289, 302, or 351?

[rmn42689]

Hey, got a 88 ranger 4x4 right now and think nows the time i start looking at what kinda v8 i wanna go with. I know in some cases this helps but the truck does have a 3in body lift on it. I want to do a v8 swap, possibly efi if i can, with a manual sitting behind it too. Id like to hear your opinions, or even see pics of your v8 rangers so i can make a decision. My buddy has a 289 from a 67 mustang that i could use so deff got me thinking but just curious on ur opinions. 289? 302? 351w? I am planning on lifting the truck eventually with 33.1250s at least, also it is and will be used for weekend wheeling too. Just let me know what u think, thanks guys.

 

[Nailzs]

to be honest, if your going to doa v8 swap i would do a 302 stroked to 347. with the 351 more fabrication is required for the engine to fit. whereas if u fo the 302 stroker u get the same(probably more) power for less fab work, and can use the 351 heads(most of the time)
as for the 289...havent seen many of those swapped in, most people just go for the 302's.

 

[Scrambler82]

OPINIONS, everyone has one...

The 289/302 are the same outer dimensions so either, 351 as stated is larger and requires more work; but if I were to do it today the 289 would be my way to go.
Find a 5.0L from an Explorer and add a 289 Crank and Rods.

L&L Products had a Manual Trans Kit w/internal Slave for the clutch, don't know if they still have it but their kits are way over the top on quality and I would use their kit again.
The headers are HD all the way, the mounts are 5/16 Steel plate, the Oil Filter relocation parts (two pcs) are machine out of billet aluminum, really nice. and there is an Oil Pan, good quality too.

Depending on what you intend to do with the truck will determine what you want to do about the horse power; I know there is no such thing as too much HP BUT let get realistic, a stock V-8 will move the Ranger just about any where you want to go with it.

You will need a larger radiator, a crowl hood helps with the cooling and if you use an Explorer Engine you should be able to run a manual fan.

Luck with the swap.

 

[RangerFabWorks]

289 ftw, i love that engine

 

[baddad457]

Really no point in either doing a 289 (you'll need a dual sump pan with the dipstick in the pan, plus deal with the accesory dress issues) Or swapping in a 289 crank and rods to a roller block (you'll gain zero rpm capability, plus have to turn down the oil slinger off the 289 crank to work in the roller block). The easiest way to go is a roller 5.0 from any number of applications starting with the 1986 model year.

 

[rmn42689]

thanks everybody rite now i do feel more comfortable with the 302, its the easiest and like yins say will put out just as much power if not more than the others. so what transmission think would be best,t-5? o id like a manual you know?

 

[Scrambler82]

Automatic is the easiest, slip it in a couple of cables and wires and you got it BUT there is no substitute for the feel of a vehicle and the sound it has with a manual transmission.

A T-5 should hold up if you don't beat on it too much, they used to be a little weak, may have change with newer units.

The biggest problem will be the clutch slave cylinder, get a bell housing with an internal unit, that should eliminate the linkage clearance problems.
Then you will need to address the headers, the drivers side is the one that will cause the most trouble with clearance (steering shaft, frame), the passenger side just needs a little frame notching.

Next up is the transfer case and adapters...

 

[baddad457]

If you use a T-5, no frame notching is needed for Tri-Y headers. The left side will fall thru if let go, the right side just needs a little wiggling to get them in place. An external slave setup will do for the hydraulic clutch. Really an easy swap.

 

[Mac]

The T-5 would be great if there were any adapters for the transfer case, that's why most who want a manual use the trans and transfer out of a F-150.
Dave

 

[rmn42689]

that what i was thinking, looking for an f-150 and just taking everything motor, tranny, t-case out it. Is there ne year of f-150 that would be better than others for ppower of fitment maybe?

 

[Mac]

From what I remember, the F-150 has poor heads and cam, intake too tall, only has 150 hp and most, if not all were speed density sytem and batch fired. Hope that gives you a little more to go on.
Dave

 

[rmn42689]

well my buddy has a 96 and its actually maf, my brother said the same thing and he was surprised to see it, but i was wondering what yins thot of the madza 5speed used with 302s in the early to mid 90s f-150

 

[baddad457]

From what I remember, the F-150 has poor heads and cam, intake too tall, only has 150 hp and most, if not all were speed density sytem and batch fired. Hope that gives you a little more to go on.
Dave

F series had the same heads the Mustang had. And starting in 1994, they got a better roller cam, same one later used in the Explorer 5.0. The F series intake does fit under a Ranger's hood.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I am doing a 289 in mine. I got a double sump pan off of craigslist to add a dipstick to for $10. I have yet to source a front dress but a user on here cued me in on 1980 crown vics having a slick setup. I am waiting until I get the engine together to worry about that.

Otherwise it is pretty much the same to go in as a 302.

I am doing it because I got the engine for free. If there was a 289, 302 and 351W sitting beside each other that were not smog era and all rebuilt and ready to go, I would grab the 351W and not look back.

 

[rmn42689]

yea i agree that what i just put in my f-150 n i love it, someday id like to do that with a ranger2wd but mine right now think im set on the 302.