.8 so what is the point. My 300-6 and my 460 wasn't as good as yours I guess. When I show the curves I will do it in each gear and overlap them like I did to show the Honda 3.5 has more torque than the 300-6. The 230hp 460 will look humble compared to the 320hp 5.4 and still, I will be wrong.

In this, the 300-6 has the granny gear and I did not take into account the Honda's 2:1 converter ratio. But what you see is, in either picture, that if you used a planimeter to measure the area under the curve the 300-6 is pretty bad. The 460 and 5.4 will have a similar show, on stock motors. The stock 460EFI was a 230hp motor. Ford says the 5.4 makes 80% of it's torque at 1,000rpm so though I don't have the curve, its going to be about 300ft# at 1,000. The 460EFI made 395ft# at 2400. I don't know what it will be at 1,000. But the 5.4 does have a longer stroke than the 460. Doesn't matter. That extra 100hp is really torque hiding in rpms. It's curve is going to be very fat.

Having towed with both (1997 F150 4x4 supercab, 5.4, auto, 3.73 and a 1990 F-150 2wd 4.9L EFI, 5-spd ZF, 4.10) I beg to differ. Around town they are about the same, accelerating up an on-ramp into traffic the 5.4 wins hands down, but dragging stuff through a field or construction site, the 4.9 is 10x better. That and it doesn't do stupid things like shoot spark plugs and shear the exhaust manifold bolts off because the head is aluminum. The 4.9 is a more maintenance free engine, even though both are equally capable of going past 300,000.

That and I just really dislike the design of any truck that the 5.4 ever came in.

And I'd really like to see the torque curves backing up your statement that the 5.4 is better at towing than a 460. It's all about area under the torque curve, and the 460 is a beast of a motor in that respect. A 460 (well, actually it was a EFI 10:1 521 with an RV cam, ported heads, and ZF-5 trans) will easily out tow a 6.8L V10. We had to put 10,000 lbs behind that truck before you could even tell it was there

 

[dangerranger83]

Putting out more torque then my truck ever could put out. But I want to point out though, how long would the Honda 3.5 engine last pulling trailers and what not as compaired to the Ford 300 6 inline? How much abuse can the Honda 3.5 engine take as compared to the 300 6 inline? And who needs to rev. the engine to 5000 rpm before shifting it? Point is it needs the torque to get off the line when pulling a heavy trailer, not 4000-5000 rpm down the line.

Please don't compare a Honda to Ford again.

 

[Gerhard]

would it possible to swap the 4.0 v6 (m) from a 2008 ranger, with the inline 6 from the ford territory ST (4.0 inline 6, turbo)...?

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

I never said the 5.4 is bad motor or sucks at pulling. It's just that it's about the only marginally acceptable designed part on the 97-03 F-150s. Having been responsible for maintenance on about a half dozen of those trucks now, I can honestly say they are the cheapest junk excuse for a truck that Ford ever let off the assembly line. What good is a 5.4 if the truck it comes in a pile?

And I've never actually had experience with a stock 460. My experience was with a suped up 521 stroker (460 based) that put down over 550 ft-lbs and 450 hp. Obviously an engine like this is going to out tow any stock gasoline engine that ever came from the factory in any pickup truck. So it was kind of a mute point. My comment was that after towing with the 1987 5-spd with the 521, and then hitching the same trailer up to a 2002 with a 6.8L V10 and auto, the V10 felt gutless. Probably a stock 460 would have felt gutless too compared to the 521.

Try finding a stroker kit for your honda, then get back to me about how useless the old ford truck motors are...

 

[86ford]

I never said the 5.4 is bad motor or sucks at pulling. It's just that it's about the only marginally acceptable designed part on the 97-03 F-150s. Having been responsible for maintenance on about a half dozen of those trucks now, I can honestly say they are the cheapest junk excuse for a truck that Ford ever let off the assembly line. What good is a 5.4 if the truck it comes in a pile?

And I've never actually had experience with a stock 460. My experience was with a suped up 521 stroker (460 based) that put down over 550 ft-lbs and 450 hp. Obviously an engine like this is going to out tow any stock gasoline engine that ever came from the factory in any pickup truck. So it was kind of a mute point. My comment was that after towing with the 1987 5-spd with the 521, and then hitching the same trailer up to a 2002 with a 6.8L V10 and auto, the V10 felt gutless. Probably a stock 460 would have felt gutless too compared to the 521.


Try finding a stroker kit for your honda, then get back to me about how useless the old ford truck motors are...

Some one is changing the story....

86

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

Some one is changing the story....

No change in story. From my original post:

(well, actually it was a EFI 10:1 521 with an RV cam, ported heads, and ZF-5 trans)

I stated that what I had experience with was not a stock 460. But I have seen what a stock 460 EFI looks like on paper, and it looks strong! So does the 6.8L. From paper alone I can't draw a conclusion about which will tow better. But either one would be bested by the EFI 521 I've actually had experience with.... That's all I was saying.

