How would you build a Square body Syclone/Typhoon killer?

[alsalp]

Using an 87/88 extra cab. How would you build a truck with street manners? 5.0, Coyote, or LS? I'm not a purest and would only like to hear about bag for the buck and path of least re$i$tance. I wondering about AWD for traction so would a Explorer drive train hold up to say 400hp? Also I'd like to lower stance and make it handle so ditching the Twin I-Beam would be desirable. Body swap on a Short/Long arm suspended chassis? Extra cab so could a body swap happen with a 87/88 cab and bed on a lengthened Explorer chassis work? Would save work on mounting a 5.0.

 

[Blmpkn]

Buy an olds bravada, ls swap it, body swap it.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Built to the balls 351W

 

[Ranger850]

I plan on building an AWD 5.o Single cab Ranger Edge, for the streets. Using eveything from the Explorer : Motor, transmission, transfer case, cv axles, etc. Not sure how easy it is for the 87/88 body style, but its almost plug & Play for my layout.

 

[stmitch]

AWD Trailblazer SS powertrain. AJE foxbody front clip.

 

[19Walt93]

First, Ford never built an extra cab, the truck is a Supercab.
Second, I'd make sure my plans would be street legal in your state before spending time and money.
I think the easiest way would be to graft and AWD Explorer drivetrain under it- or swap the cab like you mentioned depending on which looked most straightforward. If cost isn't a factor, I'd build a 302 based 331 stroker with aluminum heads and as much compression as your available gas will support. I prefer carburetors but if your considering a turbo I would stay with fuel injection.
I wouldn't use an LS because I'm not familiar with them. Also, there was an LS block at the machine shop when I picked up my 390 parts and the LS block was way heavier than the 390. Plus, the hours I spent baking in the sun while the guts of another Chevy were cleaned off the drag strip has prejudiced me against anything wearing a bowtie.

 

[alsalp]

First, Ford never built an extra cab, the truck is a Supercab.
Second, I'd make sure my plans would be street legal in your state before spending time and money.
I think the easiest way would be to graft and AWD Explorer drivetrain under it- or swap the cab like you mentioned depending on which looked most straightforward. If cost isn't a factor, I'd build a 302 based 331 stroker with aluminum heads and as much compression as your available gas will support. I prefer carburetors but if your considering a turbo I would stay with fuel injection.
I wouldn't use an LS because I'm not familiar with them. Also, there was an LS block at the machine shop when I picked up my 390 parts and the LS block was way heavier than the 390. Plus, the hours I spent baking in the sun while the guts of another Chevy were cleaned off the drag strip has prejudiced me against anything wearing a bowtie.

I'm in CA so it has to be fuel injected swap from a "Light Duty Truck" For a 5.0 it needs to be an Explorer. For an LS it needs to be a half ton. I understand the Ford bias. Why a 331 as opposed to a 347 or a 351? I'd also like to know how close gen 1 and gen 2 body/frame mounting.

 

[19Walt93]

I'm in CA so it has to be fuel injected swap from a "Light Duty Truck" For a 5.0 it needs to be an Explorer. For an LS it needs to be a half ton. I understand the Ford bias. Why a 331 as opposed to a 347 or a 351? I'd also like to know how close gen 1 and gen 2 body/frame mounting.

331's and 347's are 302 based so they a little lighter and more compact than a 351. 331's have a better rod/stroke ratio so they would rev quicker and put less stress on the piston skirts, which should mean longer engine life than a 347. If you're a Chevy guy it's like comparing a 327 to a 350.
351's like the one in my Ranger have a taller deck height so the block is heavier(by 60lbs, I think) and the main journals are much bigger which adds some parasitic drag- that's why you see special thick main bearings to allow the use of a 351C crank. My truck had no hvac at all when I got it so I stuck a Vintage air system in it and the firewall is flat. I believe a 351 wouldn't clear a factory heater box or evaporator case. If you can fit the 351 and have the budget there are 400+ ci stroker kits available.

