289, 302, or 351?

[Scrambler82]

I agree if the vehicle was an F-150 or 250 but for a Ranger a 302 is the biggest.
A 289 made from a 5.0L would be sweet; a 289HP EFI, should of had that in 1966 for original smaller Mustang.
In a Ranger weight is something that needs to be considered, the 5.0L Block setup is the most weight I would put up front.
The power from either the 289 or 5.0L will be more than sufficient to move the Ranger through just about anything in stock form, add a short duration/high lift cam w/ GT40 Heads (Explorer V-8) and the SBF comes alive.
Granted in stock form the 351 has more torque but there will be plenty w/ the smaller engines.

Check out the Explorer for the front of the engine parts, they are mounted closer to the engine allowing the extra space for a manual clutch fan. the electric fans create too much noise in the communication systems, CB/Ham Radios. Explorer V-8 front end and manual fan will be on my next setup.

 

[alaskan155]

im running a 289 out of a 67 mustang, only thing i dont like is the dipstick, kinda useless, also using the f150 , 2bbl carb, and duraspark distributor

nice thing with my 289//early 302s and f150 setup is they are 28oz balance and my setup will bolt to a 351w if i decide to go bigger

 

[rmn42689]

ya i did plan on throwing different heads on it and something to give it a bit more kick, would the fuel pumps on the ranger now give the 5.0 enough gas or shud i use the ones that are for the 5.0?

 

[91rangerxlt]

I am doing a 289 in mine. I got a double sump pan off of craigslist to add a dipstick to for $10. I have yet to source a front dress but a user on here cued me in on 1980 crown vics having a slick setup. I am waiting until I get the engine together to worry about that.

Otherwise it is pretty much the same to go in as a 302.

I am doing it because I got the engine for free. If there was a 289, 302 and 351W sitting beside each other that were not smog era and all rebuilt and ready to go, I would grab the 351W and not look back.

heard that...the 351 windsor is one of the best small blocks ever made imo.

 

[Mac]

Here's a good little calculator to determine what size pump and injectors you need.
http://www.autolounge.net/calculators/fuelflow.html
Dave

 

[Scrambler82]

The 2.9EFI Fuel Pump in my '88 STX worked well with the 5.0L (93 Stang) installed in it.
I am sure if I was going to mud drag it or just race it there might be a problem.
Believe me when I say I really twisted the stock 5.0L so the stock system, if in decent shape, should work OK.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Personally, id go with the 351.

More torque, not a whole lot more work, plus theres no replacment for displacement. The 351 will kill a 302 when it comes to sheer brute force, and match it for a flat out run. The 289 is a high whinder, and prolly could match, if not edge, a 351 top end, but a high whinder isnt what you want in a 4x4/trail truck. You just cant beat the sheer torque of a 351.

The mid 80's 4bbl H.O versions were the strongest power wise.

later,
Dustin

 

[baddad457]

The mid 80's 4bbl H.O versions were the strongest power wise.

later,
Dustin

Gotta disagree here..............the 94-97 Roller 351 would be the best

 

[RJLougee]

There's very little difference between the 289 and 302 in stock form. You can find some differences, but they are in essence the same engine. Either one is good, but not great.

MY vote would be for the 351W and the roller blocks really do make a significant difference. Factory numbers don't always represent, but a roller cam is usually good for 15-20 HP over a flat tappet cam just due to decreased friction. And the engine runs cooler, as does the oil, etc...

The only reason to go with a stroked 5.0 is because class rules require a specific block and the 5.8 block was never an option.
my $.02.
Joe

 

[rmn42689]

well think im pretty much decided still on the 302efi, and do a lil bit of work like cam and headers but not sure how far i want to go building it up, nebdy ever do like a 347 stroker efi in a ranger ?

 

[Scrambler82]

well think im pretty much decided still on the 302efi, and do a lil bit of work like cam and headers but not sure how far i want to go building it up, nebdy ever do like a 347 stroker efi in a ranger ?

IMHO for the $$$ the best bet.

I did the 5.0L in the '88 Ranger and found it to be a great package with the EFI.

