1985 2.8L Ranger 4x4 5 speed

[StephenF]

Hello fellow owners. Just picked up the title truck and have a plan to convert it to a 4.9L inline 6. Also want to lift it and update the axles to the Dana 35 TBB and 8.8 rear. Still debating if I want to go 3.73 or 4.10 for gearing. Currently thinking of only going to 33's on the tires. Will need some fabrication work on the front end to push the cab back some and a custom bed to make room for the cab to be moved back as well. Right now I and just trying to keep it running and driveable until the get all the parts ready.

 

[franklin2]

How will you push the cab back? The frame kicks up behind the cab. I have known people to put a extended cab on a regular cab frame, and they had to use a body lift to clear the frame kick-up. A body lift would also help you clear the bellhousing, the 300 six uses the larger diameter bellhousing. This swap is not done very often for good reasons.

 

[StephenF]

It already has a 4" body lift. Not 100% sure yet, but figuring that some fabrication will be needed to complete the project.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

It has been done. But... why?

 

[Jim Oaks]

To be different.

I dig seeing people do less common things.

 

[StephenF]

The 300 is an amazingly durable engine and the low end torque should be a great match for any type of obstacles.

 

[franklin2]

The 300 is an amazingly durable engine and the low end torque should be a great match for any type of obstacles.

There are a few good engines out there. I am more and more amazed at the 2.8 in my Bronco II. It was saddled with all that computer crap (A lot of the 300 sixes were also) but once I took that off, it runs very good. It doesn't have the torque the 300 has, but I just can't seem to kill it. And once I put new valve seals in it, it doesn't burn a drop of oil.

The inline engine configuration is a good one, that is why most of the big rigs still use it. But it sure doesn't fit very well under a modern hood.

 

[DrWho42]

welcome to the forums!

 

[StephenF]

welcome to the forums!

Thank you.

 

[StephenF]

There are a few good engines out there. I am more and more amazed at the 2.8 in my Bronco II. It was saddled with all that computer crap (A lot of the 300 sixes were also) but once I took that off, it runs very good. It doesn't have the torque the 300 has, but I just can't seem to kill it. And once I put new valve seals in it, it doesn't burn a drop of oil.

The inline engine configuration is a good one, that is why most of the big rigs still use it. But it sure doesn't fit very well under a modern hood.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the 2.8. Once I do a tune-up and get the carb adjusted, then I might be willing to give my two cents about it. As for the 300, it was the engine in my first vehicle and I wished it would have been a V8 as a kid. Maturity has shown me the value of that old engine. I would love see the numbers one could make with today's computers. Not a huge fan of all the sensors and computers, but have to admit they are pretty powerful and efficient.

I may have to get some info from you about how you have your 2.8 setup. The way this one is put together is just a big mess. I don't believe the vacuum lines are anywhere near right on carb and the wiring is just laying everywhere. One wire that was split of the alternator plug was cut and just tied off.

 

[franklin2]

You need to do a conversion and get rid of the computer controlled distributor and carb. The problem is the distributor you need comes from a later 70's mustang II or a pinto with a 2.8, and they are getting impossible to find. The only solution I had was to get a very early 2.8 distributor that was points (I think 1974?) and then use a pertronix module to convert it to electronic. I think they still have those distributors available, but that may dry up also.

I got the smallest 2100 carb they sell on ebay or Amazon, made in China, and bolted that on. It runs pretty good. And I got rid of all the junk under the hood. All that stuff on the pass side inner fender left the scene.

 

[StephenF]

You need to do a conversion and get rid of the computer controlled distributor and carb. The problem is the distributor you need comes from a later 70's mustang II or a pinto with a 2.8, and they are getting impossible to find. The only solution I had was to get a very early 2.8 distributor that was points (I think 1974?) and then use a pertronix module to convert it to electronic. I think they still have those distributors available, but that may dry up also.

Do have a part number for the Pertonix module. Want to get the right one if I can find a distributor. Just wish it would also fit the 300 later on.
Also, I just noticed on RockAuto that the 84 Ranger has an option for a vacuum advance distributor. Would that work for the Pertonix conversion? I am also buying a 84 for parts and it has the 2.8L as well, just not sure which distributor it has right now.

 

[franklin2]

That is weird. I looked up a Cardone 302691 on their site and they say it does fit a 1984 2.8 v6. I never knew Ford had a duraspark II distributor for the 1984 2.8 v6. I am still doubting it, maybe it was a Canada model? Anyway, no one has it, so no use worrying about it.

Are you saying you want a new distributor for a 300 six cylinder? You can buy them new all day long on Amazon and Ebay. They will also be a conversion distributor, the 300 sixes around 1983-84-up were also saddled with the same type of computer/carb system that the 2.8 ranger and BII was.

None of those distributors need the Pertronic conversion, they were already electronic (If the other one even existed). The pertronix is just to get rid of the points, which was only on the 1974 and older vehicles.

 

[franklin2]

The older points distributor that fits the 2.8 is a Cardone 31-966. I looked on rockauto for a 1974 ford mustang II with a 2.8v6, and they did not have any. I looked on advance auto and they claim they can get it online. That is where I picked up the cardone 31-966 number. You can google search that and see if you can get it anywhere else. 31-966 is the single port vacuum advance distributor. I believe they have another one that is dual port with two vacuum hook-ups. Both of these are points distributors, so you would need the pertronix unit if you did not want to run points.

 

[StephenF]

You need to do a conversion and get rid of the computer controlled distributor and carb.

Just reread this part of your earlier post. If the carb is electronic also, it might explain my stall when I try to accelerate. It was changed over and it doesn't look right. Going to look at the 84 that has some of the 85's parts. I'll post what I find out.