Has anyone put an inline 6 in a Ranger?

[rusty ol ranger]

Will,

I never once argued the fact the 302 was a better highway performer. I never argued the fact that the 4.0 wasnt a strong engine, (just not as strong as a 300 I6, the 300 made like 40 more ftlbs at 1000rpm less).

It doesnt matter (when your working a truck hard) how fast it can acclerate from 40-70 all that matters is the amount of grunt it has to actually get the load rolling, getting something going from a dead stop takes alot more force then when there is already momentum helping it rolling.

Go to wal mart and load a shopping cart up with about 6 50lb bags of bird seed or something, see if its eaiser to get moving from a dead stop, or once its rolling to acclerate it further. Basically the same thing your truck has to deal with.

I can see your point about the reliabilty issue, but with a carbed 300 there really isnt much to worry about, your fuel line, acclerator cable, ansd starter wires is all.

Ive seen 4.3's, 3.9's 292's, 225's, 240's and various other Inline/V 6's work in fullsize pickups, not one of them could come close to a 300.

Oh, and for the record....people ordered TONS of 300's. Espically in the 80's and 90's. They got them because they didnt cost extra and they still had plenty to get the job done. It is actually kinda hard to find a 302 in a 87-96 F150, and REALLY hard (i know ive looked) to find a 351 in one.

The 300 gets a shitty rep as far as performance cause everyone remebers the early 80's ones with the 3sps with an O/D and the 2.47 gears. Saddle a 302 with that and you wouldnt get anywhere. The 300 actually had the torque to be somewhat useable geared like that, my buddy had an 84 like that, it would run 100mph all day long and get like 27MPG at 55 (and thats no shit), on theother hand i had a 83 with a Creeper 4 and 4.11's that would pull a house over and topped at 65mph and got 8mpg no matter how you drove it, its all in the gearing with them things. The EFI ones would actually outrun a 302 till about 40mph.

later,
Dustin

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Having towed with both (1997 F150 4x4 supercab, 5.4, auto, 3.73 and a 1990 F-150 2wd 4.9L EFI, 5-spd ZF, 4.10) I beg to differ. Around town they are about the same, accelerating up an on-ramp into traffic the 5.4 wins hands down, but dragging stuff through a field or construction site, the 4.9 is 10x better. That and it doesn't do stupid things like shoot spark plugs and shear the exhaust manifold bolts off because the head is aluminum. The 4.9 is a more maintenance free engine, even though both are equally capable of going past 300,000.

That and I just really dislike the design of any truck that the 5.4 ever came in.

And I'd really like to see the torque curves backing up your statement that the 5.4 is better at towing than a 460. It's all about area under the torque curve, and the 460 is a beast of a motor in that respect. A 460 (well, actually it was a EFI 10:1 521 with an RV cam, ported heads, and ZF-5 trans) will easily out tow a 6.8L V10. We had to put 10,000 lbs behind that truck before you could even tell it was there

That '97 didn't have the PI heads, a '99+ 5.4 would walk all over it as well. Although with porting they will outperform the PI heads.

I wouldn't tie into a late model 460 towing... but the 5.4 does fine for a 1/2-3/4 truck though. I would rather have a warmed up 400 than a 460 anyway.

im confused this was worded like an arguement but ur points are identicle...
hmmm

It seems like a pretty simple statement to me, and that was long enough ago I don't really remember posting that.

It is less work to put in a 302 and get more power out of it than a 300. And for that matter it is still easier to drop in a 351 instead of a 300 and crush the 300 vs 302 arguement in one foul swoop.

Personally for being different, I would love to find a low mile 5.4 and get a standalone harness and drop it in my Ranger. I love the powercurve.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

The 5.4L isnt all that impressive. My Expedition does alright with it, it pulls good and acclerates alright, but id take a 351 any day.

There is NO way a 5.4L coudl touch a 460 for towing, I dont think it could even touch a Stock 400. A modded 400 like stated about would eat it. 400's are undercredited engines, actually, i think the whole Modified engine family is, but thats a story for another day....

later,
Dustin

 

[PetesPonies]

So did anyone run across any B2s with a 250 in it? I'd love to do that swap as well

 

[strvger]

^^ as would i when my 2.8 gives up the ghost.

 

[PetesPonies]

Unfortunately they gave up the ghost from the initial design

 

[dangerranger83]

I'm not going to complain about my 2.8. Its not a bad for an engine that can do 300,000+ miles. But if mine did "give up the ghost", an inline 6 would be on my engine list.