 

[JoshT]

I would mix 3-4 different trucks to make one. For starters I'm an all Ford kind of guy so that would set one limitation immediately.

--TL/DR--
my basic recipe:

83-88 Ranger body
2004+ Ranger 4x4 frame
Built 4R70W mated to Explorer 5.0L AWD transfer case
Built engine of choice (I'd go for turbo 4/6) with SBF or Modular bellhousing adapter
Megasquirt ECU with Microsquirt TCU
Explorer disc brake 8.8 axle
Lots of small suspension and frame mods to improve traction and handling
-----------

The first challenge is that I think AWD is a must to be a typhoon/cyclone killer. To my knowledge the only suitable AWD transfer cases that Ford used in a longitudinal mounted powertrain were the unit found in early Aerostars and the two (I think) units found in the Explorer. This limits me to three transmissions, what ever was in the Aerostar (A4LD?), the 4R70W from the 2nd gen Explorer, and the 5R55E from the third gen Explorer. I'm wanting a cyclone killer so need to pick the best of the three then build it, which puts me in a built 4R70W with AWD transfer case from the 2nd gen explorer.

For engine, a stroker built on the matching Explorer 5.0L V8 would be the easy answer. I don't think I'd use the easy answer though.I think this build would actually be better served by a lighter weight 4 or 6 cylinder turbo engine. More power from a lighter package resulting in better handling and performance. I think a built ecoboost, duratec, or what ever with the appropriate transmission adapter would fit the bill nicely. I would forgo factory engine management in favor of probably using megasquirt for both enginea nd transmission control.If you want more control over the shifting this combo can also support paddle shifters IIRC.

Now that we know what we're using to power it, and what's being used to transfer that power what will these pieces be in?

You've specified a square body extended cab in the first post so that's set, and we need to put power to the ground in front which means needing a 4wd. TTB would suck for this though. Fortunately all extended cabs built from 1983-2011 had the same wheel base. 1998+ Rangers got the SLA suspension which would work much better for the AWD. In 2000/2001 got the upgrade to full time (live)front axle which is needed as well. I would specifically target a 2004+ 4x4 to donate the frame because it also got larger front brakes that the previous models, and if I'm buying a frame I'd rather buy the one with all the goodies.

<<Actually if I were doing it I'd go for a '83-'88 regular cab short bed. I'd get a matching '04+ frame and section 3" out of the frame. I'd remove the spare tire carrier in favor of mounting a fuel cell or BII tank in that space. Mount body to frame and perform necessary modifications to get it tastefully low. Swap frame horns to later frame for mounting correct bumpers. Install Explorer V8 disc brake axle. >>

As said above, once the frame swap is complete there will be a whole host of modifications and custom work to get the stance, handling, and traction right. If you are capable of the frame swap you can probably handle the necessary custom work.

Yes, I've thought about this just a little bit before and if it weren't 2am I could probably remember a bunch more details I've lost over time. To an extent I'm heading towards this build now. As much as I like the first gens, I'm doing it to my '99 and keeping the 99 body. The SBF is an even better fit in this style so that's what I'll be using. I don't actually expect to be competitive to a similarly built cyclone/typhoon, but I do think it will be fun.

Will hopefully be building a first gen as well, but it'll be staying 2wd on stock frame and just be a cruiser.

 

[JoshT]

I wouldn't use an LS because I'm not familiar with them. Also, there was an LS block at the machine shop when I picked up my 390 parts and the LS block was way heavier than the 390.

390 what?

390 FE? If so I call BS. Possibly a bare FE block VS a bare iron LS block, but I doubt it. Add in the other components for each and no way. Also I think the LS is fairly easy to obtain in alloy block form.

Maybe of you're talking a 390ci SBF stroker, but that's still talking iron block vs iron block. If I were going to use an LS in anything performance related, I'd go the extra distance to get the alloy block.

Maybe that particular LS had the water jackets filled?

Not condoning the use of, or rooting for the LS. They have their palce and use, but I hate the LS everything mentality. I do own and work on an FE and I gotta call out BS when I think I see it.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

390 what?

