ranger 5.0 swap

[baddad457]

why would you replace a fuel injected 4.0L V6 with a carb'd 302? Unless you plan on making alot of mods to the carb'd V8, you are going to be roughly the same power wise, have a heavier vehicle, less throttle response, and use more fuel

Eveything you posted here is crap.. Same powerwise ? No, the V8 produces more torque. Heavier vehicle ? Not that you can tell, there may be 50-100 lbs difference. Less throttle response ? NO. Use more fuel ? Not much difference if any between a worn out 2.9/4.0 and a carbed Explorer V8. Mine gets 18 mpg highway without overdrive.

 

[dylanS]

well my 4.0 isnt gonna last much longer at all and im only gettin about 10 mpg as it is...i have no power in my 4.0 and i dont no what the problem is i couldnt find a decent 4.0 to replace the one i have and i already had the 302 so why not no one can tell me whats wrong with my engine and im tired of pouring money into it...and with a injected 5.0 wont i have to get the computer and all that for the swap

 

[baddad457]

That's the same reasons I swapped mine to a 302 ten years ago.

 

[dylanS]

and how do u like it...did it make much of a difference? and do u have any advice?

 

[baddad457]

Well as I said, that was ten years ago that I did the swap. Had 4 different motors in it since (that's how the V8 "bug" works on some) three different transmissions, three different rearends. Cussed it many a time. Loved it at other times. As Gus said to Woodrow just before he checked out in "Lonesome Dove" : It's been one hell of a party ! Has it been easy? No. Has it been worth it ? That depends on how you put a price tag on your time. You'll never know unless you try. You'll never gain the experience to look back onb either.

 

[Psychopete]

well i dont no much about a carb,d engine mines injected

That is going to be a big learning curve also - getting the timing set up and getting the carb all set up. You're really going to need to know how all of that works or else your engine won't be too happy. Research here would put you far ahead of the game.

Whether or not you can use the stock cable; it's probably not going to be a direct bolt on affair, but it is possible - I am using my stock 2.9L cable with a bracket I built and a different ball on the carb - that was a very easy thing to do in comparison with other things that will need done. But since I am using a lokar kick down cable kit w/ an adapter that required the Lokar throttle cable, that is on my list to do, it will make things look a lot cleaner.

You concern now should be getting the old engine out and getting the new one in place. This alone will keep you busy for sometime. Leave the details in the back of you mind and search when you get stuck on something specific. Let us know if you can't find the answer and we can get you suggestions.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

why would you replace a fuel injected 4.0L V6 with a carb'd 302? Unless you plan on making alot of mods to the carb'd V8, you are going to be roughly the same power wise, have a heavier vehicle, less throttle response, and use more fuel. now a stock fuel injected 5.0L is competitive with a tbi 350 small block ...... I would seriously consider fuel injection, specially in a 4x4...... or atleast a cam and a 4 barrel for your 302.

My carbed '78 302 with really low compression (from the factory) and the same 1.08 venturi 2bbl 2150 they put on a 2.8 V6 was rated more torque at a much lower RPM than a 4.0.

I have been around a couple 4.0's, they impressed me neither in for fuel milage or power. Adaquate at best IMO in the Explorers they were housed, about the probably about the same spunkyness as the 2.8 that came in my Ranger if it was in good shape.

I dunno why you keep dragging up that EFI 5.0 vs TBI SBC crap, I proved it wrong once.

1992 truck 350 - 190hp @ 4krpm, 300lb-ft @ 2400rpm

1992 truck 302 - 185hp @ 3800rpm, 270lb-ft @ 2400rpm

1992 truck 351W - 200hp @ 3800rpm, 300lb-ft @ 2800rpm

Sure there are better 302's out there but there are also better 350's. This is same year, same application, same intent of use across the boad.

From "Standard Catalong of 4x4's 1945-2000" by Robert C. Ackerson.

Sooo, what is comparable to what? If they are really comparable it seems Ford was pretty stupid for keeping around the 351W which on paper is much more comparable to a 350... Although a tad shorter on hp, that ol' 350 cranks out the same torque at a lower RPM than even the 351W.

 

[baddad457]

My carbed '78 302 with really low compression (from the factory) and the same 1.08 venturi 2bbl 2150 they put on a 2.8 V6 was rated more torque at a much lower RPM than a 4.0.

I have been around a couple 4.0's, they impressed me neither in for fuel milage or power. Adaquate at best IMO in the Explorers they were housed, about the probably about the same spunkyness as the 2.8 that came in my Ranger if it was in good shape.

I dunno why you keep dragging up that EFI 5.0 vs TBI SBC crap, I proved it wrong once.

