Looking for info on a 300 swapped Ranger

[PetroleumJunkie412]

So you're going to put a 2.9L in it?

?

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Oh, I thought the plan was to out perform a 302.

??

 

[G8orFord]

A 4.9 can absolutely outperform a 5.0 with the right tweaks. Of course you can always tweak thre 5.0 too. Cubic inches are cubic inches. Play with torque or play with rpm and HP. Pick your poison. The 4.9 will stay together longer either way.

I had a '79 F150 with a 300. Great little truck even with the puny single barrel it had. That carb crapped out, forget exactly what happened. Anyway, took some measurements and had a plate built to mount a FoMoCo two barrel from a 302 on it. Completely different truck after that and would run with any 302 for the first 1/4 mile.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Personally i think even in stock form the 300 is a better performer then the 302 for streetlight to streetlight runs, or anything to do with towing.

The 302 has more horsepower, but torque wise they are close (265 for a later 300, and 275 for a truck 94+302), difference is the 300 probably has twice the torque off idle the 302 does.

 

[Bird76Mojo]

Personally i think even in stock form the 300 is a better performer then the 302 for streetlight to streetlight runs, or anything to do with towing.

The 302 has more horsepower, but torque wise they are close (265 for a later 300, and 275 for a truck 94+302), difference is the 300 probably has twice the torque off idle the 302 does.

It's all in the final gearing in that equation. No way a stock 300 would keep up with my stock 302 truck once I let the clutch out. It just ain't happening, and I've driven and rode in a lot of older F150's with the 300.. Some with what I assume were 3:73 and possibly 4:10 rear gear. They ran out of power far too quickly at the top of every gear, and just couldn't rev nearly as long in each gear as my truck can. It would get even worse if you factored in the gearing in the manual transmissions those trucks had. Stupid short individual gears and very slow, notchy shifting. With the 300 and the stock truck transmissions you either spent all damn day shifting or you left in in your favorite gear and just lugged the shit out of it.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

An EFI 300 with a 5 speed and a 3.55 gear, 2wd long box reg cab was probably the fastest 300 i had driven.

I would of put it against a 302 any day of the week.

1/4 mile? I think a 302 would have edged it but when i said light to light i was mostly thinking 2 or 3 city blocks.

My 96 F150 with a 3.55/auto/4wd was pretty slow, ill give you that, but it would pull really, really good.

My 83 2wd with a 300 had a T18, 4.10s and 2wd. Fast shifting was not an issue and that thing would pull 2 mountains and a molehill, got 8mpg and topped out around 70 mph.

No 300 head ever flowed at higher RPMs, the EFI ones did slightly better in the above 3000 range because they wernt breathing thru a lawn mower carb on roids.

IMO the 302 has no business in anything with a bed bigger then a ranger. Ford shoulda offered the 300 as a base engine and the 351 as the only V8.

There is also a reason the 302 never made it into anything bigger then a LD 250, and the 300 was used in everything up to F700s.

Even in the 90s they could be ordered in 1 ton crews as a credit option over the 351/460.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Personally i think even in stock form the 300 is a better performer then the 302 for streetlight to streetlight runs, or anything to do with towing.

The 302 has more horsepower, but torque wise they are close (265 for a later 300, and 275 for a truck 94+302), difference is the 300 probably has twice the torque off idle the 302 does.

In a Ranger big deal. Not like you are going to put a gooseneck on it and haul bulldozers.

I have never driven a pushrod 5.0 F-150, my admittedly mild Ranger build has never left me wanting for power. In low range (for speed more than anything) I pretty much just idled around SOP. Point and click, it was awesome (to me anyway) Stock 1987 shortblock with stock E7 heads and a Mustang cam.

I imagine I have said it before, the M5ODR2 out of a '97-03 (and '04 Heritage) 4.2L F-150 fits the best, the shifter is farther back like a Ranger M5OD. The 4.2, 4.9 and 5.0 and share the bellhousing pattern, I used the flywheel/clutch kit for a '96 F-150. Get the separator plate for the same, not the V6 one. If you are planning big tires and big power you might consider bumping up to a ZF. I have read a lot of fullsize guys complaining about the M5OD not staying together in more built rigs that are ran hard. I have about the same engine (200hp 302) gearing (3.73) and tire (31x10.50-15) as a mid 90's F-150 in a much lighter carcass so as far as trans goes it should have it easier than the trans in a stock 5.0 F-150. Or if it is going to be more of a trailer queen or if you don't care so much about mpg one of the old 4 speeds would probably take the power decently for a lot cheaper than a prized SBF ZF.

For the M5OD you have to make an adapter ring to mate the t-case to the trans, if you need it I have that drawn up in a .dwg I can send and you can have a shop burn that out for you. Extension housing will need some modification too for the RWD shift rail and countershaft nut. Not sure what all is needed with a ZF, I would suspect at least the extension housing would still need modified.

If you want to go nuts with it you can add a doubler to the 205 have a triple stick...

 

[rusty ol ranger]

How much torque will an M5OD take though?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

How much torque will an M5OD take though?

No idea.

A twin turbo 300 might have too much though... I have no idea how much that will be either. I figure a healthy pushrod 5.0 is around 300hp NA so with 8lbs of boost north of 400? Torque would be substantial and the 300 should have more yet. I am not really up on building boosted engines and even less about building a 300. No idea if we are building the 300 much or just throwing 8lbs at a stock one and hoping for the best or what.

Keep in mind the sportiest engine ever stuck on the front of a M5ODR2 on a regular basis was a 2v 4.6...

Complaints I saw were like built 302/351W in fullsize trucks on 35"+ tires.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Hmm...maybe it would be ok then.

 

[Ranger850]

Name it "Leonidas" or "The Spartan" or even "Xerxes" since the 300 destroyed him lol

 

[Bird76Mojo]

Overall, turbos seem like a bad choice for a 300 engine. Mainly due to the engine not wanting to be revved that high. You'd have to source some turbos that spool immediately, right off idle. Otherwise it's gonna end up building boost right as it's time to shift, doing you zero good. You'll be wringing the engine out 100% of the time trying to keep it in an rpm range where the turbos are actually being used to their potential.

Supercharging would make much more sense on that engine in my opinion. Unless you start with a block and build the entire engine for higher rpm use.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Overall, turbos seem like a bad choice for a 300 engine. Mainly due to the engine not wanting to be revved that high. You'd have to source some turbos that spool immediately, right off idle. Otherwise it's gonna end up building boost right as it's time to shift, doing you zero good. You'll be wringing the engine out 100% of the time trying to keep it in an rpm range where the turbos are actually being used to their potential.

Supercharging would make much more sense on that engine in my opinion. Unless you start with a block and build the entire engine for higher rpm use.

IMO forget boost altogether. It will greatly simplify everything.

A 300 will probably have more torque than you will know what to do with out of the box.

 

[snoranger]

IMO forget boost altogether. It will greatly simplify everything.

I'm pretty sure you belong on a list for this comment. Maybe not PJ412's list, but something similar.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I'm pretty sure you belong on a list for this comment. Maybe not PJ412's list, but something similar.

If there is a list I am not on I wanna know about it...

But seriously though, its gonna have enough torque to do more than Ranger can do. Making exponentially more power with boost is going to complicate cooling which is tight to start with and then you have to keep something of a powertrain behind it too.