Did Ford make a factory v8 ranger for the public

[Dirtman]

The 302 added less than 75lbs to the front of my 87 V8 swap truck when compared to the 2.9 V6.

The factory fuel pump hanger was used which retained the standard sized tubing, so no, the fuel system didn't need upgraded in line size. The Explorer is a perfect example of that.

I also know from experience that a 5.0 does not add 200 lbs to the front of a Ranger. 75 is pretty close.

He was not counting simply the weight difference between the two engines. But the total weight difference in parts required to add a 5.0 at a factory level.

We are talking about a production vehicle that MUST include upgrades that people who do motor swaps don't necessarily need.

Larger cooling system = more weight
Larger transmission = more weight
Larger rear differential = more weight
Heavier springs = more weight
Larger brakes = more weight
Larger wheels = more weight

Etc etc...

Add all that stuff up and 200 pounds seems reasonable.

 

[Bird76Mojo]

I still don't buy it.

My cooling system didn't add any significant amount of weight. Neither would a factory system if built by professional Ford engineers.
My Tremec T5Z didn't add any significant amount of weight, and these were already being used by Ford in that era.
The Ford 8.8" differential was already used on Rangers in that era, so no weight added in that department.
The Ranger springs do just fine on their own. Both front and rear. 4.0 springs up front, and standard leaves in the rear. No weight added.
Large enough brakes up front is easy. I switched to 97 front beams and brakes, but Ford could have swapped in a multitude of parts while staying light weight.
Larger wheels aren't needed, except for traction in the rear. Wider wheels are easily added, but staying with aluminum, there is no weight added.

Unless you're talking about throwing all of the heaviest parts on to a base model 4cyl Ranger...

Ford could have easily installed the Explorer powertrain in my 2001 Ranger as well. The truck would handle the extra 40-ish pounds up front very easily with Explorer #1 torsion bars. Ride quality wouldn't have been affected either.

They were only worried about not competing with some of their other models. BUZZKILL MOTORS. They should really take notes from Dodge/Chrysler who constantly pushes the limits while using factory parts to make fun, high horsepower vehicles.

 

[Dirtman]

I still don't buy it.

My cooling system didn't add any significant amount of weight. Neither would a factory system if built by professional Ford engineers.
My Tremec T5Z didn't add any significant amount of weight, and these were already being used by Ford in that era.
The Ford 8.8" differential was already used on Rangers in that era, so no weight added in that department.
The Ranger springs do just fine on their own. Both front and rear. 4.0 springs up front, and standard leaves in the rear. No weight added.
Large enough brakes up front is easy. I switched to 97 front beams and brakes, but Ford could have swapped in a multitude of parts while staying light weight.
Larger wheels aren't needed, except for traction in the rear. Wider wheels are easily added, but staying with aluminum, there is no weight added.

Unless you're talking about throwing all of the heaviest parts on to a base model 4cyl Ranger...

Ford could have easily installed the Explorer powertrain in my 2001 Ranger as well. The truck would handle the extra 40-ish pounds up front very easily with Explorer #1 torsion bars. Ride quality wouldn't have been affected either.

They were only worried about not competing with some of their other models. BUZZKILL MOTORS. They should really take notes from Dodge/Chrysler who constantly pushes the limits while using factory parts to make fun, high horsepower vehicles.

 

[don4331]

I still don't buy it.

My cooling system didn't add any significant amount of weight. Neither would a factory system if built by professional Ford engineers.
My Tremec T5Z didn't add any significant amount of weight, and these were already being used by Ford in that era.
The Ford 8.8" differential was already used on Rangers in that era, so no weight added in that department.
The Ranger springs do just fine on their own. Both front and rear. 4.0 springs up front, and standard leaves in the rear. No weight added.
Large enough brakes up front is easy. I switched to 97 front beams and brakes, but Ford could have swapped in a multitude of parts while staying light weight.
Larger wheels aren't needed, except for traction in the rear. Wider wheels are easily added, but staying with aluminum, there is no weight added.

Unless you're talking about throwing all of the heaviest parts on to a base model 4cyl Ranger...

Ford could have easily installed the Explorer powertrain in my 2001 Ranger as well. The truck would handle the extra 40-ish pounds up front very easily with Explorer #1 torsion bars. Ride quality wouldn't have been affected either.

They were only worried about not competing with some of their other models. BUZZKILL MOTORS. They should really take notes from Dodge/Chrysler who constantly pushes the limits while using factory parts to make fun, high horsepower vehicles.

The original post was for a V-8 in a '91 Ranger. At that time, there wasn't a V-8 Explorer, so all the engineering would need to be done for the Ranger. The BorgWarner T5, doesn't fit in OEM position - yes, you want swap on a S-10 trail shaft, but does the T5 meet durability requirements for a truck? GMC found they didn't last behind 4.3s and changed to 3550s for S-10s.

