Big dreams

[lucasnelsonh]

Hey!
I'm Luke, and I'm planning on doing a 3.0L SHO swap into a B3000. I stumbled across TRS during my scouring of the interwebs for builds on this sawp. I will take all the advice and input I can get, but I plan on carrying this all the way through!
So please: any and all tips/pointers appreciated.

 

[Twister]

Hey!
I'm Luke, and I'm planning on doing a 3.0L SHO swap into a B3000. I stumbled across TRS during my scouring of the interwebs for builds on this sawp. I will take all the advice and input I can get, but I plan on carrying this all the way through!
So please: any and all tips/pointers appreciated.

I maybe wrong so someone correct me if I am. If you don't already know, I think the only rwd transmisson that will bolt up is ones from a 3.0.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Schnot]

I can say for 100% sure that the 3.0 bell housings are different from the 4.0 and 2.9.


Sent from my iPhone.

 

[UrbanRedneckKid]

I maybe wrong so someone correct me if I am. If you don't already know, I think the only rwd transmisson that will bolt up is ones from a 3.0.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

I was under the assumption that the Ranger/ Taurus 3.0 had a different bellhousing than the Yamaha SHO engine.

 

[James86]

From what little googling I just did, you need a bellhousing out of an early 3.0 aerostar. It's apparently not uncommon, but the issue is these motors are screamers RPM wise with almost not bottom end. Even my regular old pushrod 3.0 hits peak torque about 3700rpm. I guess the question is what is the reason for this? Don't get me wrong - it sounds cool as hell, but I think I'd rather do a Duratec swap since 2.5's and 3.0's are much more common than a 3.0 SHO from almost 20 years ago.

 

[Twister]

I was under the assumption that the Ranger/ Taurus 3.0 had a different bellhousing than the Yamaha SHO engine.

This is what I was quoting.

"The SHO engines share a common*bell housingpattern with the following Ford engines: the 2.3/2.5*L FWD*HSC*I4, the 3.0*L FWD/RWD*Vulcan*V6, and the 3.8*L FWD*Canadian Essex*V6.[8]*In 1996, Ford discontinued the SHO V6 and began fitting the Taurus SHO's with the SHO*3.4*L V8*and theFord AX4N*automatic transmission"

From wiki, and please no flame war about how terrible Wikipedia is.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

[lucasnelsonh]

Thank you for all of the replies!
I drove my '89 Taurus SHO for 5 months before the engine went out (suspected cam chain slip, leading to valves colliding with pistons),
and can attest to it's fondness to rev and rev HIGH. However, it does produce more than enough torque down low. No, not as much as
a 3.8 or 4.0 (obviously), but definitely adaquate.
I first found the idea from Ford's very own Ranger SHO, but then they used a Mustang T-5 with a custom bell-housing.
However, the 3.0l & 3.2l SHO share the same bolt pattern as the 3.0l Vulcan it was based on.
I found a B3000 with a seized 3.0l Vulcan(which I don't need) mated to a M5OD-R1 in good condition for $400.
From all the reading I've done, There's going to be a good amount of fabrication, i.e. longitudinal motor mounts, and the transmission
cross-member(I believe), and the exaust.

Long story short, I ended up with two 3.0l SHO motors, one in the Taurus, and the other in an unknown condition. I figured I’ll rebuild
one of them, and while I’m at it: put it into a worthy platform. Worthy being RWD/4x4 that doesn’t require a butt-load of body/cosmetic work.

 

[James86]

Get to it and take lots of pics! lol