But consider this: What is the potential for a 6.8L V10 (or a 5.4L for that matter) versus a 460? The last I saw there were at least a dozen different stroker options for the 460 (some up to 800 cubes) versus 0 for the 5.4/6.8. The reason is that the 5.4/6.8 is already all stroked out from the factory. That reason alone is enough to make me choose the old stuff that has a good strong aftermarket and therefore more potential.

 

[Will]

Putting out more torque then my truck ever could put out. But I want to point out though, how long would the Honda 3.5 engine last pulling trailers and what not as compaired to the Ford 300 6 inline? How much abuse can the Honda 3.5 engine take as compared to the 300 6 inline? And who needs to rev. the engine to 5000 rpm before shifting it? Point is it needs the torque to get off the line when pulling a heavy trailer, not 4000-5000 rpm down the line.

Please don't compare a Honda to Ford again.

I was too reserved with the chart I made above--below is the Honda published curves.

The 3.5 Honda makes 235+ft# at 1,000rpm. Some part of this curve makes you think it needs 4,000rpm to make torque and that you need to shift at 5,000? You have no idea what a modern 3.5 liter engine is capable of: 11:1 compression, an intake manifold that can switch between small plenum-low rpm and tunnel ram-ish high rpm; a camshaft (with solid lifters) that can shift between low rpm, high torque and full race--all in one motor. Our Pilot weighs more than the 1971 Plymouth Fury III Sport Suburban wagon with a 383 we had as a kid--and it's got half the displacement, 4wd with a fully-locking rear differential and it's quicker and faster. And the rear passengers can sit facing forwards. With room behind the last seat. This is a hotrod of a 3.5 liter engine. It will give a 300-6 a solid spanking in every category.

Look at an outboard motor. Take it apart (which I have) and see which the parts more resemble--a Honda or an old death-by-casting-flashing 300-6. Like an outboard motor, a Honda will do 80% power for days and days without a problem. They are designed so.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Where do you get the 5.4L makes 390ftlbs of torque?

If you compare a 97 5.4L to a 96 300 I6 your looking at 325ftlbs@3000RPM (or so) and 265ftlbs@1600RPM. (or so)

A 96 351 will embarass a 5.4L in the torque dept.

Im with seven second, the 300 is a STOUT motor for lugging and pulling. On the highway yes a 5.4L will walk them. But who really needs to pull that much weight 80MPH anyways?

Will, as much as you like to think it is your Honda cannot play with the big boys. Its a minivan based SUV. It will not outpull, outwork, out wheel, or out whatever any F series truck, or variation thereof.

The 300 is probely the best engine ever built. Talking to a ford dealer they had a few come in for cash for clunkers, they dumped that shit in them to ruin the engine, drained the oil, and put a block on the acclerator pedal. Most engines ran 10-15 seconds he said. The 300 would run (on average) 4-5mins. Block Cherry red, head cherry red, and it just kept on going. Your hondas beer can engine would of melted.

later,
Dustin

 

[dangerranger83]

Where do you get the 5.4L makes 390ftlbs of torque?

If you compare a 97 5.4L to a 96 300 I6 your looking at 325ftlbs@3000RPM (or so) and 265ftlbs@1600RPM. (or so)

A 96 351 will embarass a 5.4L in the torque dept.

Im with seven second, the 300 is a STOUT motor for lugging and pulling. On the highway yes a 5.4L will walk them. But who really needs to pull that much weight 80MPH anyways?

Will, as much as you like to think it is your Honda cannot play with the big boys. Its a minivan based SUV. It will not outpull, outwork, out wheel, or out whatever any F series truck, or variation thereof.

The 300 is probely the best engine ever built. Talking to a ford dealer they had a few come in for cash for clunkers, they dumped that shit in them to ruin the engine, drained the oil, and put a block on the acclerator pedal. Most engines ran 10-15 seconds he said. The 300 would run (on average) 4-5mins. Block Cherry red, head cherry red, and it just kept on going. Your hondas beer can engine would of melted.

later,
Dustin

Thank you.

 

[mattpresley]

I was thinking inline 6 for longevity, simplicity, and(usually) room to work on and maintain it.
You're right, it's not much of a performance upgrade but then that's not where my head was at.
So far it looks like more work than it's worth compared to just dropping a rebuilt 2.3 back in it when the time finally comes.
I was just considering the options and curious what was involved.
A V8 would be a great option if I ever decide to retire the truck from primary vehicle status but I'll probably build an old 60's car when I want to fool around with V8's again.
Who knows, anything can happen between now and then.

I gotta ask how the hell you blew a 3 year old 2.3?

 

[Bryan22]

So far it looks like more work than it's worth compared to just dropping a rebuilt 2.3 back in it---------------- when the time finally comes-------------------- he didn't blow it yet, lol.