All V-8 Explorers came with 4R70W Autos, they also came with big tube/bearing/31 spline axle. Yes, the difference between a Ranger 8.8 and Explorer 8.8 (5.0 version with traction bars/damper) is only about 10 pounds but every pound adds up.

Ranger spring don't do "just fine" in OEM environment - the truck winds up being over GAWR when optioned to max. Which is why 5.0 Explorers have heavier torsion bars and GAWR 200 lbs heavier than 4.0 (2950 versus 2750lbs). And you get GVWR which are higher too.

Larger brakes on '95+ is relatively easy - not so much on a '91. And the knuckles to allow 12" rotors as found in '01+ are still a decade in the future.

Larger wheels are required because in '91, the stock rim was a 14".

@85_Ranger4x4
The 331 in my Ranger makes about double the power of the 3.slow it replaced. And with Al heads might not weigh that much more...

How much of the time do you run your V-8 at 4,400 rpm? If your not running it at peak power, it doesn't need fuel flow for match. And note Ford went to 110l/hr pumps when they went to 4.0 SoHC (205 hp versus 210?) so V-8 really didn't need much more flow.

Don't disagree Ranger frame is pretty robust, but it still needs to be analysed.

'Yoda added an X-brace to the X-Runner...​

​

V-8 is going to need some exhaust development, the Mustang cats aren't going to fit on Ranger.

They were crash test to some extent - we failed Transport Canada's side intrusion test on the "Nexus Trike" we were designing at UofS in '88.

p.s. The brother's '91 Mustang GT has MRSP of $15.5k.

@bobbywalter

I'll still standby my opening statement, Ford didn't see market demand. People were buying Rangers because they were the cheapest thing on the lot, the loaded ones never moved.

You need volume sales to amortize that engineering cost and GM didn't get the demand for the Syclone/Typhoon to make it more than a 1 year blip.​

Ford did much better with Lightning - for about the same engineering cost, they sold almost 30k trucks over 6 years (5.4. supercharged version)​

 

[Bird76Mojo]

Ah, but there was a Foxbody with that V8, and that Foxbody engine harness and ECU can be adapted (and could have been easily by Ford engineers) to anything very easily. It's like a 3 to 5 wire hook-up once you pair the harness down.

The T5 used in the S10 was indeed weak. Everyone knows that. It's GM. They're shite. Not so much with the version Ford used, and with a little R&D it got even better. Mine is rated at 300+ ft lbs. No, it doesn't use an S10 tail housing. It's an aftermarket tailhousing and bolts right in. Fit the factory crossmember perfectly. Ford could have easily created the casting themselves, or changed the shifter location and used a shift lever to suit. The T5 used in the Mustang held up very well until people started doing clutch drops at drag strips. If it can handle a pig of a Foxbody then it would do great in a small Ranger.

There'd be no reason to use an Explorer rear axle when the Rangers were already available with the 8.8" differential.. The drum brakes actually perform better than rear disc brakes in my experiences. Rear discs were likely used for either less brake fade which 99% of consumers will never experience, or they were used to be more easily controlled/modulated by an ABS system. After swapping to discs on my 8.8" in my 2001, the truck doesn't stop nearly as well as it did with drums, and I used 100% factory Ford parts.

Ranger springs do indeed do just fine. My truck is at factory ride height after installing 4.0 springs with the 302.. It was only 1/4" low when I installed OEM replacement 2.0 4cyl coil springs. It doesn't dive under braking either. Doesn't act any differently actually. You'd never know it had a V8 in it when driving normally. The only handling and ride differences came when I installed 9" wide front rims and 245/40-17 front tires.

Also, the factory Rangers in 91 were available with 15" rims. My old truck had 15's from the factory.

 

[bobbywalter]

​

@bobbywalter

I'll still standby my opening statement, Ford didn't see market demand. People were buying Rangers because they were the cheapest thing on the lot, the loaded ones never moved.

You need volume sales to amortize that engineering cost and GM didn't get the demand for the Syclone/Typhoon to make it more than a 1 year blip.​

Ford did much better with Lightning - for about the same engineering cost, they sold almost 30k trucks over 6 years (5.4. supercharged version)​

[/QUOTE]


ford original investment in the ranger was huge.

There was development....STILL IS DEVELOPMENT on v8 platforms in the ranger...yes even the current ranger.

It certainly will never go anywhere with electric and hybrid as the main authorization for primary development, but they test regardless.... In cut cell forms I have already seen fitment.

Karron and co ... And defiance builds many many full road testers from 80 to whenever it was they ended....