 

[PetesPonies]

Reliability, not bad. but power, horrible. A GM 2.8 will run circles around it. My Datsun 2.8 will run circles around it. Neither of those engines are new designs, we won't even talk about newer engines; not fair. But I'm talking power. I have a few vehicles that are certainly not fast cars. I have 18 vehicles, yes 18. I have many to compare it to. It is the slowest by far. My 2.3 Ranger is faster, albeit it is 2wd. My 1.6 Capri is much faster. Most of my others are V8, so I won't go there Its just disappointing. Being that I restore Mustangs, I have dealt with these before. I did an engine build on a '79 Mustang with a 2.8. It moved the Mustang much better, its just a poor choice for a Bronco. Wonder why they used it only 2 years?? Obvious. I'm just griping. I wish it was just a bit better. When I did my engine in the Bronco, I went with headers and a 2100 carb, GM / Duraspark ignition etc. I expected a little better . . just disappointed.

 

[ufgators68]

Oh, and for the record....people ordered TONS of 300's. Espically in the 80's and 90's. They got them because they didnt cost extra and they still had plenty to get the job done. It is actually kinda hard to find a 302 in a 87-96 F150, and REALLY hard (i know ive looked) to find a 351 in one.

You're wrong on that one. I can point you to no less than a dozen F-150's, between those year models, with 302's in them.

My dad has one of those and he's still driving it. '94 5.0L V-8 with a manual transmission. My cousin has a '91 with a 5.0L V-8 and auto transmission.

And fwiw... my dad owned a '91 with the 300 I-6 and he prefers the '94 with the 302.

 

[strvger]

my 2.8 runs very well, gets 21mpg cruising at about 65, and carries everything i need. no complaints. however, i know it won't last forever and when it goes, i'd love to have a 250 straight 6 as a replacement as long as i could hook up a 5 speed with a transfer case to it, and have it fit without cutting into the firewall.

 

[vince87ranger]

ive got one for you i did on my first 88ranger. ohv studebaker 6cyl, and the 3speed manual trans all out of a 63 lark. got the truck for $150 from a friend when i was 15, had a carb2.0/ 4speed, but had a thrown rod. after saving up grass cutting money another 4banger my dad told me i could have his 63 stude lark 6cyl bc he was putin a v8in. used the stock radiator, driveshaft, exhaust, heck just bout everything. never got over 190deg, didnt have to shorten the driveshaft, and the rangers trans yoke fit the 3speed. might not have been the most powerfull swap in th world, but it was verry diffrent... and it was a great driver for the $250ish i had in it.

 

[PetesPonies]

Well my 2.8 did give up the ghost. So what about the Ranger mentioned that had the 200 in it?? Any more details or contact info?

 

[dangerranger83]

Ive seen pics of a inline 6 300 in a B2 but never seen one in person. I say its very do able but I know that some had the oil pan sump in the middle of the engine, which could be a problem with the engine cross member but they were also made with rear sump pans too. I say the 200 would be a perfect engine for a ranger. Planning on going auto or manual tranny?

 

[PetesPonies]

My B2 is a C5 trans. So all I would need to do is change the bellhousing on the front to fit the 200. My 200 right now has a C4 behind it, so maybe that bell would work, or a know a V8 bell cane be made to work with the later 200s like I have. So really its all about engine mount fabrication and fitting the radiator as I see it.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

You're wrong on that one. I can point you to no less than a dozen F-150's, between those year models, with 302's in them.

My dad has one of those and he's still driving it. '94 5.0L V-8 with a manual transmission. My cousin has a '91 with a 5.0L V-8 and auto transmission.

And fwiw... my dad owned a '91 with the 300 I-6 and he prefers the '94 with the 302.

Im not saying they arnt around, just that the 300 was alot more popular. I dont see the point in a 302, sucks as much gas a 351 and can only outpower the 300 on the interstate....

My opinion on the 302 was soured even more when i had my 94 E150....granted that was a 5000lb van with 3.31 gears, but still. It ran like hell from 35MPH+.

When i had my 96 F150, my buddy had a 95 F150, identical trucks cept his was a short box and mine a long, and i had a 300 and he had a 302, pulling gravity wagons around with corn in them that 302 didnt know what to do....thats what towing is to me....not a 3500lb camper blasting down the interstate....

later,
Dustin