1988 Ranger Restoration - Keeping a Promise

[bobbywalter]

doooooooooooooooooooooooood


that brings baack memories of this time right after we built a new house and my ol lady went away to her moms for a visit....one of my homies shows up in his monster stang and we burned a valve street.....ummm driving aggressively....so i threw the heads in the dishwasher...and we got some fresh valves to lap in....



ohhhhhh... ohhhh....that was a bad idea...

my plumber was just barely was driving away when my ol lady was pulling in....

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

I'll never forget the wife finding a set of VW heads in the dishwasher...

All these little things are likely to add up... so how did the bake go?

Block and timing case are perfect. Oil pan and valve covers need to cure for a week or two more. This stuff takes time. Learned my lesson on the windage tray. It will bubble. Just be patient. Only thing left to paint is main caps. Waiting on rods and bearings. Went with 302 5.400 forged steel h beam with arp bolts. Pistons will need to be reamed, or wrist pin brushed, or rod rebushed. Idk yet. 0.866 pin, 0.912 rod.

Rod bearings are 2.234 crank, mine is 2.236 crank. Considering main studs and girdle, but idk Wtf I'm doing here. Halp.



Weird tangent.

With the glyptal thing, a old timer, Smokey Yunick, kept coming up. Is credited with using glyptal to walk away with stock class racing wins.

His name kept coming up with high rod ratios as well. Only outspoken American name I could find.

Hm. Odd.

He is a bit of a different sort with engines. Seems like he was far ahead of his time.

Conventional wisdom is 1.75:1 is ideal. Yet, nascar v8 runs 1.85-1.91:1.

Odd again.

Guy is a pleothrea of knowledge.


Oh. And here. A rune:

Highly recommended read for engine building attached to this post.


Good discussion here, good overall forum.

Importance of Rod Ratio? - Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

 

[bobbywalter]

dynamic compression and rr are very overlooked due to the abc systems available the last 30 years.

needs dictate results being the equalizer.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

ABC?

 

[sgtsandman]

Easy as 1-2-3.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

dynamic compression and rr are very overlooked due to the abc systems available the last 30 years.

needs dictate results being the equalizer.

If you mean Benz active body control, and the fact Benz tech is modular exactly half the time (thanks, Bosch!), you need to stop putting dark thoughts into my head.

 

[bobbywalter]

ABC... it's knowns via emmisions and simple HP results. Lego parts. The alphabet cam system ford does in this case...

Two engines, let's say making same max power for a given class restriction.

Track a...... verse Track b.

Both engines make 600 HP. Both being same design basically for this case. ..say 350 nascar.

How they make that 600 HP....in the same car and same weather with same driver can make a HUUUUGE difference in margin of victory or time per lap where lifting is required.



Then there is apples and oranges. .


Say the 1000 HP Sierra. Put a 850 HP aluminum LS in it...and it will destroy the hairpin coarse times....or maybe not from being overpowered.

It will probably destroy the drivetrain from being overpowered even know it's down a 150 peak HP.

 

[bobbywalter]

And..I would only put glyp in block and return path of oil

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

And..I would only put glyp in block and return path of oil

Thought about that... Had a bunch o dudes on jalopy journal recommend it, and was a Smokey Yunick thing to coat everything. Apparently keeps soot and carbon out of the engine and out of oil by allowing it to return to filter.

Figured it was worth a shot to try... Hate to say it, but worst case, it is a 2.9, so not exactly difficult to replace if something goes wrong....

 

[bobbywalter]

No...I am very interested in the results.

Cost prevented me from full coating. Like 400 dollars different.

And you know the hell it is.

So I hope the effort maximizes reward.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Pistons are back from swain tech.

Sprung for the TBC coating. Figured it's one more layer of protection against the absurd levels of hell this engine is going to go through.

The only issue I see is that they also obliterated the orientation marks.

 

[Dirtman]

You orient those pistons any way you want! Your a man and can do what you want!

Also... wtf is tbc coating besides what looks like white paint? And is the thickness of the coating factored in to the size of the piston?

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Only a few mils thick. TBC stands for Thermal Barrier Ceramic.

Basically, put a torch to it, and it laughs at you. Did it as a final barrier against my sh*tty tuning.