390 FE? If so I call BS. Possibly a bare FE block VS a bare iron LS block, but I doubt it. Add in the other components for each and no way. Also I think the LS is fairly easy to obtain in alloy block form.

Maybe of you're talking a 390ci SBF stroker, but that's still talking iron block vs iron block. If I were going to use an LS in anything performance related, I'd go the extra distance to get the alloy block.

Maybe that particular LS had the water jackets filled?

Not condoning the use of, or rooting for the LS. They have their palce and use, but I hate the LS everything mentality. I do own and work on an FE and I gotta call out BS when I think I see it.

Wernt the truck block LS's iron and the car versions alloy? Tkats what i heard anyways.

Either way an LS has alot of aluminum parts (heads, etc) and im sure a dressed 390 would be heavier. Bare block vs bare block, both being iron...i could buy the 390 being a bit lighter.

EDIT...

Quick google search tells me a bare 390 is 185lbs. A bare TRUCK LS is 210. A bare car LS is 150lbs

 

[Blmpkn]

Wernt the truck block LS's iron and the car versions alloy? Tkats what i heard anyways.

Either way an LS has alot of aluminum parts (heads, etc) and im sure a dressed 390 would be heavier. Bare block vs bare block, both being iron...i could buy the 390 being a bit lighter.

EDIT...

Quick google search tells me a bare 390 is 185lbs. A bare TRUCK LS is 210. A bare car LS is 150lbs

Most of the truck blocks are iron, but there are alloy truck blocks out there. Mostly 5.3s but some 6.0s.


That 40 extra lbs of iron is what allows a factory LS block to not split in half when it's been boosted to 4 digit power numbers

 

[alsalp]

I would mix 3-4 different trucks to make one. For starters I'm an all Ford kind of guy so that would set one limitation immediately.

--TL/DR--
my basic recipe:

83-88 Ranger body
2004+ Ranger 4x4 frame
Built 4R70W mated to Explorer 5.0L AWD transfer case
Built engine of choice (I'd go for turbo 4/6) with SBF or Modular bellhousing adapter
Megasquirt ECU with Microsquirt TCU
Explorer disc brake 8.8 axle
Lots of small suspension and frame mods to improve traction and handling
-----------

The first challenge is that I think AWD is a must to be a typhoon/cyclone killer. To my knowledge the only suitable AWD transfer cases that Ford used in a longitudinal mounted powertrain were the unit found in early Aerostars and the two (I think) units found in the Explorer. This limits me to three transmissions, what ever was in the Aerostar (A4LD?), the 4R70W from the 2nd gen Explorer, and the 5R55E from the third gen Explorer. I'm wanting a cyclone killer so need to pick the best of the three then build it, which puts me in a built 4R70W with AWD transfer case from the 2nd gen explorer.

For engine, a stroker built on the matching Explorer 5.0L V8 would be the easy answer. I don't think I'd use the easy answer though.I think this build would actually be better served by a lighter weight 4 or 6 cylinder turbo engine. More power from a lighter package resulting in better handling and performance. I think a built ecoboost, duratec, or what ever with the appropriate transmission adapter would fit the bill nicely. I would forgo factory engine management in favor of probably using megasquirt for both enginea nd transmission control.If you want more control over the shifting this combo can also support paddle shifters IIRC.

Now that we know what we're using to power it, and what's being used to transfer that power what will these pieces be in?

You've specified a square body extended cab in the first post so that's set, and we need to put power to the ground in front which means needing a 4wd. TTB would suck for this though. Fortunately all extended cabs built from 1983-2011 had the same wheel base. 1998+ Rangers got the SLA suspension which would work much better for the AWD. In 2000/2001 got the upgrade to full time (live)front axle which is needed as well. I would specifically target a 2004+ 4x4 to donate the frame because it also got larger front brakes that the previous models, and if I'm buying a frame I'd rather buy the one with all the goodies.

