Did Ford make a factory v8 ranger for the public

[ZeroHour]

Forgot how to add a jpg? The suspense

 

[stsalvage]

I say if you're going to go big why stop at 302 why not go 1 inch bigger that all you have to deal with is 1 inch higher and so much more fun to play with is the 351 Winsor.

I friend of mine out of Texas has a twin-turbo 351 Winsor He gets down to the low 8 in the quarter-mile at 155 mph He has smoked all the high end, BMW Mercedes The Lambo's He dost them all these 250,000 car's these kids thing that has power He has a quick change 9inch rear end Its like a bullet when it running down the road you can tweak that 351 by stoking it for god amounts of HP. 302 do not hold a candle to the 351 Winsor. I have 2 1993 and a 1997 bronco 351 engines never been bored. I know of another but it needs the engine to be sleeved.

Like I say why stop at 302 go to the 351 same block just 1 inch taller and the 289 is more of a monster then the 302 is they get wicked fast when you run turbo's on them

 

[Bird76Mojo]

The differences between the 289 and the 302 are very minimal. There's nothing that automatically makes them vastly superior to the 302.

As for fitting a 351 in to a Ranger, it's certainly not as easy or as clean of a swap as a 302. I've seen a few over the years and they do require more hacking on the truck. A 302 is a perfect fit if done right..

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Exhaust takes more work with a 351.

Ironically they are supposed to fit pretty good with 289 manifolds.

28oz engine balance complicates things as far as later model transmissions and belt drive systems too.

 

[fastpakr]

As far as SLA Rangers go, it's worth reading some threads about the idea of a 351 swap over at Explorer Forums. Several members there have looked into it over the years, and it's a pretty impressive list of hurdles that have to be dealt with to make it happen. Nothing impossible, but enough that I'm not aware of anybody bothering when the 302 just goes right in. It's partially fitment, partially dealing with the flywheel balance and the FEAD system and crank pickup, etc. Just a bunch of individual things to work through.

 

[snoranger]

As far as SLA Rangers go, it's worth reading some threads about the idea of a 351 swap over at Explorer Forums. Several members there have looked into it over the years, and it's a pretty impressive list of hurdles that have to be dealt with to make it happen. Nothing impossible, but enough that I'm not aware of anybody bothering when the 302 just goes right in. It's partially fitment, partially dealing with the flywheel balance and the FEAD system and crank pickup, etc. Just a bunch of individual things to work through.

What? Everyone doesn't have a '96 351 balancer, that they pressed the 4 point reluctor off and press a 36-1 wheel on, and a 94-95 Cobra crank pulley just sitting around collecting dust?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

There is a workaround for those that don't need the crankshaft position sensor

NEW BILLET Aluminum Early Ford Bronco Crank Shaft Pulley w/ 302 Explorer 5.0 | eBay

This is for the Ford Explorer 5.0 conversion in an early Ford classic Bronco. NEW Billet Aluminum Crank Shaft Pulley.

www.ebay.com

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The Ford Ranger SVT V-8 Prototype Was a Smoke Machine With a Bed

Lots of power, little traction ... but we loved it anyways.

www.motortrend.com

 

[dvdswan]

The Ford Ranger SVT V-8 Prototype Was a Smoke Machine With a Bed

Lots of power, little traction ... but we loved it anyways.

www.motortrend.com

I would have been all over that. If it were available in 4WD.

 

[cbxer55]

They made a prototype v8 ranger, not sure which ford team did it "svt?". But it was a one of a kind no where close to production.

Yes, the Lightning Bolt, made by SVT, with a AHEM, Lightning motor, blower and drivetrain in it. I wish they'd have made it, but they said it was TOO BRUTAL for the average citizen. LMAO!!

I have a Car & Driver rag from back in 2003, which has a short article on it. Even they said it was one brutal truck to drive. The early Lightnings, from 99 - 02, had 360 hp. 2003 and 2004 were 380 hp. Imagine that in a short wheelbase lightweight truck like the Ranger. Makes me want one so bad! It would probably be as bad as the Pinto my brother had in the early 80s, with a 289 four barrel under the hood. That thing was downright crazy.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Yes, the Lightning Bolt, made by SVT, with a AHEM, Lightning motor, blower and drivetrain in it. I wish they'd have made it, but they said it was TOO BRUTAL for the average citizen. LMAO!!

I have a Car & Driver rag from back in 2003, which has a short article on it. Even they said it was one brutal truck to drive. The early Lightnings, from 99 - 02, had 360 hp. 2003 and 2004 were 380 hp. Imagine that in a short wheelbase lightweight truck like the Ranger. Makes me want one so bad! It would probably be as bad as the Pinto my brother had in the early 80s, with a 289 four barrel under the hood. That thing was downright crazy.

It is funny how the lightningbolt was too much but now anybody can order a 330hp 2dr Bronco... or a 700+hp Wrangler.

 

[fastpakr]

True. But frame stiffness and suspension tuning have improved quite a bit since then, haven't they?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

True. But frame stiffness and suspension tuning have improved quite a bit since then, haven't they?

I would think a 2wd 98-11 Ranger with a performance suspension would handle better than a Jeep Rubicon or a Bronco on 35's.

I think the bigger issue is the Bronco won't steal Mustang sales like a 2wd compact pickup might.

 

[Uncle Gump]

I think the SVT Ranger was Fords answer to the GM Syclone and Typhoon... They were just late to the party.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I think the SVT Ranger was Fords answer to the GM Syclone and Typhoon... They were just late to the party.

But they had the Ranger GT!