Apparelty it's the same ceramic material used for reentry. Urabus and 2JZ guys swear by it.

 

[TigerDan]

Junkie, I am not an owner of a Ranger truck, But do have an Explorer I just came in possession of. It has a 4.0 OHV V6 and 5 speed tranny. It was rolled over several times and the lady that owned it sold it to a friend of mine.

I own of Chrysler vehicles, they are Sunbeam Alpines! I have one that I totally restored back in 2008-2010. Then decided to install a FORD (Cologne) 2.8 V6. Got'er done! Now I have a special project to install another Cologne designed engine in one of my rare Alpines, a '65 SIV GT that originally had a 4 cyl & Borg Warner BW35 automatic. The GT was headed to the scrap yard before I salvaged it.

I have installed the 4.0 OHV in the GT, built custom headers and designed all of the other necessities for a proper functioning Sports car.

The original fuel system has me stumped. The factory FI appears to sit a bit too tall in the car, even with a hood scoop. But, I am continuing on with my project. I have a 2.9 engine also. Looking at yours, causes me to wonder if your FI sit lower that the stock? Is it an original?

There appears to be little support for a 4 bbl intake for the 4.0 except maybe one that is extremely expensive. The carb is not really what I want. A friend of mine has spoken to me several times about a MicroSquirt application he read about perhaps here on the Ranger Station. My search for the MicroSquirt brought me to your POST! I have read lots of your comments and feel certain you can help resolve some of my questions.

Hope I am not out-of-line asking for help beings I don't own a Ranger Truck, but I do own several Chrysler products that are out of production

I have several of the 2.8's 60 degree engines, little brother to the 2.9's and the 4.0's all of which are of basic design. Heads, exhaust, valves and water pumps being the major differences. My headers designed for the 2.8 will not fit the 2.9 or the 4.0 due to the exhaust port arrangement, however the ones I have designed for the 4.0 will fit the 2.9. You might ask why no go with the 2.9? Well, my best answer, the 4.0 has all of the same configurations for installation in my Sunbeam Alpines as the 2.9.

Any help or advice will be much appreciated,

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Junkie, I am not an owner of a Ranger truck, But do have an Explorer I just came in possession of. It has a 4.0 OHV V6 and 5 speed tranny. It was rolled over several times and the lady that owned it sold it to a friend of mine.

I own of Chrysler vehicles, they are Sunbeam Alpines! I have one that I totally restored back in 2008-2010. Then decided to install a FORD (Cologne) 2.8 V6. Got'er done! Now I have a special project to install another Cologne designed engine in one of my rare Alpines, a '65 SIV GT that originally had a 4 cyl & Borg Warner BW35 automatic. The GT was headed to the scrap yard before I salvaged it.

I have installed the 4.0 OHV in the GT, built custom headers and designed all of the other necessities for a proper functioning Sports car.

The original fuel system has me stumped. The factory FI appears to sit a bit too tall in the car, even with a hood scoop. But, I am continuing on with my project. I have a 2.9 engine also. Looking at yours, causes me to wonder if your FI sit lower that the stock? Is it an original?

There appears to be little support for a 4 bbl intake for the 4.0 except maybe one that is extremely expensive. The carb is not really what I want. A friend of mine has spoken to me several times about a MicroSquirt application he read about perhaps here on the Ranger Station. My search for the MicroSquirt brought me to your POST! I have read lots of your comments and feel certain you can help resolve some of my questions.

Hope I am not out-of-line asking for help beings I don't own a Ranger Truck, but I do own several Chrysler products that are out of production

I have several of the 2.8's 60 degree engines, little brother to the 2.9's and the 4.0's all of which are of basic design. Heads, exhaust, valves and water pumps being the major differences. My headers designed for the 2.8 will not fit the 2.9 or the 4.0 due to the exhaust port arrangement, however the ones I have designed for the 4.0 will fit the 2.9. You might ask why no go with the 2.9? Well, my best answer, the 4.0 has all of the same configurations for installation in my Sunbeam Alpines as the 2.9.

Any help or advice will be much appreciated,

WOW

Gonna have to give a min on that one

@alwaysFlOoReD @bobbywalter @rusty ol ranger you'll love this