rare? 1986 ex cab 4x4 4cyl

[85_Ranger4x4]

DO NOT RUIN THAT TRUCK WITH A 3oh..2 junk. Sell it to someone who'd appreciate it for what it is then get a later 4.0 truck.

I bet there are a lot of Ranger collectors out there looking for an '86 4x4 scab with a 4cyl...

It is a unique oddity, I don't know if the combo is particularly desirable.

How exactly is a 302 junk?

Mainly the ones out of an Explorer.

 

[fastpakr]

Mainly the ones out of an Explorer.

Oh yeah, that's right. Nobody in their right mind would use that as a donor.


Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Craig0320]

Oh yeah, that's right. Nobody in their right mind would use that as a donor.


Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I guess me and you are going to pay a terrible price running our pretty much drop in 302 out of donor expo's. Mine has been miserable with all the fun I have been having with it. Damn junk 302.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I guess me and you are going to pay a terrible price running our pretty much drop in 302 out of donor expo's. Mine has been miserable with all the fun I have been having with it. Damn junk 302.

After I changed the ignition, induction, installed the Explorer FEAD (and upgraded the heads and cam) my crown vic 302 pretty much dropped in/plugged in too.

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

Lots of stuff here I didn't know. This truck is what I would like to find for myself. Probably decent mpg and with a turbo would be great power too.

 

[turbo91xlt]

There is nothing spectacular about a 200hp 302. If I was to v8 a ranger, I'd do it with nothing less then a built 351. Anything less is a waste of time imo.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

There is nothing spectacular about a 200hp 302. If I was to v8 a ranger, I'd do it with nothing less then a built 351. Anything less is a waste of time imo.

Nothing all that special about a 160hp 4.0 either.

But it beats a 88hp 4.

 

[DRanger024]

I don’t know why you guys are arguing hp numbers In a truck. Torque is what you’re after.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I don’t know why you guys are arguing hp numbers In a truck. Torque is what you’re after.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which is why i suggested a 302. Even a 79 weezer will outtorque any factory RBV engine

 

[DRanger024]

Which is why i suggested a 302. Even a 79 weezer will outtorque any factory RBV engine

Very true. The only reasons I swapped a 4.0 into my project truck where 1) I already had it and it runs great and 2) Parts are readily available in the junk yards. 5.0 explorers aren’t so common in my area because of the AWD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Very true. The only reasons I swapped a 4.0 into my project truck where 1) I already had it and it runs great and 2) Parts are readily available in the junk yards. 5.0 explorers aren’t so common in my area because of the AWD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Weird, you think the AWD would have been a selling feature up there.

But like with your truck the 4.0 had more commonality than an older truck. Wiring to put a 4.0 in a first gen is much more complex than a second or later generation truck. OP's would be slightly better than some being set up for EFI from the start.

I put a $200 302 in mine, no regrets. It beat the tar out of the dying 2.8 that I really didn't care to rebuild. With some adaptation it was a pretty good fit for my truck. That said with enough blow by to keep pushing the dipstick out and hose the exhaust manifold with oil the 2.8 never really lacked power in 4lo for anything. Keep 'er wound tight in 4lo and with 235/75-15 MT's it did it's part. No idea where it was for hp but it started out at 110, in its decrepit condition I bet it was south of a good running 2.3's output.

Your truck is set up for EFI now, if you switch motors I would stay with EFI.

As far as the 88hp 2.3 in a 4x4 scab Ranger... look at what a 60hp jeep did in WWII while tugging around a howitzer. Postwar people even used them as tractors pulling plows and whatnot. Gearing is where it is at, don't get greedy on tire size. But I don't know what your trails are like either....

 

[Craig0320]

There is nothing spectacular about a 200hp 302. If I was to v8 a ranger, I'd do it with nothing less then a built 351. Anything less is a waste of time imo.

I do not feel my swap was a waste of time. I got a 54,000 mile donor and after parting out everything I am only 200.00 into the conversion. I was not trying to make 600hp in my ranger but was wanting enough to have fun with. My truck is about 500 pounds lighter than the expo donor and speaking with a local performance shop they told me that I should have at least 30 more hp/tq because of the weight reduction. Stock 2000 expo is 215hp/285tq.Also a set of torque monster headers and a good tune I should be running 350+ on torque and 280 or so on hp. I am already happy and will really please after that.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

My truck is about 500 pounds lighter than the expo donor and speaking with a local performance shop they told me that I should have at least 30 more hp/tq because of the weight reduction.

It probably feels like it has 30 more hp than it did in an ex but being in a lighter vehicle won't gain power.

 

[DRanger024]

Weird, you think the AWD would have been a selling feature up there.



But like with your truck the 4.0 had more commonality than an older truck. Wiring to put a 4.0 in a first gen is much more complex than a second or later generation truck. OP's would be slightly better than some being set up for EFI from the start.

Most people around here want dedicated 4wd. AWD is great when the roads get slick but true 4wd is king in anything over 3 inches.

As far as wiring a 4.0 in a gen 3 that originally came with a 2.3, it’s been a small nightmare in my truck. Just enough changed from 93 to 94 to make it a headache and there are subtle but important differences from one engine to the next. And to think, I was going to run it stand-alone with the original OBDII stuff ?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Craig0320]

It probably feels like it has 30 more hp than it did in an ex but being in a lighter vehicle won't gain power.

Then why do people seek weight reduction as part of modding to gain hp. Weight reduction is huge in any motor sport. If I put 500 pounds in the back of my truck I guarantee you I will see a performance drop. It may not be 30 hp but it is very noticeable.