One of the guys that was on the first project when the ranger platform itself was in prototype and did the factory conversions for total performance, is the guy that taught me.

Apply what you are implying to the syclone and typhoon. They would have never happened.

Ford knew exactly what was needed to have a v8 ranger before one was ever sold.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

He was not counting simply the weight difference between the two engines. But the total weight difference in parts required to add a 5.0 at a factory level.

We are talking about a production vehicle that MUST include upgrades that people who do motor swaps don't necessarily need.

Larger cooling system = more weight
Larger transmission = more weight
Larger rear differential = more weight
Heavier springs = more weight
Larger brakes = more weight
Larger wheels = more weight

Etc etc...

Add all that stuff up and 200 pounds seems reasonable.

I know a guy with a V8 swap that has a transfer case that weighs 130lb dry... but it fits like a dream!

But a V8 C5 with a 1350 wouldn't weigh much more than a V6 C5 pre 1985...

@don4331

The original post was for a V-8 in a '91 Ranger. At that time, there wasn't a V-8 Explorer, so all the engineering would need to be done for the Ranger. The BorgWarner T5, doesn't fit in OEM position - yes, you want swap on a S-10 trail shaft, but does the T5 meet durability requirements for a truck? GMC found they didn't last behind 4.3s and changed to 3550s for S-10s.

They did have a sporty M5OD2 they designed for Supercoupes with different gearing floating around in addition to the normal F-150 variant that came out around 1987 with more trucky ratios.

All V-8 Explorers came with 4R70W Autos, they also came with big tube/bearing/31 spline axle. Yes, the difference between a Ranger 8.8 and Explorer 8.8 (5.0 version with traction bars/damper) is only about 10 pounds but every pound adds up.

207hp 4.0 Rangers lived long and prospered with 28 spline 8.8's, a 225hp 5.0 probably would too.

If Ford would have gave up putting lipstick on the A4LD pig and just went 4R70W across the board for RWD/4WD stuff the world would be a better place anyway.

Ranger spring don't do "just fine" in OEM environment - the truck winds up being over GAWR when optioned to max. Which is why 5.0 Explorers have heavier torsion bars and GAWR 200 lbs heavier than 4.0 (2950 versus 2750lbs). And you get GVWR which are higher too.

They had some wiggle room too. I mean a '85 with the camper package had more GVW than my supercab 5.4 4wd F-150... they had room to work and end up with a truck that might not have had as much GVW as it could have but still as much if not a tad more GVW than most camper packageless Rangers just using off the shelf parts. If we are talking a couple hundred pounds, no biggie. Payload 1600 as opposed to 1800, still well more than a base 4cyl. Not uncommon to give up GVW for something else, they do it with the Raptor today.

Larger brakes on '95+ is relatively easy - not so much on a '91. And the knuckles to allow 12" rotors as found in '01+ are still a decade in the future.

4wd first gen Explorers used the same front brakes as 4wd second/third gen Rangers... so the brakes were not really tapped out on the Ranger.

Larger wheels are required because in '91, the stock rim was a 14".

15's were optional since the beginning. More common on 4wd's than 2wd's (I actually don't know if you could get 14's on 4wds) A 351 F-150 had 15's too.

@85_Ranger4x4
The 331 in my Ranger makes about double the power of the 3.slow it replaced. And with Al heads might not weigh that much more...

How much of the time do you run your V-8 at 4,400 rpm? If your not running it at peak power, it doesn't need fuel flow for match. And note Ford went to 110l/hr pumps when they went to 4.0 SoHC (205 hp versus 210?) so V-8 really didn't need much more flow.

Unlike my 2.8 I don't have to, 2.8 was 4lo and PLANT IT to get enough power to spin 235's. 5.0 loafs along just off idle doing the same with 31's in high range. It hauls my camper, it pulls trailers and is more than willing to move fuel doing so.

Don't disagree Ranger frame is pretty robust, but it still needs to be analysed.
'Yoda added an X-brace to the X-Runner...

Agreed

​

V-8 is going to need some exhaust development, the Mustang cats aren't going to fit on Ranger.

Agreed

They were crash test to some extent - we failed Transport Canada's side intrusion test on the "Nexus Trike" we were designing at UofS in '88.

Hard to find info on crash testing in general that far back. Unless they were running them into pillows it had to have been depressing.

p.s. The brother's '91 Mustang GT has MRSP of $15.5k.

I think I looked up '87 at random to stay with the first gen vibe and that would have been US $.

Also back then you didn't HAVE to get a GT to get a V8, it was optional in a LX for cheaper without all the frills but I think you also lose some suspension tuning.

I'll still standby my opening statement, Ford didn't see market demand. People were buying Rangers because they were the cheapest thing on the lot, the loaded ones never moved.