<<Actually if I were doing it I'd go for a '83-'88 regular cab short bed. I'd get a matching '04+ frame and section 3" out of the frame. I'd remove the spare tire carrier in favor of mounting a fuel cell or BII tank in that space. Mount body to frame and perform necessary modifications to get it tastefully low. Swap frame horns to later frame for mounting correct bumpers. Install Explorer V8 disc brake axle. >>

As said above, once the frame swap is complete there will be a whole host of modifications and custom work to get the stance, handling, and traction right. If you are capable of the frame swap you can probably handle the necessary custom work.

Yes, I've thought about this just a little bit before and if it weren't 2am I could probably remember a bunch more details I've lost over time. To an extent I'm heading towards this build now. As much as I like the first gens, I'm doing it to my '99 and keeping the 99 body. The SBF is an even better fit in this style so that's what I'll be using. I don't actually expect to be competitive to a similarly built cyclone/typhoon, but I do think it will be fun.

Will hopefully be building a first gen as well, but it'll be staying 2wd on stock frame and just be a cruiser.

Thanks for the well thought out post. I was hoping someone would give some insight on mixing years etc. As far as engines go, get the keeping it Ford perspective. Like I said, I'm open to GM. What's interesting about the LS is that it allegedly designed after a 351W. The bolt pattern of the heads and bore spacing is so close that an engine builder on Youtube was able to adapt and run LS heads on a 351W block (with a little massaging). He had to get a custom cam and get a little creative with intake. The short block was a junk yard unit. It lived on the dyno at boosted to 600hp and threw and melted a piston at around 1000hp. Others have welded LS heads together and have run them on a Ford 300 6cyl block. Blasphemy, I get it. I'm a whatever works best for the build but that's me.
Speaking of V6's, GM LV3/LV1's are gaining traction in the aftermarket. They an all aluminum LS based 4.3. Too bad Ford doesn't make a pushrod aluminum v8. Compact vs OHC.

 

[19Walt93]

390 what?

390 FE? If so I call BS. Possibly a bare FE block VS a bare iron LS block, but I doubt it. Add in the other components for each and no way. Also I think the LS is fairly easy to obtain in alloy block form.

Maybe of you're talking a 390ci SBF stroker, but that's still talking iron block vs iron block. If I were going to use an LS in anything performance related, I'd go the extra distance to get the alloy block.

Maybe that particular LS had the water jackets filled?

Not condoning the use of, or rooting for the LS. They have their palce and use, but I hate the LS everything mentality. I do own and work on an FE and I gotta call out BS when I think I see it.

It was a 390 FE compared to an iron LS block, both were bare. The LS had to weight close to double the FE., I couldn't even budge it but I moved the FE with no problem. They were sitting in the ready-to-pick-up area at River City Machine in White River Junction, Vt.

 

[19Walt93]

Thanks for the well thought out post. I was hoping someone would give some insight on mixing years etc. As far as engines go, get the keeping it Ford perspective. Like I said, I'm open to GM. What's interesting about the LS is that it allegedly designed after a 351W. The bolt pattern of the heads and bore spacing is so close that an engine builder on Youtube was able to adapt and run LS heads on a 351W block (with a little massaging). He had to get a custom cam and get a little creative with intake. The short block was a junk yard unit. It lived on the dyno at boosted to 600hp and threw and melted a piston at around 1000hp. Others have welded LS heads together and have run them on a Ford 300 6cyl block. Blasphemy, I get it. I'm a whatever works best for the build but that's me.
Speaking of V6's, GM LV3/LV1's are gaining traction in the aftermarket. They an all aluminum LS based 4.3. Too bad Ford doesn't make a pushrod aluminum v8. Compact vs OHC.

I noticed years ago that the LS had 4 head bolts per cylinder for even clamping like Ford has done since 1954 and that the exhaust ports were spread out evenly, also like a Ford, to avoid the uneven heat from the SBC siamesed center exhaust ports.
In the 70's Wayne Gapp and Jack Roush(yes, that Jack Roush) drag raced a Maverick with a 300 block using 2 Cleveland heads that they cut down and mated in the center. A long stroke inline would work great in a truck or low RPM application beu it wouldn't be my choice for a race engine.