1992 truck 350 - 190hp @ 4krpm, 300lb-ft @ 2400rpm

1992 truck 302 - 185hp @ 3800rpm, 270lb-ft @ 2400rpm

1992 truck 351W - 200hp @ 3800rpm, 300lb-ft @ 2800rpm

Sure there are better 302's out there but there are also better 350's. This is same year, same application, same intent of use across the boad.

From "Standard Catalong of 4x4's 1945-2000" by Robert C. Ackerson.

Sooo, what is comparable to what? If they are really comparable it seems Ford was pretty stupid for keeping around the 351W which on paper is much more comparable to a 350... Although a tad shorter on hp, that ol' 350 cranks out the same torque at a lower RPM than even the 351W.

But you have to take into account the heads Ford cursed the 351W with after 1974. But even with the E7 heads, the 94-97 roller 351 was a far spunkier motor than the 75-93's were and would keep right along side, if not pass a 350, even though Ford never changed the power ratings from the 93's. The change in cams made a world of difference in the 94-97's.

 

[dylanS]

thanks for all the info guys I'm sure it will help

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

But you have to take into account the heads Ford cursed the 351W with after 1974. But even with the E7 heads, the 94-97 roller 351 was a far spunkier motor than the 75-93's were and would keep right along side, if not pass a 350, even though Ford never changed the power ratings from the 93's. The change in cams made a world of difference in the 94-97's.

The Vortec came out in '96 though, that was a pretty good kick in the pants for the 350. They had quite a little arms race going there for awhile. Kinda funny a couple years ago when the new bodystyle came out the 5.3 still wasn't as much torque as low as my 2v 5.4...

 

[baddad457]

And then came the 3V, it was a huge improvement over the 2V. The 5.3 Chebby is basically what Ford would have progressed to had it not went off with the Mod motors.

 

[cammeddrz]

Looking at pics comparing the two it looks pretty darn close between where my original carb is and where my new one is. I left the carb on it today, I will have to check in the morning.

yours may be but:

i cut my firewall out, and mine is sitting 4"-6" further back than stock, cutting the firewall allowed for better shifter placement (not into my dash), unmolested trans crossmember, unmolested front d/s (length etc.) and it gave me enough room to run a 4-core radiator without taking the core support and removing all of its structural integrity. because my rad sits behind the core support instead of inside where it used to be, and hey in my case i used stock motor mounts, in the stock location. so i figured a little firewall cutting to make everything else line up?......definitely

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

And then came the 3V, it was a huge improvement over the 2V. The 5.3 Chebby is basically what Ford would have progressed to had it not went off with the Mod motors.

The new 5.0 makes the 3v 5.4 look kind of stupid too.

yours may be but:

i cut my firewall out, and mine is sitting 4"-6" further back than stock, cutting the firewall allowed for better shifter placement (not into my dash), unmolested trans crossmember, unmolested front d/s (length etc.) and it gave me enough room to run a 4-core radiator without taking the core support and removing all of its structural integrity. because my rad sits behind the core support instead of inside where it used to be, and hey in my case i used stock motor mounts, in the stock location. so i figured a little firewall cutting to make everything else line up?......definitely

I just had to shorten my crossmember 1/4" and it used factory holes in the PS of the frame (I suppose leftover from the C5 days) and drill a new hole in the DS of the crossmember.

I have to have the driveshafts lengthend/shortened, not much of a big deal.

Aside from that and slotting the crossmember for the stang mounts I haven't had to touch a thing on the actual truck. A two row 4.0 Explorer radiator fits up front with about half an inch between the water pump pulley and the radiator. I think I will have to run pusher fans but there is a lot of room infront of the radiator for them. A shorter front accessory drive would have helped that out though.

The throttle cable has a good kink in it, but I can't feel a difference in how it moves by pushing on it.

We are also comparing a SBC vs a SBF swap here too...

 

[cavedweller]

CAMMEDDRZ--Sorry to Hi-jack,....BUT,I have been going back and forth on doing a v8 conversion on my 1988 4x4 ranger .Whether to up grade to a 4.0 ohv,(looks a lot easierto do ), or v8,(even though I'am retired it looks like a it could be a pain to do)...... .One of the problems that moved me back to the 4.0 was radiator location. Anyway,what did you use to cut out the firewall and did you have to use secondary cab support? What problems did you run into doing it this way? Kinda intriged here !

 

[Psychopete]

I don't think it's a huge deal to the cut the core support. I cut the bottom of mine out, made a new radiator base that bolted to the frame (lowering the radiator) and tucked it in as far forward as possible away from the motor. Hood shuts and latches just fine. I don't have the resources or the skills to cut and reassemble the cab sheet metal properly, but I hear you that would be ideal to do, esp on a big block or inline 6 motor that would need all the length you can get.