You need volume sales to amortize that engineering cost and GM didn't get the demand for the Syclone/Typhoon to make it more than a 1 year blip.​

Ford did much better with Lightning - for about the same engineering cost, they sold almost 30k trucks over 6 years (5.4. supercharged version)​

[/QUOTE]

I would look to the 318 Dakota for inspiration more than boutique junk like the Syclone/Lightning. And they even dabbled with 5.9's in the R/T.

I don't know how well what sold back then as I was born in '84... I can vouch it is freaking hard to find headliner delete windshield trim or first gen Ranger Custom trim fender badges (Custom replaced XL for awhile starting in '87) If they didn't sell as well the loaded trucks stayed on the road longer (it plausible they received better care etc too)

 

[don4331]

Apply what you are implying to the syclone and typhoon. They would have never happened.

Ford knew exactly what was needed to have a v8 ranger before one was ever sold.

When you're #3 you need to do something to get traffic in the front door - see Dodge Ram.

Dodge is losing money hand over fist on every TRX they built. But they get their name in front of buyers, and you get a bunch of people in the showroom - hopefully, sales guy can sell them a Warlock..​

​

Time will tell if it was a good business decision.

 

[Dirtman]

Fun fact, 82% of people in a every Dodge showroom are drunk...

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

When you're #3 you need to do something to get traffic in the front door - see Dodge Ram.

Dodge is losing money hand over fist on every TRX they built. But they get their name in front of buyers, and you get a bunch of people in the showroom - hopefully, sales guy can sell them a Warlock..​

​

Time will tell if it was a good business decision.

Those "halo" vehicles don't really make money on their own, everybody knows that and Ford does it too.

Otherwise why would Ford take the time to design a 700+hp GT-500 when the Ecoboost Mustang will outsell it 10,000:1 anyway?

 

[CrabGuy]

I still like the original 5.4L concept mule. Maybe it's the Sonic Blue?

TECH INSPECTION
Vehicle:	Ford Ranger Standard
Cab Color:	Sonic Blue
Engine:	{{{2002 F-150}}} Lighting 5.4L supercharged, 380 hp @ 4,750 rpm, 450 lb-ft torque @ 3,250 rpm
Transmission:	4R100 automatic
Rear Axle:	{{{F-150}}} Lightning 9.25-inches, narrowed 10.75 Inches, 3.73 gear
Wheels Front:	Stock Lightning, narrowed to 8 inches
Wheels Rear:	Stock Lightning, widened to 12.5 inches
Tires:	Michelin Pilot, 235/40/18 front, 345/35/18 rear
Weight:	3,800 pounds
Performance:	13.6 @ 108 mph

 

[Blmpkn]

I still like the original 5.4L concept mule. Maybe it's the Sonic Blue?

TECH INSPECTION
Vehicle:	Ford Ranger Standard
Cab Color:	Sonic Blue
Engine:	{{{2002 F-150}}} Lighting 5.4L supercharged, 380 hp @ 4,750 rpm, 450 lb-ft torque @ 3,250 rpm
Transmission:	4R100 automatic
Rear Axle:	{{{F-150}}} Lightning 9.25-inches, narrowed 10.75 Inches, 3.73 gear
Wheels Front:	Stock Lightning, narrowed to 8 inches
Wheels Rear:	Stock Lightning, widened to 12.5 inches
Tires:	Michelin Pilot, 235/40/18 front, 345/35/18 rear
Weight:	3,800 pounds
Performance:	13.6 @ 108 mph

All that and it's not even a 12 second truck lol awful.

 

[Dirtman]

All that and it's not even a 12 second truck lol awful.

What do you want from a Triton engine.

 

[Ranger850]

I once read an article about a "mule" Expedition with the "Lightning" treatment. Apparently ford let a few of the testers take it home as part of R&D. Of course it never happened, but a few years after that, one of the guys that drove it home had a daughter who turned 16, she told her dad to buy her one of those "Fast Black SUV's you brought home that one time"

FORD EXPEDITION THUNDER: THE PERFORMANCE SUV TWIN OF F-150 LIGHTNING TRUCK

Ford Expedition Thunder performance SUV was a mechanical twin to the legendary Ford F-150 Lightning pickup truck that never made production.

www.musclecarsandtrucks.com

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

All that and it's not even a 12 second truck lol awful.

Having to stop for a tire change halfway down the track hurts the times...

I don't know what they did or didn't do, the general consensus was the Lightning engine was too much for the Ranger chassis at the time.

People get Rangers to go faster with more power (a stock F-150 Coyote has more power now, a stock Mustang Coyote has almost over 100hp more) but they probably give up some streetability to do it.

And now you can get a 2.7L Bronco with 330hp from any Ford dealer...