The mechanicals shouldn't be a problem, the electrical part, if you use an early 90s Stang engine harness or one of the Ford harnesses designed for this setup then there shouldn't be a lot of trouble.
Watch the Fuel Pump hook up (as I stated early the 2.9L Pump in the '88 worked out for everything I did).
Don't go crazy on the heads, try the stockers or the GT 40 (if using an Explorer Engine then no problem as we know they come on the).
The headers, keep the header to the smaller side, 1.5 dia max, 1 1/4 better, small dia make for faster flow which the SBF needs.
I used the L&L Products Headers, really nice, heavy duty+, the flanges are 1/2" thick, that will keep things tight around the exhaust port.
L&L stuff is pricey but the quality is there; the headers looked brand new (except for the mud) after five years of service.
The only problem I ran into with the swap was the higher water temps and in turn Cab temps when running on the highway. My Ranger was lifted (only 4") and the front air dam was removed so this had changed the air flow under the truck. The air was some how coming up in the engine compartment and stopping the flow, not allowing the necessary air to pass through the radiator, engine heat went up; but this was only on the highway going to and from a trail ride not on the trail. A temp fix and how I found out the air flow was the problem, I lifted the rear of the hood 3/4" using spacers and the engine temp dropped 10 degrees on the highway, that's good for me.
A cowl induction type of hood of a reversed hood scoop will suffice.

My 7.5 and dana 28 held up OK but an 8.8 and D35 was swapped in, lockers are good but if the truck doesn't see much trail/rock work then a good quality Limited Slip is good too.

Stick to the 302/289 idea, makes for a better all around truck; the 351 has more torque but unless there is a real need then it is overkill.
You should be real happy with the 302/5.0L EFI.
Oh ya, you mentioned CAMs, there is a trick in the cam area and may help when and if you go for a new cam, "high lift / short duration". Comp Cams makes one with a .500 lift/split duration (a little different duration on the intake and exhaust) and more of an RV duration, this means low end torque which we all know is where the SBF is lacking. And buy the cam kit, springs, push rod and lifters, the Cam Manufacturers know what are the best parts for the cam.

Good Luck on the swap...

Another thing, i used the C4 auto trans, worked great except for the OD, gotta have one, but if I try again (and I may on my 2003 WITH a 289 EFI) I will find a way to run a 5 speed, not sure which one yet but something (maybe an NV3550 ???). There is nothing like the feel and sound of a vehicle with a manual trans.

 

[rmn42689]

yea dude, i agree manual is just better...but im pretty going for what u did, i already checked out L&L's headers. they are pricey but that what ill go with when im doing the swapk, the heads i decided will probably be stock, cast iron just ffor durability, and bout the temp problem u had...did u have electric fans? Also i will swapping in a d35 and 8.8 probably limited slip most likely just cuz its my DD. What gears are u running?

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Gotta disagree here..............the 94-97 Roller 351 would be the best

What were they making?

I think a 85 351 4bbl was making somewhere around 210 hp and 310 ftlbs, at like 2200RPM.

The rollers may have them in HP but not in torque. Atleast i dont think.

----------------------EDIT-------------
1984-87 4bbl- 210 horses@4000, 305 torque@2800, 8.3 comp
1993-98 EFI- 200 horses@3800, 310 torque@2800, 8.8 comp.
Code H above

http://www.geocities.com/scotts351w/351wTech.html

Dont know how reliable the site is....but ill dig out my chiltons later.

later,
Dustin

 

[baddad457]

What were they making?

I think a 85 351 4bbl was making somewhere around 210 hp and 310 ftlbs, at like 2200RPM.

The rollers may have them in HP but not in torque. Atleast i dont think.

----------------------EDIT-------------
1984-87 4bbl- 210 horses@4000, 305 torque@2800, 8.3 comp
1993-98 EFI- 200 horses@3800, 310 torque@2800, 8.8 comp.
Code H above

http://www.geocities.com/scotts351w/351wTech.html

Dont know how reliable the site is....but ill dig out my chiltons later.

later,
Dustin

There was never an accurate HP/TQ figure posted for the roller 351W. The figures listed everywhere were the same for the pre roller 351's. I had a 95 E150 with a roller 351 and just based on what it would do and pull told me there was more than 200 horses there. The F4TE cam was miles ahead of the flat tappet cam and the E5AE cam the pickups had until replaced with the F4TE. The only bottleneck was the E7 head's exhaust ports. Just a comparison of the cam specs will tell you the published figures aren't kosher for the 94-97 351.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

When i searched for that i ran across a thread on FTE where someone stated the 351 4bbl H.O used a roller cam. Didnt the 302 H.O use a roller cam? I dont see why the 351 woulda been different.

later,
Dustin